Sunday, November 08, 2009

Walking on Water is Not Swimming

Here's a silly question; Have you ever considered that walking on water is not the same as swimming? What about how walking on water doesn’t even involve swimming? This article is going to argue that if you are in fact walking on water, you can not be swimming at all.

You know, those who are sceptics of the Bible often come up with all kinds of explanations of why the Disciples thought Jesus was walking on the water in Mathew 14:22-27. They say everything from it’s a made up story to He was walking along the shore, or even floating on ice. The truth is no one confuses walking on the water with anything else. Actually if someone had never seen, or had a person walking on water properly described to them a person might think that “swimming” is akin to walking on water. However, if one has seen it they would never confuse the two. So, just like the skeptics of the Bible, skeptics of walking on water minus swimming can come up with all the explanations they like and still not change the truth.

For the purposes of this article I'll state that Justification in Christ (which is the prerequisite of Eternal Salvation) is sort of like walking on water. Works based (religious) Justification (and therefore Eternal Salvation) is sort of like swimming. If one is Justified in Christ they are supernaturally lifted above the mire and anything they do there has nothing to do with keeping themselves above it. Such a one is not swimming. I'm also going to state that Eternal Salvation includes resurrection unto life which is recently being referred to as "Final Salvation" by some Brethren.

Readers may remember a long conversation with Lordship Salvation (LS) proponent Mark Pierson here. After I read Mark’s affirmation that no one who understands LS also rejects LS I asked for anyone who believes in LS to proclaim the Gospel to me so that I could understand. For many days I dialogued with Mark about his view of Salvation. I painstakingly examined his presentation using the definitions of terminology that he supplied. In the end, I found that the LS position is exactly as I (and many others) have understood it to be, and I continue to reject it.

After that, Mark asked me to visit his blog and repeat the same or a similar conversation there with him. In the mean time the Lord was working on me about my desire to debate people. I really don’t know how future conversations here at OMW are going to play out but I knew repeating the same debate at Mark's blog would not be profitable. He has suggested that I wished to only converse with him within the safety of my own blog or those of my friends. Such a view doesn't actually seem reasonable in that Mark was given complete freedom of uncensored expression here.

Mark asked me to share the Gospel with him at his blog. That’s not the sort of thing you can just say “NO!” to. So I gave him a link to a YouTube video of the Gospel in one minute. His reply to this video was to suggest what someone who is in gross sin might say in response to this video. The supposed person said they didn’t want to give up the sin they were in. Of course the sin was inflammatory and fully in the realm of the fleshy nature of mankind. Such that ought not even be named among the saints. Eph 5:3-4

I proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and Eternal Life in Jesus Christ and Mark’s supposed person said “But I don’t want to stop sinning!” as a rebuttal to the idea that the Gospel I proclaim is false. I believe it is the inflammatory nature of the sin Mark chose that is of issue to him. Mark didn’t choose speeding.. or picking your nose, or not telling the people around you that you love them… no he chose gross adultery. Why? Well I can only assume that adultery is a worse sin than those other I noted in Mark’s eyes. However, we’re told in Scripture that one sin is like another because the same God who said thou shalt not commit adultery also said thou shalt not murder. James 2:10-11 It is the falling short of God’s perfection that is sin, not the details of the issue.

So what is it that Mark is saying? Is he saying that a person must be willing to give up adultery in order to be saved?

Here read his comment yourself;

So Kevin, thanks for telling me the Gospel in a minute.

I have some pressing questions for you -You see, I am a married man. Here's
the problem: I've met somebody else, one of my co-workers. She also is married.
At first we were just friends. Then, over the course of time, we both discovered
that we complete one another. We both feel like we are soul-mates. Yes, we have
gone on to be intimate. We really love each other.

Now even Sunday-school kids know that God has said "Thou shall not commit
adultry". If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that.


Of course that is what Mark was saying and has consistently said. Well here’s something to consider. If your unsaved neighbour gives up adultery are they any closer to Heaven? Are they any more worthy of being saved? If the person that Mark makes up DID give up adultery would they be saved then? Or would there be another sin they’d have to give up? If so, then how many? If not then why not? Is there a Biblical example of what sins you can continue in and what ones you may not in order to be Eternally Saved?

Let's get back to swimming and walking on water to see if we can reconcile some of this.

The modern Reformed Calvinist Lordship Salvation proponent will claim that it's not the works (the swimming) that saves (keeps one above the water) but that everyone who is saved will work.

When Paul says that the one who believes and does not work is justified, he is sort of saying that walking on water doesn’t involve swimming. Romans 4:5-8 Paul is surely saying that justification is "apart from" works. The righteousness that a Believer has in this life is accounted, and imputed. It is not actualized until we are glorified (experience this "Final Salvation"). 1 Cor 13:12-13, 1Jn 3:2 The one who is walking on water is not swimming. If one is swimming, or working to be saved then they are not walking on water. They are either truly not saved, or they are acting like it. The idea of works proving that someone is saved is well and fully addressed in Dr. Fred R. Lybrand's wonderful new book "Back To Faith." This book examines the phrase "It is therefore faith alone that justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone" in great detail. I think it would be foolish to try to offer here what he so excellently offers in his book so I will not. Often people will point to our works as proof of "true saving faith." Unfortunately this is a great perversion of what is written in James 2:14-26. I address this idea of examining your works to see if you're in the faith in my book Fail-Safe for Fallacy but surely not as well as Dr. Lybrand does in his. For the purpose of this article I want to iterate; swimming is not walking on water. If one is walking on water, they can not be swimming. I also wish to point out that looking at swimming for proof of walking on water is absurd.

However, if you teach someone that their works prove their salvation, will they not try to swim? Isn't the consistent question of the lost "What must I DO to be saved?" Acts 16:30, John 6:28

Beloved reader, the answer to this question is always the same - BELIEVE (put your trust in) the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 16:31, John 6:29. Not "really believe and prove it by working"! No, we are never told to test our faith by our works.

What is true saving faith? That is the question. If you have faith in Christ alone, then your faith finds validation in Christ alone. If your faith is not in Christ alone then it will find validation in the various things your faith is in. If your faith is in Christ alone you can not have your faith in anything else. So, in the swimming/walking discussion if you’re walking on water you can’t swim, and if you’re trying to swim you're either a very confused water walker, or your not a water walker at all.

True saving faith is trust and assurance. We read this in Genesis 15:1-6. A fearful Abraham came to believe God, or rather trust God and be assured by His promise. This was accounted as righteousness. Abraham didn’t look for validation of God’s promise in some aspect of his own life. He didn’t look for “evidence” of God having saved him. He didn't look at his performance in view of how he should serve this glorious and faithful God. He trusted God, and was assured that God would fulfill His promise. The issue was settled. With regard to our conversation Abraham walked on water and did not swim. Nothing he did or didn't do had reflected the truth of his being above the water. Why? Because he was above the water ONLY because God faithful. Not because Abraham was made faithful. God alone is faithful.

If I trust and am assured by God then I need not look anywhere else. If I do not trust God and or am not assured by His promise then I must look elsewhere for my assurance. If I’m assured by anything else than God’s promise then I do not have faith in Christ alone.

If I am swimming I am not walking on water.

If one is Justified then they can set aside the wondering if they are saved and start operating in the trust they have for God. Instead of constantly looking inward to find validation of their confidence as those who check their works do, the one who knows he is justified simply gets on with the work of the day. If your justification is based on God's faithfulness, then you are assured as surely as His Word is true. Heb 6:13-20

Let’s spell it out. You don’t do the works that we read of in Hebrews 11 if you are not sure of God’s promises. You don’t do those works unless you already know you are saved. These works are not evidences of salvation, they are evidences of getting past the milk and onto the meat. Leaving the beginnings of faith and moving on to perfection, not laying the foundation of repentance again. The person who is looking to their works for validation of their confidence doesn’t have the kind of faith it takes to do those works. Their faith is not “in Christ alone.” They are still trying to swim instead of realizing they can simply walk.

This concludes part 1 of this two part series. In the next article I’ll be looking at how Peter was able to physically walk on water, and what happened when he sank. God willing this will shed some light on how we too can stop trying to swim and start truly walking on water.

30 comments:

Kevl said...

It would seem only fair to offer some answer to the supposed poor soul who would let adultery get between him and the Lord.

The solution is not for this supposed man to give up his adultery, but to see his adultery for what it is. I would have the man examine himself using Scripture. Even if the man is unable to give it up, he can call on the Lord for Salvation however.

After examination determines that the man feels helpless, I might tell him that he would be amazed at what God can do in a person's life.

I would refocuse the conversation on the Cross. I would tell the man that as guilty and dirty as he truly is that God Himself paid the full penalty for all of it at the Cross. That by Christ's resurrection all who believe in Him are promised Eternal Life that starts right here and now.

I would explain that what he feels helpless to overcome now without the power of God's Spirit has actually already been defeated by God and that there truly is freedom available to him. Freedom from death, and freedom from sin.

It is this helplessness, and sin that will show the man his need for mercy.

I would not call for a commitment to cease sinning - for the next quesiton is "what about this other sin?" and "Well what about THIS other sin?" The man would be led to look at himself, when truly he needs only look at Christ.

I trust that God can and will work in any person who receives Him. I trust that the sin God wishes to deal with He will deal with in accordance with His own plan and timing.

One doesn't need to make themselves look like what they think a Christian looks like in order to become one.

Kev

Jan said...

Good thoughts here, Kev.

I'm looking forward to part II.

I thought you mind find this interesting:

I was at a baptism service yesterday where we heard the testimonies of those who were to be baptized and it got me thinking about my own testimony.

I realized some pre-salvation things about me that I had never really thought about before. I saw a few occasions where I demonstrated what some would have to consider the fruit that belongs to the saved. However, I was NOT saved at those points. I was not saved until I learned that I was a sinner under the wrath of God (that I was "separated" from God, which was quite enough information for me at that point), that Jesus bore the wrath of God for me on the cross, and that I needed to receive Him as my Savior in order to be born again (to have a personal relationship with Him.)

The things that happened pre conversion-

-I saw specific prayer specifically answered.

-I desired to go to church to be with God.

-I desired to know God.

-When I was thinking of becoming a witch and was informed that witchcraft was like a slap in the face to God I was immediately grieved at the thought of offending God in that way and changed my mind about pursuing it.

-I wanted to be in relationship with God and I asked God to be a personal friend.

And yet none of these these things could prove my salvation, as I had no salvation to prove. They all happened before I ever heard the gospel, let alone believed it.

In fact, it was because of that last thing that someone just happened to cross my path who asked if I wanted to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This was the conversation that led to my hearing the gospel and getting saved.

Imagine my shock to learn there was something fundamentally, inherently wrong with me-sin-that would cause a relationship with God to be impossible unless it was dealt with! I had no idea.

I was saved when my sin was dealt with by receiving Jesus Christ crucified for me as the payment for my sin. Not before, in spite of evidences to the contrary.

JanH

Kevl said...

Hi Jan,

I believe it's fairly possible I was saved at a very young age, I can tell you that that was never lived out in my life until just 4 years ago.

At Grade 2 ('77-78) I realized I was a sinner in need of a Savior so I called on Him. My theology tells me that I was saved at that instant - my experience is that I was saved on Sept 26th, 2005. (Those who look will see that's about 5 days AFTER I started this Blog).

Previous to Sept 2005 I had played in worship bands, given money, worked at out reach events, prayed, read my Bible.... many people THOUGHT I was the real deal.

Saddly, if I was saved, living it out in reality was the farthest thing from my mind.

You noted a number of things that would be seen as "fruit" in your pre-Salvation life. I'm going to respond to each of them in my next post.

Kev

Kevl said...

There's a chapter in Fred's book "Back To Faith" that deals with Biblical examples of people who were thought to have been Christians who were not.. .and people who at first looked like Christians, then did not, and then eventually were recognized as the real deal later.

I'm really enjoying his work - it is stretching me. I keep thinking that I wish I could have read his book before I finished writing mine. :)

Anyway, I'd like to honestly respond to each (or many of) your pre-Salvation "fruit" statements.

I saw specific prayer specifically answered.


Wow that's hard to swallow. I believe you - because of the rest of your testimony before me. Wow that messes with my head. However, I THINK I could find instances of that in my life too. Though it does play havock with what I THINK I know about God.

I wonder if that would make for a profitable discussion? Does God EVER answer the prayers of the lost? Or, does it only appear that way because He does what is His nature to do.

-I desired to go to church to be with God.

-I desired to know God.


I think Isaiah, and the Psalms talk about this fact. People can desire to know God, without actually knowing Him.

-When I was thinking of becoming a witch and was informed that witchcraft was like a slap in the face to God I was immediately grieved at the thought of offending God in that way and changed my mind about pursuing it.

Again, tough swallow. Are you sure you were grieved and not fearful? If you were grieved, I wonder what was happening in your spiritual life at that moment. Was this used to draw you to Him?

-I wanted to be in relationship with God and I asked God to be a personal friend.

I think we see this happen in Churches the world over weekly. It COULD be used as "evidence" for Salvation but I'm inclined to fully agree with you that this might only LOOK like fruit.

And yet none of these these things could prove my salvation, as I had no salvation to prove. They all happened before I ever heard the gospel, let alone believed it......

Imagine my shock to learn there was something fundamentally, inherently wrong with me-sin-that would cause a relationship with God to be impossible unless it was dealt with! I had no idea.


If you had previously thought you were a Christian I would call this an example of one of the very few ways one can be a true "false convert."

I do not believe it is possible to be a false convert if you have heard and are trusting in the Gospel of Jesus Christ 1 Cor 15:1-11. If you haven't heard, or are not trusting it and you think you're a Christian then you are a false convert.

More in my next.

Kev

Kevl said...

I was driving to work today - I'm on duty.. which means I'm basically sitting here waiting for something to need to be done... - and on my drive in I passed a Catholic church. I thought, why do they think they're serving God?

Why do the Mormans think so?

What could possibly fool them?

The answer is simple. Everyone thought that Judas Iscariot was a Disciple because he followed Jesus and did everything the other Disciples did.

These people do the stuff that they think God wants them to do so they think they're serving God.

This is the same problem that you and I could have had before we were saved - I sure am a Christian! Look at my works!

Scary stuff!

Kev

Jan said...

Kev-

As to the prayer- yep. It's true. Here is what happened:

I was visiting my dad for the weekend. On Sunday, before I was taken home, his wife required him to take her kids to church (Catholic, if you are curious, but that doesn't matter much to this story). Since I was there, I had to go with them, even though what little I knew about Religion at that time, I did know I wasn't Catholic. Anyway, when there, it came time for Mass and all the Catholics were supposed to go forward to receive the cracker. the priest made it very clear (thankfully, as otherwise it would have been very confusing) that the Mass was only for those who had been confirmed and everyone else could just say in the pew and present their requests to God. I saw that as a golden opportunity as just that weekend there had been two new rules instituted in my father's house that I was having a whole lot of trouble with. They were 1) we couldn't wear shoes in the house and 2) we couldn't sit on the beds during the day. They were for sleeping only. Coming from a home where there was very little oversight of me, these rules (which were added to quite a few others) seemed ridiculous and oppressive to me. So I took the opportunity to bring the matter before God and told Him my trouble. I said if there was anything He could do for me I would really appreciate it but if not I understood and thanks for listening.

After we got back to the house, dad and I and one of his wife's kids got to rough housing in one of the bedrooms and ended up on the bed. One of us, I think it might have been me but I'm not sure anymore, mentioned that we weren't supposed to be on the beds in the middle of the day. Dad replied, "Oh yeah. The new rule. You know what? That's a stupid rule. I don't see why you can't be on the beds during the day. I'm revoking that rule. And I don't see why you can't wear your shoes in the house either. I'm revoking that one too."

I was stunned. Beyond being imminently pleased that the obnoxious rules were gone was the very real and very obvious realization that GOD HEARD ME. Not only was He real, but He heard me and ruled in my favor. I never forgot it.

As for not wanting to offend God with the witchcraft, that was true too. I am not sure whether I was afraid as you mean it or not. That was probably there too. But I was a sensitive child and never wanted to offend anyone. However, it seemed especially bad to slap God in the face. Perhaps it was more the respect for authority that used to be instilled in kids in those days. But it was God and I didn't want to offend Him, and, yes, the idea of offending Him did make me sad and not just afraid.

There was also the time that I was 7 that I really wanted to go to church. I believe I must have asked my mom to take me, but it is possible that someone else mentioned the idea to her. At any rate, I did really want to go on the grounds that God is in church. So we went to a Methodist church (I think, as that was the family back ground.) Of course I understood exactly nothing of what was going on. At one point during the sermon I started getting fidgety. My mom asked me if I wanted to leave since I was fidgety (I think that was because she really wanted to leave and was just looking for an excuse). I said no and stopped fidgeting so we could stay.

I was an odd child I guess. :)

JanH

mark pierson said...

So Kevin,
Please answer the question, yes or no - would that person have to give up his mistress - yes or no?

Kevl said...

Hi Mark,

You wrote

So Kevin,
Please answer the question, yes or no - would that person have to give up his mistress - yes or no?


Two things - you don't have the right to make demands at this blog and I will not "debate" you.

In order to become a Christian? - No.

Once they are a Christian? I have little doubt that the Spirit would work as God declares in Heb 12 on that person. However, no human could predict how that person would react to the conviction of the Spirit.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

When Mark comes in for one of his drive-by postings you might just ignore him as I do.

Last go around you did well to expose the holes in his theology and his poor behavior choices.


Lou

mark pierson said...

So Kevin,
If you look at the question posed you...If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that....

Note that at no place did he ask you if he needed to give her up to become a Christian. No, his question dealt with the time after coming to Christ. Now please answer the question posed you...Would he ever have to give his mistress up - how would you answer him when he asks this question?

Hi, Lou!

Kevl said...

Mark,

Please read the full response that I gave you in my last.

Take particular note of three things.

1. You do not have the right to make demands here.
2. I will not debate you.
3. Your question was fully answered in that post.

Further demands, or invitations to debate will be deleted.

If you have some specific question (which has not already been answered) I'm sure I or someone else will be able to answer.

Kev

mark pierson said...

Kevin, let's try to stay focused, old buddy,

The person that you witnessed to at my blog asked a question that only required a yes or no answer. I've been asked such questions and now I want to see your answers to them - and please, this time without taking me on a magical mystery tour. A "yes" or "no" answer is all I need. Please also keep in mind that you should answer such a question with the Great Commission, as seen in Matthew 28:19-20, in mind.

Now once again, If you look at the question posed you...If I were to become a Christian would I have to give this woman up? I
can't see myself ever being able to do that....

Note that at no place did he ask you if he needed to give her up to become a Christian. No, his question dealt with the time after coming to Christ. Now please answer the question posed you...Would he ever have to give his mistress up - how would you answer him when he asks this question?

Kevl said...

Mark,

Your badgering is not welcome here.

Read my reply to you, the answer you seek is in it - and has been since I wrote it. This is your third and final chance to read it.

If understanding English is trouble for you please try to find places to interact where your native tongue is predominantly used. I am only able to write in English.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Mark is a blog thug in the mold of Antonio da Rosa, Tim Nichols and Phil Johnson. Mark, like the others, apparently feels important when he thumps his chest.


Lou

mark pierson said...

So Kevin, how would you answer HIM when HE asks that question? How would you respond TO HIM, not me; but to HIM who asked it? Now I know how Bridget felt when you refused to answer her. You never did. Kevin, all you need to do is simply admit that your system CAN'T answer that question without the holes within that system being seen. That would be the honest thing to do.

Lou, may the Lord bless you!

Kevl said...

Mark,

I'm not exactly fond of having imaginary conversations with imaginary people. Not only is it foolishness, it almost always drives people to very bad doctrine. This is how the "Crossless Gospel" was created.

I'm not talking with this imaginary person, I responded to YOU. Do you have the capability of conversing reasonably? Yes or No will do for an answer.

Kevin, all you need to do is simply admit that your system CAN'T answer that question without the holes within that system being seen.

When you grow up you're going to feel really silly about acting like that.

Kev

Kevl said...

All,

Mark asked this question -

So Kevin, how would you answer HIM when HE asks that question? How would you respond TO HIM, not me; but to HIM who asked it?

I'm not sure if anyone who frequents this blog is actually unable to discern what the answer is from my initial response to Mark, found HERE

I wrote Once they are a Christian? I have little doubt that the Spirit would work as God declares in Heb 12 on that person. However, no human could predict how that person would react to the conviction of the Spirit.

Clearly I answered Mark's question more fully than he desired. He asked for a simple yes/no but that would not have resulted in an accurate answer to his implied question. It seems to ME that this has upset him somewhat.

Mark seems to want to witness me roleplaying... I'm not sure why, and I'm not even sure I want to know why...

In a desire for silence I'll break it down for all to read.

Now imagine I'm having a conversation with Mr. Imaginary Person. We'll call him Mr. IP for short.

Mr. IP. I understand that you're filling your desires with this relationship now and it feels like that is the best way to have them satisfied. However, if God were to save you He would come and dwell inside you. He's witness to everything you ever have and ever will do now because He's God. But if He were to come and live in you, then it would be HIS life you would be living, and if you were to continue in adultery then you would be tying Him to that.

I can't tell you how it will work out but God promises to discipline everyone of His children. This isn't a threat, it's a promise. He will be as true to that as He is to save those who call on Him.

So if you were to continue, I fully expect that you would find His discipline to be intolerable. He's God and isn't going to change, and He's also all powerful so He's not going to get tired of correcting you. If you were to continue in that, or any sin, He would correct you and that correction could be unimaginably uncomfortable.

Do I really have to continue this game Mark????

Put away your theology manuals (you'd be better to burn them), give your head a shake and read your Bible for a change.

Kev

mark pierson said...

Kevin,
So you would tell "IP" that, yes, at one point after salvation he WOULD be called on to give up his mistress. So at that point he would say that his relationship with her means too much to him and therefore he is not interested in coming to Christ, for he now sees that Christ's Lordship cannot be separated from His Saviorhood. What you're failing to notice with "IP" is that he was already resolute in not giving her up - he said so at the outset. He has shown his love for darkness rather than light.

To recap:

So now he's heard your good news presentation, he then goes on to state plainly that he's not interested in giving this mistress up. In ongoing converation with you he discovers that at one point after salvation God's chastening would come his way because of this mistress. It seems to me that only in ongoing conversation with you, and that AFTER your good news presentation, does "IP" get to hear the whole counsel of God; and that, yes, his sin must be dealt with. And now he's hearing about how it must be dealt with even before he has come to Christ, because in ongoing conversation with you he hears that God will one day chasten him for this sin.

In retrospect something troubles me here: your good news presentation doesn't lead inexorably towards discipleship, as it is seen to be what we are commended to do in Matthew 28:19-20. Only in ongoing conversation with you, and not in your good news presentation itself, does he hear what he really needs to hear.

Kevl said...

Mark,

I said that the Lord would discipline. I know you have a hard time reading what I actually say, but please do try.

I'm not sure how I was supposed to "notice" anything Mr. IP as it's an imaginary conversation...

Enough game play. Everyone is well aware that you desire that people agree to discipleship in order to become a Christian.

I'm not interested in debating your extra-biblical view again.

Discipleship is discipleship, and receiving the Gospel is something entirely different. No matter how many times you beat your chest and insult the people you blog with.

Kev

mark pierson said...

"Discipleship is discipleship, and receiving the Gospel is something entirely different."
==============
You can't prove that exegetically, only systematically.

Kevl said...

Mark,

You're already famous for making bold statements of knowledge you do not actually possess. (No one who understands LS theology also rejects it...remember?) I suggest you don't continue on that path.

Actually I can prove it from the Scriptures themselves - not systematically. If I simply read the Gospel as Scripture declares it... and don't add to it...

You may be interested in the post called Proof-Texting The Gospel?

Kev

mark pierson said...

"Mark,

You're already famous for making bold statements of knowledge you do not actually possess. (No one who understands LS theology also rejects it...remember?) I suggest you don't continue on that path."
===
Actually, Kevin, I stand by that statement because you have yet to prove me wrong - you show no signs of understanding it, else your arguments against it would evaporate.
=========
"Actually I can prove it from the Scriptures themselves - not systematically. If I simply read the Gospel as Scripture declares it... and don't add to it...

You may be interested in the post called Proof-Texting The Gospel?"
==========
But you arbitrarily narrow your view here. How about where Paul said, "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 20:21. Again you do show your propensity to not consider the whole counsel of God. Very disturbing hermeneutic, Kevin.

Kevl said...

Mark,

You said,

Actually, Kevin, I stand by that statement because you have yet to prove me wrong - you show no signs of understanding it, else your arguments against it would evaporate

This is just plain foolishness.

You also said,

But you arbitrarily narrow your view here. How about where Paul said, "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 20:21. Again you do show your propensity to not consider the whole counsel of God. Very disturbing hermeneutic, Kevin.

I take comfort that God's Word is proven true so often. The Cross, and the Good News of it that announces the free Eternal Salvation provided there are offensive to so many.

To those who can not look at the Cross and see themselves fully, and finally justified there apart from anything of themselves: I can have no assurance of their Salvation. They do not match the pattern of Abram that Paul points to.

Kev

Kevl said...

All who are reading -

With regard to my reading the Gospel out of the Text of the Bible Mark claimed I was "narrowing [my] view" in a disturbing way.

He then cited Acts 20:21 as a supposed missed point by the Gospel declared in 1 Cor 15:1-11 (the subject of the post I linked Mark to.)

You will notice that Mark simply quotes these words as though they disagree with the Gospel Paul declared.

In fact, what is in disagreement with the Gospel of Christ that Scripture declares is Mark's extra-biblical definitions for the words "Repentance" and "Faith."

I spent several weeks back in August and September getting Mark to define these and other concepts from his point of view. Any interested can go back to those conversations... though I warn you they are tedious and long...

I'm not going to get into a debate about the definitions of these words here. If any are interested in Mark's point of view he had several weeks of freedom to post it here. That window in time has been closed.

Kev

mark pierson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mark pierson said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevl said...

Mark when I say there will be no debating something I mean it. Your view has been exposed elsewhere. I have zero interest in having those reading endure it again.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You wrote, "...Mark's extra-biblical definitions for the words "Repentance" and "Faith."

The "extra-biblical" views that Mark (and many LS people like like him) has come to believe often drift into anti-biblical views.

You can really see just how seared in conscience he has become in these attempts to bolster the corrupt theology of Lordship Salvation's works-based message.

A real shame.


Lou

mark pierson said...

I guess the real shame is that two folk who have great zeal to see souls come to Christ are themselves blinded by a theological system, a system that should never have come about in the first place. Artificial divisions into the Word, along with artificial dichotomies, rule the day in that system. It is a system that revolves around the notion of "carnal Christians" and the idea that a person can be a believer without being a disciple. Now THESE are what is anti-biblical.

Kevl said...

Mark,

If I were you I would consider if I truly was "submitted to the Lordship of Christ" and if you have truly taken that unwavering yoke upon yourself. Compare your behavior to that of the Lord's and see if you truly are a slave to His righteous nature or not.

That's just a suggestion... I suspect that if you TRULY do this without bias and limit that it will throw you into an upheaval - but I am completely CONFIDENT that it would lead you to a more orderly Christian walk.


As for your last comment, when you demonstrate that you are not "falling short of the Glory of God" every single day then I'll believe that you are not "continuing in sin" and that you are not a "carnal christian." Until you show me that you are prefect like the Holy Father is perfect IN PRACTICE, THOUGHT, WORD, and INTENT then and only then will I take your claims more seriously.

As for now I'm tired of your banter and foolish proding.

I'm not calling you a "fool" Mark, but I see a great deal of "foolishness" in you. It ought not be so, and it need not be so.

Kev