Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

seaglass772

Can Believers Go To Hell?

Recommended Posts

I think it may help to read David Cloud's response to clarify what some think was a 'Lordship Salvation' stance http://www.wayoflife.org/database/repentancerevisited.html

 

I believe this is a short and accurate description of what repentance is and what it is not. 

 

The best advise I could give since this issue is such a conflict among IFB, is to take a concordance and look up EVERY reference to repentance in the Bible and see how it is used in context with every passage, and then study all of the conversions in the 4 gospels and Acts with focus on the word "believed".and "saved". 

 

You can even take all the references for repent, and put them on a word doc and print them out to review all of them. You will find different applications for repentance toward salvation, and different usages in regards to the Christian walk AFTER salvation (as in 2 Cor 7). It would be wise to this first before to get a good comprehension of the Biblical usage and how the Bible defines it so that one can  have a discerning mind when it comes to reading other articles on it (even before reading the Cloud article, and especially before reading an article from the Calvinistic McArthur because repentance has an entirely different meaning in that system of theology.)

Thus why I mentioned that John never once used the word repent (or any variation thereof) in his gospel and Paul in his epistles only used the word one time in reference to the gospel (Romans 2:4).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pharisees were rebuked repeatedly for obessing over outward sin while their hearts were far from God.

 

The lists of sins pointed out demonstrate half as hidden sins of the heart not easily identified by observers:  

 

envyings, hatred, strife, variance, wrath, seditions. I propose that much of the heart list occurs on this very forum enough to conclude that they are willful.

 

So are you folks that commit such sins deluding yourselves into thinking you are actually saved when you are not? (me included)

 

I THINK NOT

 

And what of this man made idea that the Lord will kill the believer who continues to harbor sins in their hearts? Oh, it appears you folks only mean the outward pharisitical sins. So when a drunk or fornicator has a bus fall on their head, you can all conclude "the Lord took him home cause he just wouldn't get right".

 

I THINK NOT. Chastisement can come in many forms, where does the Word say He will take a weak brother home?? When you didn't listen as a child did your natural dad try to murder you?

Edited by wretched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus why I mentioned that John never once used the word repent (or any variation thereof) in his gospel and Paul in his epistles only used the word one time in reference to the gospel (Romans 2:4).

Jesus did use it though and frequently as did Luke in references throughout Acts (quoting Paul and Peter).

 

It is not that repentance is not a valid element of salvation, it is a requirement so it certainly is valid, it is the misunderstanding of the foundation of the word. Although many don't like the "Greek" I believe the English repent is accurate in defining the "metanoi". The root "meta" is the same word used in words like "metamorphosis" which means to change from one form to another. Metanoi is a combination of that change with gnosis thus "change (meta)" of the "mind (to know)".

 

What many neglect is that it is not what the sinner isn't WILLING TO DO that prevents true repentance, but what he is NOT WILLING to do that prevents his salvation. Jesus made it clear that men do not WANT to come to Christ because their deeds are evil. They don't like the light and love darkness rather than light. When one comes to God, there is an inate expectation of yielding to Christ as Lord, HOWEVER, it is not that Christ is expecting the person to give up all of their sins, because before a person is saved and understands what sin even is, it is impossible to know the depth of ones sinfulness.

 

Repentance is not regret for what you've done, but for what you ARE. However, sinners that don't yield to Christ don't do so because they have a wrong understanding of repentance which is complicated by many churches explanation of it. Thus it is because the sinner believes that God will change his life if he trusts him, that prevents him from believing. 

 

Thus it is not that a sinner MUST agree to make Christ his Lord, but he can not come to Christ with the belief that he will NEVER submit to Christ's Lordship that prevents the person from believing because rejecting the Lordship of Christ is a rejecting of who God is-the SAVIOUR. SO a sinner does not have to make Christ his Lord AT salvation, but HE CAN NOT REJECT IT and expect to be saved. One can not look at Christ as a Saviour and not understand what that means to be a Saviour; Saviour by definition means saving you FROM SOMETHING, and God's goal in salvation is more than just fire insurance. That part doesn't have to be completely understood by a sinner to be saved, but rejecting God's desire to sanctify a person is like rejecting the trinity. You don't have to fully understand the trinity to be saved, but you can not reject it because it is a denial of the nature of God. When a sinner rejects the Lordship of Christ, he is rejecting the very nature of God as a Saviour, as THE Saviour.

 

When a person repents, he is changing his mind about who he is, that he is not a person that can save himself, and can not appease God by his own righteousness. He understands that he is a sinner, and regrets what he IS, understanding that his very nature is what causes his sinful life. A person that has turned to Christ with that affirmation HAS REPENTED, and thus it is not an issue of Lordship salvation, it is a matter that he has acknowledge Christ as the Saviour, and has not REJECTED His Lordship. 

 

Those who believe this is a type of Lordship salvation are looking at the sinners response from the wrong point of view. They are looking at the sinners obligations instead of the reasons that the sinner doesn't come to Christ. They view it as a matter of the sinner being expected to make Christ his Lord at the moment of salvation instead of the fact that it is the fear of change that prevents the sinner from completely trusting Christ (which is why Revelation 21:8 says "the fearful and unbelieving" as a synonymous term). "Ye WILL NOT come to me that ye might have life" sums up the motivation and intent of the sinner in rejecting Christ. It is not the refusal to make Jesus Lord that condemns him, but rather his unwillingness to come to Christ BECAUSE OF his fear that Christ will change something that he is unwilling to let go of which is essentially an idol in that persons life that is more important than being saved from sin. Therefore a sinner concludes that they do not need to be saved. If they truly believed that they were a sinner, they would agree with Christ that they are, and thus is not the unwillingness to give up the sinS that become the problem, but WHY they are unwilling, and that is because the heart if fixed on an idol that doesn't not believe it is a sinner that needs to be saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's another attempt by Calvinists to back door their theology into Baptist churches. A Lordship salvationist will over emphasis repentance to the point that you'll become an Arminian for all practical purposes. John MacArthur's mess of a book The Gospel According to Jesus is what really popularized the heresy.

 

Check out Charles Ryrie's book So Great Salvation. He's not KJVO but it's still a good read.

 

 I was a staff member on a Christian camp for rebelious teens for about six years where the preacher got swept up in Lordship salvation. I seen many young Christians hurt by this pernicious doctrine. Especially if they began to again struggle with certain sins. Some would be accepting Christ over and over and over trying to convince the Lord they really mean to repent and make him Lord of all this time.

 

Once you get to this place you lose your joy of salvation and will doubt even if you are one of the elect. Ultimately it leads to "faith shipwreck" (I Tim. 1:19).

 

Our pastor himself eventually fell into grevious sin and ended up out of the ministry.

 

I think the reason this heresy began was because of all the professing Christians that were being put out via "The Romans Road" and "Sinners Prayer" that would never produce any fruit. Some of them you couldn't even get into church which is usually one of the first steps in discipleship. So some preachers ended up going from one extreme to the other in their theology which is usually what happens.

The book by Ryrie, who I like some of his stuff, is refuted in the link I posted above. Lordship salvation simply says if someone is saved there will be proof of this in their life. Lordship salvation simply refutes the modern idea that one can be saved and continue to live like the devil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it may help to read David Cloud's response to clarify what some think was a 'Lordship Salvation' stance http://www.wayoflife.org/database/repentancerevisited.html

 

I believe this is a short and accurate description of what repentance is and what it is not. 

 

 I was a staff member on a Christian camp for rebelious teens for about six years where the preacher got swept up in Lordship salvation. I seen many young Christians hurt by this pernicious doctrine. Especially if they began to again struggle with certain sins. Some would be accepting Christ over and over and over trying to convince the Lord they really mean to repent and make him Lord of all this time.

 

Once you get to this place you lose your joy of salvation and will doubt even if you are one of the elect. Ultimately it leads to "faith shipwreck" (I Tim. 1:19).

 

Song, you are spot on about what happens when a wrong view of repentance enters. I have seen it in my own life and in others around me. The funny thing is that for me, that struggle began after reading a David Cloud article refuting Lordship salvation. Somehow, the way he described how repentance should be (in his words), actually produced the same results as the doctrine he was attempting to refute. I spent two years trying to figure out if I'd 'repented enough' until I finally got my eyes off myself and onto what Jesus had done & promised.  This is one reason I no longer trust Cloud's definition of this important topic.

 

 

Those who believe this is a type of Lordship salvation are looking at the sinners response from the wrong point of view. They are looking at the sinners obligations instead of the reasons that the sinner doesn't come to Christ. They view it as a matter of the sinner being expected to make Christ his Lord at the moment of salvation instead of the fact that it is the fear of change that prevents the sinner from completely trusting Christ (which is why Revelation 21:8 says "the fearful and unbelieving" as a synonymous term). "Ye WILL NOT come to me that ye might have life" sums up the motivation and intent of the sinner in rejecting Christ. It is not the refusal to make Jesus Lord that condemns him, but rather his unwillingness to come to Christ BECAUSE OF his fear that Christ will change something that he is unwilling to let go of which is essentially an idol in that persons life that is more important than being saved from sin. Therefore a sinner concludes that they do not need to be saved. If they truly believed that they were a sinner, they would agree with Christ that they are, and thus is not the unwillingness to give up the sinS that become the problem, but WHY they are unwilling, and that is because the heart if fixed on an idol that doesn't not believe it is a sinner that needs to be saved.

 

Exactly! It's looking at ourselves instead of Christ! It's not 'did I believe enough', 'was I sorry enough', 'did I repent enough'. It's 'do I understand what the Bible says about sin, righteousness, & judgement, do I recognize my utter need of a Savior, and have I called upon Him to save me' - and then trust that He did! No one calls out in desperation for salvation unless they have repented and do believe. For me, the struggle with doubts did not end until one day when I finally asked myself "the Bible says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Have I called?" The answer was yes, and so the only thing left to do was trust that He keeps His end of the promise!

 

The best advise I could give since this issue is such a conflict among IFB, is to take a concordance and look up EVERY reference to repentance in the Bible and see how it is used in context with every passage, and then study all of the conversions in the 4 gospels and Acts with focus on the word "believed".and "saved". 

 

 

Good advice. That's what I'm doing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's another attempt by Calvinists to back door their theology into Baptist churches. A Lordship salvationist will over emphasis repentance to the point that you'll become an Arminian for all practical purposes. John MacArthur's mess of a book The Gospel According to Jesus is what really popularized the heresy.

 

Check out Charles Ryrie's book So Great Salvation. He's not KJVO but it's still a good read.

 

 I was a staff member on a Christian camp for rebelious teens for about six years where the preacher got swept up in Lordship salvation. I seen many young Christians hurt by this pernicious doctrine. Especially if they began to again struggle with certain sins. Some would be accepting Christ over and over and over trying to convince the Lord they really mean to repent and make him Lord of all this time.

 

Once you get to this place you lose your joy of salvation and will doubt even if you are one of the elect. Ultimately it leads to "faith shipwreck" (I Tim. 1:19).

 

Our pastor himself eventually fell into grevious sin and ended up out of the ministry.

 

I think the reason this heresy began was because of all the professing Christians that were being put out via "The Romans Road" and "Sinners Prayer" that would never produce any fruit. Some of them you couldn't even get into church which is usually one of the first steps in discipleship. So some preachers ended up going from one extreme to the other in their theology which is usually what happens.

 

:goodpost:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book by Ryrie, who I like some of his stuff, is refuted in the link I posted above. Lordship salvation simply says if someone is saved there will be proof of this in their life. Lordship salvation simply refutes the modern idea that one can be saved and continue to live like the devil.

I don't believe that the author of that article really understands MacArthurs position. This is evident by what he says toward the bottom:

 

"Finally, it should be reiterated that lordship salvation does not say -- nor does MacArthur say -- that repentance is a precondition to faith. Rather, repentance from sin proceeds from faith. We are saved by grace through faith"

 

If he understand MacArthur's Calvinism, he would understand that MacArthur really does believe that repentance is a precondition to faith. Thus one would be better off reading the actual book by MacArthur and Ryrie instead of depending on the interpretation of the 2 books based on someones opinion who clearly doesn't understand how MacArthur's Calvinism fits into his explanation of repentance. MacArthur, as a Calvinist, believes that a man WILL produce works as evidence of salvation because he has been preordained to salvation. 

 

Now I agree that a truly saved person will demonstrate some sort of fruit, but we don't know the extent of the persons mind or even the fruit they produce well enough to know and judge the person's salvation. Just because a person died a drunkard doesn't mean they WANTED to be be a drunkard, and that God was not chastising the person because of their sinful habit. In fact, their early demise could be the evidence that God had dealt with the persons habit. Thus we can't always judge a persons salvation based on their HABITS. Thus while I agree that a believer should produce fruit, I come to that conclusion for entirely different reasons than MacArthur does because for MacArthur, if the believer does not produce fruit, then it destroys his presupposition for perseverance of the saints (the "P" in TULIP")

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pharisees were rebuked repeatedly for obessing over outward sin while their hearts were far from God.

 

The lists of sins pointed out demonstrate half as hidden sins of the heart not easily identified by observers:  

 

envyings, hatred, strife, variance, wrath, seditions. I propose that much of the heart list occurs on this very forum enough to conclude that they are willful.

 

So are you folks that commit such sins deluding yourselves into thinking you are actually saved when you are not? (me included)

 

I THINK NOT

 

And what of this man made idea that the Lord will kill the believer who continues to harbor sins in their hearts? Oh, it appears you folks only mean the outward pharisitical sins. So when a drunk or fornicator has a bus fall on their head, you can all conclude "the Lord took him home cause he just wouldn't get right".

 

I THINK NOT. Chastisement can come in many forms, where does the Word say He will take a weak brother home?? When you didn't listen as a child did your natural dad try to murder you?

I do believe that 1 John 5 is clear that death can be used as a form of chastisement:

 

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1 John 5:18

 

Notice it says "if any man see his BROTHER sin a sin".

 

And even Romans 6:23 is clear that the wages of sin is death, and that applies even to a believer, not just the sinner who dies in sin. 

 

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" Rom 8:13

 

So death certainly is a caveat to those who willfully live in sin. That doesn't mean that such is always the means in which God chastises a person, but it is certainly a possibility which is clear from Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that 1 John 5 is clear that death can be used as a form of chastisement:

 

"If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1 John 5:18

 

Notice it says "if any man see his BROTHER sin a sin".

 

And even Romans 6:23 is clear that the wages of sin is death, and that applies even to a believer, not just the sinner who dies in sin. 

 

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" Rom 8:13

 

So death certainly is a caveat to those who willfully live in sin. That doesn't mean that such is always the means in which God chastises a person, but it is certainly a possibility which is clear from Scripture.

 

No intention to argue, I agree with most of your posts but the context of 1John 5 in whole is that of salvation. Taking the context as a whole before and after this verse makes me believe it refers to Spiritual death by rejection of the Savior. Several places the Lord refers to all men and any man as our brother, not just fellow believers.

Other places refer to unforgiveable sin as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The weight of Scripture leads me to believe that this is referring to Spiritual death.

So if we are "not to pray for it" then it would make more sense to me that it refers to blasphemy against the Spirit's conviction to repent and be saved; not drinking or gambling or porno or whatever.

Please expound your thoughts on it. I would much rather learn than argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure in this life both outside of church & inside of church you may be around fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, & abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners

 

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Yet when we get to Heaven we will not be in the presents of those type of people.
 
I know that no one means to infer that a person has to be sinless in order to be saved yet sometimes the statement we may make seems to imply one has to be sinless in order to be saved & have that 'blessed hope.' Wow, we sure have to be thankful for God's mercy & grace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

One thing for sure in this life both outside of church & inside of church you may be around fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, & abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners

 

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Yet when we get to Heaven we will not be in the presents of those type of people.
 
I know that no one means to infer that a person has to be sinless in order to be saved yet sometimes the statement we may make seems to imply one has to be sinless in order to be saved & have that 'blessed hope.' Wow, we sure have to be thankful for God's mercy & grace.

 

This section is not used to prove the type of people that will not go to heaven because of their actions, but describes the various attributes of those who remain "unrighteous" persons. If a person is unsaved, and his drunkenness PREVENTS him from repenting because he would rather cling to that sin, then that person is described as a drunkard. Likewise the same as a fornicator, extortioner, etc..(>see previous post on repentance)

 

But notice the difference in verse 11: "and such WERE some of you but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

 

This passage is a describing more of what the sinner IS rather than what they DO. They DO those things because that's what they ARE, and that is the distinction Paul is making in verse 11 that these are not traits of a believer because that's not what they ARE because we were "bought with a price" v.20

 

If this passage were descriptive of the evidence of a person's salvation, they would lose salvation the very first time they committed one of these acts after they were saved. 

 

Paul is saying that a murderer is what you WERE, a drunkard is what you WERE, and therefore you should not act like an unrighteous person because that is what they ARE. These are nouns that are describing the sinners nature by title, not descriptive because of their actions. That can sound confusing but there is also a list like this in 1 Peter 4:15-16 that separates titles of sinners from the title of Christian. Paul makes it clear that he still struggled but he doesn't have to. A Christian should not give in to lust because he WAS a fornicator and is no longer.

 

Paul is using the list of titles as a standard of comparison to Christian behavior, not as evidence of salvation per se. Interpreting this passage any other way would cause anyone to doubt their salvation every time they run into a sin that they struggle with. 

 

I know of a Christian pastor who had been preaching and saved for 50 years, and had an accident and is now addicted to pain medications. That is no different than being a drunkard. Is his current drug addiction evidence that he was never saved in the first place? It was an addiction he developed 50 some years after his conversion. If we assume based on such evidence that every Christian that has a besetting sin or habit was never truly saved, then nobody can ever really have assurance of salvation because salvation will always be judged on performance and duty oriented evaluations.

 

Now where I WOULD question someone's salvation is if they practice such things and have absolutely no conscience , shame, or conviction over those things. That is the difference between a believer and unbeliever is the believer will be grieved because the Holy Spirit does not allow a believer to live comfortably in sin. We often hear statements like, "I know it's a bad habit and I wish I could quit", "I wish God would just take this from me", "I feel like I will never get victory over this" etc...The struggle is evidence of the Holy Spirit's battle against their old nature. Gal 5:16.

 

If a professing believer continually lives as an adulterer, fornicator, drunkard, and has absolutely no conscience about it, refuses to receive reproof (Prov 29:1, 10:17, 15:32, 13:18), is never chastised (Hebrews 12:8), has no love for the brethren (John 13:35), no desire for the word (notice that evidence of a new creature is a DESIRE for the word: 1 Peter 2:2), then THESE are evidences where one can assume that a person may not be saved. But going off of passages like 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Galations 5:21, are not themselves proper barometers to use to evaluate ones salvation.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This section is not used to prove the type of people that will not go to heaven because of their actions, but describes the various attributes of those who remain "unrighteous" persons. If a person is unsaved, and his drunkenness PREVENTS him from repenting because he would rather cling to that sin, then that person is described as a drunkard. Likewise the same as a fornicator, extortioner, etc..

 

But notice the difference in verse 11: "and such WERE some of you but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

 

This passage is a describing more of what the sinner IS rather than what they DO. They DO those things because that's what they ARE, and that is the distinction Paul is making in verse 11 that these are not traits of a believer because that's not what they ARE because we were "bought with a price" v.20

 

If this passage were descriptive of the evidence of a person's salvation, they would lose salvation the very first time they committed one of these acts after they were saved. 

 

Paul is saying that a murderer is what you WERE, a drunkard is what you WERE, and therefore you should not act like an unrighteous person because that is what they ARE. These are nouns that are describing the sinners nature by title, not descriptive because of their actions. That can sound confusing but there is also a list like this in 1 Peter 4:15-16 that separates titles of sinners from the title of Christian. Paul makes it clear that he still struggled but he doesn't have to. A Christian should not give in to lust because he WAS a fornicator and is no longer.

 

Paul is using the list of titles as a standard of comparison to Christian behavior, not as evidence of salvation per se. Interpreting this passage any other way would cause anyone to doubt their salvation every time they run into a sin that they struggle with. 

 

I know of a Christian pastor who had been preaching and saved for 50 years, and had an accident and is now addicted to pain medications. That is no different than being a drunkard. Is his current drug addiction evidence that he was never saved in the first place? It was an addiction he developed 50 some years after his conversion. If we assume based on such evidence that every Christian that has a besetting sin or habit was never truly saved, then nobody can ever really have assurance of salvation because salvation will always be judged on performance and duty oriented evaluations.

 

Now where I WOULD question someone's salvation is if they practice such things and have absolutely no conscience , shame, or conviction over those things. That is the difference between a believer and unbeliever is the believer will be grieved because the Holy Spirit does not allow a believer to live comfortably in sin. We often hear statements like, "I know it's a bad habit and I wish I could quit", "I wish God would just take this from me", "I feel like I will never get victory over this" etc...The struggle is evidence of the Holy Spirit's battle against their old nature. Gal 5:16.

 

If a professing believer continually lives as an adulterer, fornicator, drunkard, and has absolutely no conscience about it, refuses to receive reproof (Prov 29:1, 10:17, 15:32, 13:18), is never chastised (Hebrews 12:8), has no love for the brethren (John 13:35), no desire for the word (notice that evidence of a new creature is a DESIRE for the word: 1 Peter 2:2), then THESE are evidences where one can assume that a person may not be saved. But going off of passages like 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Galations 5:21, are not themselves proper barometers to use to evaluate ones salvation.

 

Ah, got it, good info, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarity, my brother only wanted to talk about The Lord when he was drunk... And then only to justify his drinking: "Jesus made alcohol, so it's nothing wrong with drinking it."

His last few days on this Earth, he wouldn't even speak with the only professing Christians in the family.

He was a drunkard for at least 38 of his 55 years on this Earth, putting on a drunk probably 99% of those 38 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This section is not used to prove the type of people that will not go to heaven because of their actions, but describes the various attributes of those who remain "unrighteous" persons. If a person is unsaved, and his drunkenness PREVENTS him from repenting because he would rather cling to that sin, then that person is described as a drunkard. Likewise the same as a fornicator, extortioner, etc..(>see previous post on repentance)

 

But notice the difference in verse 11: "and such WERE some of you but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

 

This passage is a describing more of what the sinner IS rather than what they DO. They DO those things because that's what they ARE, and that is the distinction Paul is making in verse 11 that these are not traits of a believer because that's not what they ARE because we were "bought with a price" v.20

 

If this passage were descriptive of the evidence of a person's salvation, they would lose salvation the very first time they committed one of these acts after they were saved. 

 

Paul is saying that a murderer is what you WERE, a drunkard is what you WERE, and therefore you should not act like an unrighteous person because that is what they ARE. These are nouns that are describing the sinners nature by title, not descriptive because of their actions. That can sound confusing but there is also a list like this in 1 Peter 4:15-16 that separates titles of sinners from the title of Christian. Paul makes it clear that he still struggled but he doesn't have to. A Christian should not give in to lust because he WAS a fornicator and is no longer.

 

Paul is using the list of titles as a standard of comparison to Christian behavior, not as evidence of salvation per se. Interpreting this passage any other way would cause anyone to doubt their salvation every time they run into a sin that they struggle with. 

 

I know of a Christian pastor who had been preaching and saved for 50 years, and had an accident and is now addicted to pain medications. That is no different than being a drunkard. Is his current drug addiction evidence that he was never saved in the first place? It was an addiction he developed 50 some years after his conversion. If we assume based on such evidence that every Christian that has a besetting sin or habit was never truly saved, then nobody can ever really have assurance of salvation because salvation will always be judged on performance and duty oriented evaluations.

 

Now where I WOULD question someone's salvation is if they practice such things and have absolutely no conscience , shame, or conviction over those things. That is the difference between a believer and unbeliever is the believer will be grieved because the Holy Spirit does not allow a believer to live comfortably in sin. We often hear statements like, "I know it's a bad habit and I wish I could quit", "I wish God would just take this from me", "I feel like I will never get victory over this" etc...The struggle is evidence of the Holy Spirit's battle against their old nature. Gal 5:16.

 

If a professing believer continually lives as an adulterer, fornicator, drunkard, and has absolutely no conscience about it, refuses to receive reproof (Prov 29:1, 10:17, 15:32, 13:18), is never chastised (Hebrews 12:8), has no love for the brethren (John 13:35), no desire for the word (notice that evidence of a new creature is a DESIRE for the word: 1 Peter 2:2), then THESE are evidences where one can assume that a person may not be saved. But going off of passages like 1 Cor 6:9-10 and Galations 5:21, are not themselves proper barometers to use to evaluate ones salvation.

 

Does this mean you completely disagree with the statement I made?

 

I stated:

 

 
"One thing for sure in this life both outside of church & inside of church you may be around fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, & abusers of themselves with mankind,
 
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
 
1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Yet when we get to Heaven we will not be in the presents of those type of people.
 
I know that no one means to infer that a person has to be sinless in order to be saved yet sometimes the statement we may make seems to imply one has to be sinless in order to be saved & have that 'blessed hope.' Wow, we sure have to be thankful for God's mercy & grace."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does this mean you completely disagree with the statement I made?

 

I stated:

 

 
"One thing for sure in this life both outside of church & inside of church you may be around fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, & abusers of themselves with mankind,
 
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
 
1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Yet when we get to Heaven we will not be in the presents of those type of people.
 
I know that no one means to infer that a person has to be sinless in order to be saved yet sometimes the statement we may make seems to imply one has to be sinless in order to be saved & have that 'blessed hope.' Wow, we sure have to be thankful for God's mercy & grace."

 

Not at all. You just happened to be the author at the time that had the 1 Cor 6 text that many other Christians often misinterpret in support of "never saved in the first place" theories. I just used your quote to expound on the verses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus did use it though and frequently as did Luke in references throughout Acts (quoting Paul and Peter).

 

It is not that repentance is not a valid element of salvation, it is a requirement so it certainly is valid, it is the misunderstanding of the foundation of the word. Although many don't like the "Greek" I believe the English repent is accurate in defining the "metanoi". The root "meta" is the same word used in words like "metamorphosis" which means to change from one form to another. Metanoi is a combination of that change with gnosis thus "change (meta)" of the "mind (to know)".

 

What many neglect is that it is not what the sinner isn't WILLING TO DO that prevents true repentance, but what he is NOT WILLING to do that prevents his salvation. Jesus made it clear that men do not WANT to come to Christ because their deeds are evil. They don't like the light and love darkness rather than light. When one comes to God, there is an inate expectation of yielding to Christ as Lord, HOWEVER, it is not that Christ is expecting the person to give up all of their sins, because before a person is saved and understands what sin even is, it is impossible to know the depth of ones sinfulness.

 

Repentance is not regret for what you've done, but for what you ARE. However, sinners that don't yield to Christ don't do so because they have a wrong understanding of repentance which is complicated by many churches explanation of it. Thus it is because the sinner believes that God will change his life if he trusts him, that prevents him from believing. 

 

Thus it is not that a sinner MUST agree to make Christ his Lord, but he can not come to Christ with the belief that he will NEVER submit to Christ's Lordship that prevents the person from believing because rejecting the Lordship of Christ is a rejecting of who God is-the SAVIOUR. SO a sinner does not have to make Christ his Lord AT salvation, but HE CAN NOT REJECT IT and expect to be saved. One can not look at Christ as a Saviour and not understand what that means to be a Saviour; Saviour by definition means saving you FROM SOMETHING, and God's goal in salvation is more than just fire insurance. That part doesn't have to be completely understood by a sinner to be saved, but rejecting God's desire to sanctify a person is like rejecting the trinity. You don't have to fully understand the trinity to be saved, but you can not reject it because it is a denial of the nature of God. When a sinner rejects the Lordship of Christ, he is rejecting the very nature of God as a Saviour, as THE Saviour.

 

When a person repents, he is changing his mind about who he is, that he is not a person that can save himself, and can not appease God by his own righteousness. He understands that he is a sinner, and regrets what he IS, understanding that his very nature is what causes his sinful life. A person that has turned to Christ with that affirmation HAS REPENTED, and thus it is not an issue of Lordship salvation, it is a matter that he has acknowledge Christ as the Saviour, and has not REJECTED His Lordship. 

 

Those who believe this is a type of Lordship salvation are looking at the sinners response from the wrong point of view. They are looking at the sinners obligations instead of the reasons that the sinner doesn't come to Christ. They view it as a matter of the sinner being expected to make Christ his Lord at the moment of salvation instead of the fact that it is the fear of change that prevents the sinner from completely trusting Christ (which is why Revelation 21:8 says "the fearful and unbelieving" as a synonymous term). "Ye WILL NOT come to me that ye might have life" sums up the motivation and intent of the sinner in rejecting Christ. It is not the refusal to make Jesus Lord that condemns him, but rather his unwillingness to come to Christ BECAUSE OF his fear that Christ will change something that he is unwilling to let go of which is essentially an idol in that persons life that is more important than being saved from sin. Therefore a sinner concludes that they do not need to be saved. If they truly believed that they were a sinner, they would agree with Christ that they are, and thus is not the unwillingness to give up the sinS that become the problem, but WHY they are unwilling, and that is because the heart if fixed on an idol that doesn't not believe it is a sinner that needs to be saved.

Yes, Jesus (and John the Baptist) did use the word "repent". But even in that case it was in relation to the "people of God" (i.e. children of Israel) who had wandered off from the flock and were being called back. It was in context of the promised kingdom to the children of Israel. Thus why John MacArthur's heresy primarily comes out of Matthew-Luke and verses related to the kingdom of heaven and pre-Pauline revelation.

 

Repentance has been overemphasised to the point where you basically have a faith/works based salvation. Ironically, it's mostly Calvinists who are pushing Lordship Salvation.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Jesus (and John the Baptist) did use the word "repent". But even in that case it was in relation to the "people of God" (i.e. children of Israel) who had wandered off from the flock and were being called back. It was in context of the promised kingdom to the children of Israel. Thus why John MacArthur's heresy primarily comes out of Matthew-Luke and verses related to the kingdom of heaven and pre-Pauline revelation.

 

Repentance has been overemphasised to the point where you basically have a faith/works based salvation. Ironically, it's mostly Calvinists who are pushing Lordship Salvation.

Paul doesn't use it as often because his audience is primarily believers, and there's no reason to preach repentance to a group who have already repented. Heb 6:1. The difference in the writings is that Paul's letters are more instructional, and the gospels while containing instructional elements,  are primarily narrative where the audience is recording what was said to sinners. Likewise, the same in Acts where Paul and Peter both emphasize it. Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31,11:18, 17:30, 20:21, 26:20; Paul, Peter, and John continue to emphasize in their epistles as well.  Romans 2:4, 2 Cor 12:21, 2 Tim 2:25, 2 Peter 3:9  and it is emphasized as well during the tribulation, Rev 9:20-21, 16:9-11.

 

But like I said above, with Calvinism their system depends on Lordship Salvation because that is a tenet of TULIP. The "perseverance of the saints" holds that since the believer has been awakened from the dead and given faith and repentance as a gift, based on his election and that God atoned for only his sin as part of that election, and that grace is irresistible, he must by necessity then endure or persevere to the end. This is why in the Calvinist system that LS MUST be defended or else their entire system falls apart.

 

Many Christians misunderstand the "P" as meaning that Calvinist is preaching eternal security, and it's NOT the same thing. There are a few Calvinists that have renamed it or added "preservation" instead of "perseverance" but that it not what Calvinism's 5 points include. If a convert does not demonstrate that he is persevering to the end, then the Calvinist MUST use that as evidence that the person is not saved, because if a person does not persevere, then he has not met the P in TULIP, and if he hasn't demonstrated the P, then he must not have been elect.

 

This is why any explanation by a Calvinist about ASSURANCE of salvation and asking them how they know THEY are elect ALWAYS is explained by works. Since there is no Biblical test to prove that one is of the elect, a Calvinist can never truly demonstrate assurance of salvation. Thus the evidence will always be stated in terms of perseverance and a defense of Lordship Salvation.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul doesn't use it as often because his audience is primarily believers, and there's no reason to preach repentance to a group who have already repented. Heb 6:1. The difference in the writings is that Paul's letters are more instructional, and the gospels while containing instructional elements,  are primarily narrative where the audience is recording what was said to sinners. Likewise, the same in Acts where Paul and Peter both emphasize it. Acts 2:38, 3:19, 5:31,11:18, 17:30, 20:21, 26:20; Paul, Peter, and John continue to emphasize in their epistles as well.  Romans 2:4, 2 Cor 12:21, 2 Tim 2:25, 2 Peter 3:9  and it is emphasized as well during the tribulation, Rev 9:20-21, 16:9-11.

 

But like I said above, with Calvinism their system depends on Lordship Salvation because that is a tenet of TULIP. The "perseverance of the saints" holds that since the believer has been awakened from the dead and given faith and repentance as a gift, based on his election and that God atoned for only his sin as part of that election, and that grace is irresistible, he must by necessity then endure or persevere to the end. This is why in the Calvinist system that LS MUST be defended or else their entire system falls apart.

 

Many Christians misunderstand the "P" as meaning that Calvinist is preaching eternal security, and it's NOT the same thing. There are a few Calvinists that have renamed it or added "preservation" instead of "perseverance" but that it not what Calvinism's 5 points include. If a convert does not demonstrate that he is persevering to the end, then the Calvinist MUST use that as evidence that the person is not saved, because if a person does not persevere, then he has not met the P in TULIP, and if he hasn't demonstrated the P, then he must not have been elect.

 

This is why any explanation by a Calvinist about ASSURANCE of salvation and asking them how they know THEY are elect ALWAYS is explained by works. Since there is no Biblical test to prove that one is of the elect, a Calvinist can never truly demonstrate assurance of salvation. Thus the evidence will always be stated in terms of perseverance and a defense of Lordship Salvation.

I don't disagree that repentance is an element of salvation. I just wanted to point out that the greatest book on the presentation of the gospel in it's clearest and most concise form is the gospel of John and it doesn't mention the word "repent" (repentance, repenting, repented, repents, repenteth) one time. The lack of its mention should stand for something. John makes no mention of the word in his epistles either. I realize the concept is there though.

 

I agree with the rest you say 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 26 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...