Four Antilegalistic Strategies?

[Sevenseas]

BTW?  If you would like to respond to my post, that is fine of course.  However, if you try to dodge down a rabbit hole, insert a school of red herrings or bring up an issue concerning

sexual sin or an imaginery scenerio, then I will consider that no true response is coming

 

If I have not been clear enough, kindly ASK rather than accuse or interpret.  Asking indicates a desire to communicate...it means a person is listening and not just talking

 

I believe that the Bible portions I have quoted above speak adequately to all your objections and indicate a different level of comprehension for those who see things as I have posted

in the simple expression of actually living out those verses and walking in the GRACE of God rather than the fear of the law

[OneLight]

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

[Guest Butero]

and yet it is the HEART that God judges

 

Judge righteously....not by appearances

 

I am not understanding how God can move a person's heart on the inside and He calls them His own and then someone else comes along and looks them up and down

and decides that they are not worthy because their hair is too long or too short

 

 

This is not even close to accurately portraying what I am saying.  First of all, nobody is worthy.  We are only saved because of God's grace.  Our very best is not good enough.  It is not a question of deciding a person is not worthy because of their hair length.  It is a question of seeing someone doing something the scriptures say they shouldn't do. 

 

 

 

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.  John 7:24  and that is straight from the KJV

 

So maybe someone should be asking what is RIGHTEOUS judgement since the BIBLE instructs us not to judge by appearance but judge righteously...IF one feels they are in such

a place that they actually have God's blessing in their judgement

 

 

 

 

This doesn't mean I can't look at wrong behavior and see it is wrong behavior.  Lets suppose I see my married friend hanging all over a woman that is not his wife, and then I see him giving her a passionate kiss.  The appearance is that they are committing sin.  Lets suppose that man is a deacon in the church.  Am I to say within myself that I am not able to make a judgment about this man's behavior, because I can't go by the appearance?  If something is wrong, it is wrong. 

 

 

21Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all amazed. 22Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a boy on the Sabbath. 23Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.

 

So did Jesus break the law?

 

 

This one is simple.  There was a misunderstanding by the religious crowd about what constituted a violation of the law.  When was the line crossed?  Jesus had to straighten them out on certain points, like this one.

 

 

I have a thought...If Jesus is the fullfillment of the law,then perhaps we do not need to try and fulfill it ourselves.

 

The arguement being presented by you Mr B, is the same one presented by the Jewish leaders of Jesus day...and worse, these righteous men wanted to kill Jesus because

he did not keep the law....according to their interpretation

 

Scripture simply does not teach keeping a part of the law or emphasizing one portion over another at the expense of loosing the part that illustrates the love of God for the sake

of saying God hates this or that.

 

 

This is truly absurd.  I am not desiring to kill anyone because they don't keep the law, according to anyone's interpretation.  There are numerous references in the NT of sins that will keep you from inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven.  1 Corinthians 6:9,10 comes to mind.  The Bible actually shows us that there are actually things we can do that are actually wrong in the sight of God today.  Imagine that!  There are actually things that will ensure you won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.  At the same time, we know there are other things that were in the law that no longer apply, like the things concerning the office of the Levitical priesthood.  In other words, you are simply mistaken. 

 

 

ROMANS 10  Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

5Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”^a 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ”^b (that is, to bring Christ down) 7“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ ”^c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”^d that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”^e 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”^f that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

 

 

This is specifically talking about people that rejected Christ.  You are taking it completely out of context.  If you come across people that reject Christ and simply try to live under the law, perhaps orthodox Jews, it would apply. 

 

 

Christ IS the righteousness of God.  If you want to keep the law and say well a woman must have a skirt on, then you must also address sideburns and if you address those things, then you must also

be careful of your eating utensils and if you go that far, then never eat pork again and pretty soon you will have to find something to sacrifice because scripture says this:

 

 

First of all, I don't have to address sideburns.  I cannot round the corners of my beard, and I don't.  There are three different portions of the law of Moses.  1.  The laws that deal with the office of the Levitical priesthood.  We don't observe them today because they were never intended to continue but till the cross.  2.  Laws that represented Israel as a separate people from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations.  That would include not eating pork.  We see this clearly with Peter's vision in Acts.  Once the gentiles were engrafted in to the same spiritual tree as the Jews, we were no longer unclean, so the symbolism has changed.  3.  Laws dealing with God's standard of holiness.  That would be like those things seen in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.  Those laws still apply.  If they didn't, then Paul was judging them by saying that they would not inherit the Kingdom of heaven if they did those things.  Like it or not, some portions of the law still apply and some do not.  That is just the reality of the situation. 

 

 

THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD:  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.  Hebrews 9:22

 

Whose blood will you shed?  

 

Those who hear the word also DO the word...and the word is plain that we are not judge by appearance...

 

But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. James 1:25

 

That is applicable not only to what a person does, but also how they think and how they judge

 

Jesus said those who judged after appearance and without knowledge of the heart were hypocrites.  They did not serve the law...the law served them in their hypocrital zeal to judge others

 

 

Nobody can be saved without the blood of Jesus.  When you come across someone who says otherwise, I will agree with you they are wrong.  In the church at Corinth, there were people who were guilty of violating portions of the law of Moses by committing adultery.  Paul said to put them out of the church.  If none of the law applied, based on what you just said, Paul was a hypocrite, and didn't understand his own teachings.  The religious crowd Jesus called hypocrites all had one thing in common.  They denied Jesus.  They also had another thing in common.  They told others they had to keep the law but they didn't.  Another thing they were guilty of was trying to create loopholes in the law to avoid keeping it.  There are a lot of things wrong with your arguments.  I am sorry that I don't have any real questions for you about what you wrote.  I clearly see what you are saying. 

[OldSchool2]

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

[Sevenseas]

 

Quote

and yet it is the HEART that God judges

 

Judge righteously....not by appearances

 

I am not understanding how God can move a person's heart on the inside and He calls them His own and then someone else comes along and looks them up and down

and decides that they are not worthy because their hair is too long or too short

 

 

This is not even close to accurately portraying what I am saying.  First of all, nobody is worthy.  We are only saved because of God's grace.  Our very best is not good enough.  It is not a question of deciding a person is not worthy because of their hair length.  It is a question of seeing someone doing something the scriptures say they shouldn't do. 

 

 

 

YET...this is what you said to Nebula

 

 

 

The answer is very simple Nebula.  I care about those things because I find them in scripture.  I would take note of everything.  You can't excuse sin in certain areas because a person is doing right in other areas.  Jesus said that if you want to be great in his Kingdom, you will teach and live by the least commandments. 

 

The response to her question is in regards to outward appearances.

 

IMO, you are either dodging or you just really do not understand.

 

Or perhaps I do not understand?  If we cannot judge a heart issue, how we can judge a heart by hair or clothes?  A rebellious person is not what is being discussed here, so I think that leaves out that option

 

 

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.  John 7:24  and that is straight from the KJV

 

So maybe someone should be asking what is RIGHTEOUS judgement since the BIBLE instructs us not to judge by appearance but judge righteously...IF one feels they are in such

a place that they actually have God's blessing in their judgement

 

 

 

 

This doesn't mean I can't look at wrong behavior and see it is wrong behavior.  Lets suppose I see my married friend hanging all over a woman that is not his wife, and then I see him giving her a passionate kiss.  The appearance is that they are committing sin.  Lets suppose that man is a deacon in the church.  Am I to say within myself that I am not able to make a judgment about this man's behavior, because I can't go by the appearance?  If something is wrong, it is wrong. 

 

 

 

Mr. B...you are changing the subject.  Appearance in the discussion to date, has not meant immoral behavior.

 

APPEARANCE as in clothes, hair, if they wear glasses that someone thinks are too big...THAT is the discussion.

 

Do you actually not see the difference?  

 

In reference to my question 'did Jesus sin?'  You answered this:

 

 

 

This one is simple.  There was a misunderstanding by the religious crowd about what constituted a violation of the law.  When was the line crossed?  Jesus had to straighten them out on certain points, like this one.

 

Jesus called these people vipers and sons of the devil.  That, indicates something far greater than a misunderstanding.  Don't you know that?

 

Jesus never did straighten these men out.  Nope, not at all.  They hated Him and sought to kill Him actually.  

 

 

First of all, I don't have to address sideburns.  I cannot round the corners of my beard, and I don't.  There are three different portions of the law of Moses.  1.  The laws that deal with the office of the Levitical priesthood.  We don't observe them today because they were never intended to continue but till the cross.  2.  Laws that represented Israel as a separate people from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations.  That would include not eating pork.  We see this clearly with Peter's vision in Acts.  Once the gentiles were engrafted in to the same spiritual tree as the Jews, we were no longer unclean, so the symbolism has changed.  3.  Laws dealing with God's standard of holiness.  That would be like those things seen in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.  Those laws still apply.  If they didn't, then Paul was judging them by saying that they would not inherit the Kingdom of heaven if they did those things.  Like it or not, some portions of the law still apply and some do not.  That is just the reality of the situation. 

 

 

 

Then don't address women's clothing either.  None of the law regarding clothes applies today.  We are simply told to dress modestly and not provocatively.

 

Your understanding of applying the law reads more like chop suey (the chop part) then anything that God actually gave to Moses...little joke there, but truthful

 

Not at all complicated.  If a person is going to try and wear their righteousness, it had better be the robe of righteousness provided us by Christ because of what HE did and not

something we bought at Wal Mart or even some 5th Ave shop.

 

 

 

Nobody can be saved without the blood of Jesus.  When you come across someone who says otherwise, I will agree with you they are wrong.  In the church at Corinth, there were people who were guilty of violating portions of the law of Moses by committing adultery.  Paul said to put them out of the church.  If none of the law applied, based on what you just said, Paul was a hypocrite, and didn't understand his own teachings.  The religious crowd Jesus called hypocrites all had one thing in common.  They denied Jesus.  They also had another thing in common.  They told others they had to keep the law but they didn't.  Another thing they were guilty of was trying to create loopholes in the law to avoid keeping it.  There are a lot of things wrong with your arguments.  I am sorry that I don't have any real questions for you about what you wrote.  I clearly see what you are saying. 

 

 

uh....no.

 

The law does not serve to cleanse from sin.  The law serves to point out sin.  

 

Further, if you break even one little part of the law....then you have broken all of it.

 

Adultery is a sin....gluttony is also a sin we find out in the NT and yet it is not even mentionned in the law (taht I am aware of)...so what's up with that?

 

Well, since reading scripture is not forbidden, and I can read what the New Testament says, and I have a decent working knowledge of both, I'll just leave you to continue defending your postition

 

Thanks

[Guest Butero]

To Sevenseas, Clothing issues are sin issues.  Deuteronomy 22:5 calls it an abomination for a woman to wear what pertains to a man or for a man to put on a woman's garment.  That makes it a sin issue.  1 Corinthians 6:9 mentions that a man who is effeminate is not going to inherit the Kingdom of heaven, and in the definition, it mentions soft or feminine clothes, so the concept is repeated in the New Testament.  Some clothing choices are just a matter of taste, but others are not.  That is how I can look at a woman in pants or a man in a dress and conclude they are in sin.  I know what I said to Nebula, and I stand by it, but I also continue to stand by my statement that what you said was nowhere close to my position. 

 

I explained my position with regard to the law.  I explained how there are 3 different types of laws, and only the moral laws apply to us today.  A man dressing in clothes of a woman and vice versa is based on a moral law.  The law does not cleanse from sin, and I never claimed it did.  Violating God's standard of holiness will defile a person. 

 

If I understand your position correctly, if you have a church, and in this church, you have a man who cheats on his wife on a regular basis, and another man who is faithful to his spouse, they are both equally holy in the sight of God if they prayed a sinner's prayer.  You can have one man who steals from the church treasury, and another who occasionally slips and loses his temper, and in your world, both men are equal in the sight of God if they said a sinner's prayer.  You make no distinction between a willful transgressor and someone who tries to live right but occasionally messes up.  I don't believe like that.  If I did, I couldn't ever say anything about any sin, because it is all law.  Paul owes those people in the church at Corinth an apology for turning them over to Satan.  That was judgmental, and God doesn't even see the sins of believers.  You may claim I am changing the subject, but I am not.  Again, in some cases, outward appearance can be sinful, so I am comparing one sin to another, because you claim they are all the same. 

[ajchurney]

 

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? If they had to have a new birth experience in order to recognize YHWH as God and display a submissive heart attitude to his Laws, then none of them made it, because the new birth experience was not available. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Heb 11 is dedicated to listing OT saints that acted in faith. Faith in God as the LORD is obviously something that a human being can do without regeneration. God has gifted man with a conscience, that though imperfect, retains an ability to have a "good answer towards God." This is what results in salvation. You are creating a supposed "catch 22" by your own flawed perception of total depravity and salvation itself. Having your conscience "cut to the heart" by clear preaching and responding with an attitude of submission is precisely what you see in Acts 2. You laser-lock on a few verses and ignore the entire "count the cost" sermon set forth by Christ and many other things He taught about the requirements of entering into His Kingdom. Where you miss it is in the assumption that a pricked conscience and submissive response is some sort of "work" or legalism. That is preposterous! The nature of man was not changed by the atonement. If man was not so depraved that he could respond in faith in the Old Covenant, he still has that ability today. The difference is that the sacrifice is Jesus' blood, which is permanent (once for all) and actually effective (it has the power to actually wash away sin). Jesus made the way to be born-again, with the only requirement being to receive this amazing grace BY FAITH. Faith in what and whom? The sacrificial death and miraculous resurrection of the Messiah, the Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ. One does not, or course, have to sanctify themselves to have faith. However, one must have Faith in Jesus as the only one who can grace them with Salvation. What is "salvation"? Primarily that Jesus saves us from the penalty and eternal condemnation due to us because of our sin? What is sin? Sin is violating a known law of God, or disobeying/disregarding a known command of God. Who or what is the God that sets the parameters for sin? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God. So Jesus is the "Son"? Yes He is. So Jesus is God Almighty (LORD) in the flesh??? Yes He is. What if I don't want to believe that? What if I just want Jesus to be a great man, born of a virgin, who died in my place to be my "Savior", but not the LORD?? I have no intention of obeying His commands, because I just want to not go to hell, I want forgiveness, but not "live for God"...no intention of doing all that.......

So, oldschool2, you believe that such a one meets the "minimum requirement" of the letter of a few scriptures you prefer, and thy are SAVED?!?! Jesus and his Lordship have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation, and the Lordship of YHWH never had anything to do with Old Covenant salvation either then?? Explain this to me please 

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ...

 

By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP".

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

[Guest P_W]

Blessings!  Dear Beloved Children of our Mighty Lord God!

 

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.  1 Timothy 1:15

 

When I was quite young I became hopeless and confused by the topic being discussed in this thread.  I lived in a Christian town, and lived among Christian people, going to the same schools, shopping at the same stores, living life as people do.  

 

Many of my friends were of different Christian walks and denominations, from the most conservative to the most liberal.  My mother was not always too thrilled when I would bring home friends of "other" denominations, questionable faiths, you know?  Like that one group of friends I had who never cut their hair and wore long skirts. There was the other group who hit church on Saturday night, then the adults would go straight on over to the bar from there.

 

Seems so much back then was based on appearance.  Today, anything goes.  When I was growing up, no respectable Christian would ever go to a bar!  No, not even drink.  So many rules, and they were not even the same rules; some were not even close!

 

But, I've seen the practice of judging others by appearance, habits, life-styles, and yes, even denominational differences for most of my life and I don't like it any better now than I did back then.  I have felt the sting of legalism, which probably confused me the most, and caused me to think Grace was not enough.  I needed to follow certain rules, too, or face judgment?  I was "back-slidden", you know?  For things like going to the movies, or dancing.  I was told it was "shameful", told that I would, "go to hell."  

 

So, I went straight to God and I just asked Him for myself.  God has planted this little warning system in me called The Holy Spirit who brings about conviction when I even begin to think of something that does not please God.  He promised me He would let me know when I did something that did not please Him.  He let me know that His Grace is always sufficient for me.  And, I began to change.  I began to understand what pleases God and I grew in my desire to please Him.

 

I began to read my Bible more, too.  I would listen to various friends and the opinions they had about our salvation, and I would listen to various preachers and teachers.  I needed more knowledge and understanding to be the best Christian I could be, but I always weighed these teachings and opinions with God.  His teaching is for me and the Holy Spirit's conviction is all I need. Amen

 

 

1 Timothy 4:8-9

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for thepresent life and also for the life to come. 9 It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.

 

Kwik referred to us here as "we", not them, they or that group.  We are all children of God when Jesus Christ is our Savior.  It is evident how much we are like family by all the squabbles that go on.  Seems to me barely anything can be discussed at times that words are not thrown around like daggers.  That hurts me!  I think it hurts our Father in Heaven, also.

 

So, I think I have a somewhat solution.  Stop worrying about what other denominations and people of faith do.  If you think they are "leading others astray", or "teaching salvation through works", then deal with that by teaching truth, focusing on truth, and allow God to deal with those who are heretics.  If we focus on God's Truth, teach that, then we do not have to worry about others.  We are only suppose to pray for them, unless the elders confront them for doing wrong, and that is with a "witness".  I believe, but I could be wrong.  But, however it is done, it is to be done with the utmost love and respect.

 

I never have understood how pointing the finger at one particular denomination, or group, and judging them, or "shining light on their darkness," as I have heard claimed, brought glory to God, or edified anyone.  

 

I did leave a church where the Pastor taught that way.  He picked on one denomination each week.  I got this image in my mind of what Heaven would be like ....  God saying, "Okay, you Catholics to the left.  You Baptist, middle  You Pentecostals down front here, and you non-denominational to the right.  Maybe the Amish would get the back row?  I'll be happy to even stand behind them, just to be in Glory Land with my Eternal, Faithful, Loving, Heavenly Father!  Amen!

 

The Bible tells us that, "If it is sin to one," then that thing is sinful to him.  If it is not sinful, then that person has not been convicted of any sin in partaking of the "thing".  God's grace is quite able!  The Holy Spirit "cleans" us up, each one, according to the Will of Almighty God.

 

I understand the Amish well, and Pentecostals, and Catholics.  I understand people, and why some things matter to one, but not the other.  If it is sin for Baptists to dance, then by all means, they should not dance.  If it is sin to go to the movies, or watch TV, then they should not.  If Pentecostal women want, and believe, they should keep their hair long, then they should.  Same goes for dressing and all appearance.  If Nazarene women do not wear a wedding ring, and think that is pleasing to God, then they should abide by their choice, and so should we.

 

I get Charles Swindoll, and I do like his writings, but I still think for myself.  I pray about all things.  Swindoll has helped me many times get a good grasp on life.

 

Take this article, for instance.  Here is a man who has seen the downside of religion when some come away from certain denominations and teachings with emotional, or mental damage.  We've thrown around the words "freedom" and "choice" like it is always a given.  It is not always a choice for some.  As in all walks of life there is abuse.  There are countless stories of people being hurt by the actions of their Pastor, or other church members.  Those actions can be afflicted either directly, or indirectly.   As was already pointed out; hypocrisy does damage, collateral damage, also.

 

Time and time again I have said, we are all different.  God knows this!  He did it by design.  God laid it on my heart very well that if He loved them, then who was I to find fault with them?    I was to love my brothers and sisters well, just because God does and it is His will for us, too.

 

In God's love to you all.  For His glory, amen.

Shalom, Prair

 

 

Hebrews 10:26-39

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Christ or Judgment

26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away yourconfidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

37 For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come, and will not delay.
38 But My righteous one shall live by faith;
And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.

39 But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.

 

 

 

 

[ajchurney]

 

 

 

 

I don't have my "own" version of the English language, or the Gospels -- that's why I defer to Merriam-Webster and even the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which, IMO, was correct in its appraisal of anyone who advocates Lordship Salvation.

In the mid-1980s I produced a Cable-TV show in NYC about aberrational Christian movements -- I had practically memorized Larson's Book of Cults, but had never even heard of "Lordship Salvation" until I came to these forums. It's amazing how many posters here profess God's grace while "hedging their bets" with the leaven of legalism.

 

So, let me get this straight, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong.  You do not believe in the following as true?

• Knowledge of the Facts—Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
• Assent to this Knowledge—A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
• Repentance—There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
• Submission to Christ—There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.

If the above is not true, how do you address salvation?  How does one become saved?

 

 

How do you address a "Catch-22"?

 

The Urban Dictionary defines a catch-22 as "a requirement that cannot be met until a prerequisite requirement is met, however, the prerequisite cannot be obtained until the original requirement is met."

In other words, to become "saved" in Lordship Salvation, you must already be saved -- as evidenced by some degree of sanctification, e.g., COP.

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

Yours is the absurd argument. How do you think multitudes of people were saved under the Old Covenant? ...

 

By faith, as was Abraham (Romans 4:3), "for by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight" (Romans 3:20), though you wouldn't think that by what Lordship Salvation preaches, e.g., "COP".

"The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary seems to understand what Lordship Salvation advocates do not; 'While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation ..."

 

 

By faith in what and whom? that was my whole point, and you conveniently excerpted what you wanted to and ignored my real line of reason. You also failed to answer my question about the type of person posed. please answer and not deflect