Believers in Hell?

Springboard into the Gospel Message to the unbeliever and
Evangelism to your Copernican believing brethren who love the Lord
DaveyT
Site Admin
Posts: 53
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 5:36 pm

Believers in Hell?

Post by DaveyT » August 17th, 2018, 10:49 pm

What I've written below came to me while considering something Emmanuel Lokonga was saying in answer to Robbie Davidson's question of his journey to this FE understanding and how it has affected his relationship with God? Clicking play on the video below will take you right to that question:
His answer made me think about the implications of man's knowledge of the fact that God's throne sits just over our heads, on top of the dome.
Did Nimrod know this? Yes, I believe that is why he endeavored to build the tower. To reach God's throne and overthrow it and Him. Do the elite today know this as well? Yes, I believe they do...


It’s not about believing in Him, it’s all about believing and submitting to Him.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19

Those who love His appearing.
“For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.” 2 Timothy 4:6-8

Many believe in Him, but refuse to submit to him.
The elite believe in Him but are stubbornly defiant in hating Him. They anticipate His return, angrily readying themselves to make war with Him.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: The Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalm 2

They are scared to death that we will find out just how close He is to us.
He sits enthroned right above us, on top of the dome.


Yes, I believe in 'Lordship Salvation' because it is the reality of where the 'rubber meets the road'. This argument says without a doubt that only those who put themselves under His Lordship are those who are saved.

"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." 1 John 3:3

"And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 1:11-14

The wedding garment is evidence that the guest was submitted to his Lord in purifying himself. That man, (without the wedding garment) was a believer or he would not have been a guest. He was called, but not chosen, as the Scripture says.

FearNaught
Posts: 25
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 6:27 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by FearNaught » August 18th, 2018, 10:56 am

How do you define "Lordship Salvation"?
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.

DaveyT
Site Admin
Posts: 53
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 5:36 pm

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by DaveyT » August 18th, 2018, 12:19 pm

The phrase is considerably new (less than 40 years) and originated by those opposed to the idea or principle.
I'm not sure where you stand on the issue, but if you oppose the idea of "Lordship Salvation" then maybe it would be better defined by you, as someone from that side of the controversy who created the phrase. If you believe in "Lordship Salvation", then we will likely agree on the principle and it's application.

What are your thoughts?

FearNaught
Posts: 25
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 6:27 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by FearNaught » August 18th, 2018, 12:24 pm

I'm not sure who coined the phrase, nor do I identify with a "side" other than scripture. I was asking what you mean by it, because too often Christians talk past each other over different definitions of terms, accusing the other side of failing to understand what they disagree with.

I did a video recently called simply OSAS which, like many others, goes over the basics of salvation. You can also see my document http://www.fether.net/index.php?ID=545 . The point of contention with others I've encountered supporting "Lordship Salvation" is that it has, in my experience, taught that faith alone cannot save. That's why I first asked for your definition, rather than you asking for mine.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.

DaveyT
Site Admin
Posts: 53
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 5:36 pm

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by DaveyT » August 18th, 2018, 1:00 pm

FearNaught wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 12:24 pm
too often Christians talk past each other over different definitions of terms, accusing the other side of failing to understand what they disagree with.
That is so true. It seems like Christians are aching for a fight with each other on any number of issues and as it ends up, they principally agree with each other.

Regarding OSAS, I just don't see a solid argument on either side. What I actually mean is, both sides can come up with seemingly solid arguments. I'm having to admit that I just don't know. I don't know much except that its more about how you finish. We run the race to win the prize. Paul said that we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling". That almost seems like he's saying its a process. If you know the story of Solomon, you know that the last fifteen years or so of his life, he defiled the temple with idols and I think it seems pretty clear that he didn't finish well. Does that mean we may not see him in heaven? Again, I have to say, I don't know.

According to my understanding, the opposite of "Lordship Salvation" would be "easy-believism" or "repeat after me and you're in"; That there doesn't need to be any obvious change in a person's life that proves a new heart and passion in life.

Is that how you would define it?

FearNaught
Posts: 25
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 6:27 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by FearNaught » August 18th, 2018, 1:20 pm

DaveyT wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 1:00 pm
That is so true. It seems like Christians are aching for a fight with each other on any number of issues and as it ends up, they principally agree with each other.

Regarding OSAS, I just don't see a solid argument on either side. What I actually mean is, both sides can come up with seemingly solid arguments. I'm having to admit that I just don't know. I don't know much except that its more about how you finish. We run the race to win the prize. Paul said that we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling". That almost seems like he's saying its a process. If you know the story of Solomon, you know that the last fifteen years or so of his life, he defiled the temple with idols and I think it seems pretty clear that he didn't finish well. Does that mean we may not see him in heaven? Again, I have to say, I don't know.

According to my understanding, the opposite of "Lordship Salvation" would be "easy-believism" or "repeat after me and you're in"; That there doesn't need to be any obvious change in a person's life that proves a new heart and passion in life.

Is that how you would define it?
I am of the firm belief that the Body of Christ is absolutely unique. Paul spoke of the mystery delivered to him, one which had never been known before:
Rom. 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith

Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Col. 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
He also called it something entirely new in 2 Cor. 5:17 and Gal. 6:15. In 1 Cor. 10:32 he cited it as a third type of person: "Jews, Greeks, the church of God". Never before were people given the Holy Spirit as "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" (2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5); never before was anyone promised entrance into eternal heaven by the acceptance of a gift (Eph. 2:8-9). This same Paul said that a gift is not a wage (Rom. 4:4-5), and that works are judged separately from salvation (1 Cor. 3:15). All of this is explained at the link I gave.

If we accept Jesus as Savior who made it possible for us to be adopted as God's children, we will live to please Him; after all, we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2). Yet if instead we say Jesus didn't finish the job, that the gift has to be worked for or to be kept, we insult him to his face as a failure. In addition, we make ourselves our own saviors, over and over again, and can then boast in our own strength. It takes humility to admit we can have no part in our salvation, and that it is Jesus' righteousness, not our own, which secures a place for us in heaven forever.

It's as if a woman accepts a ring as a token of marriage, then thinks she has to work to keep it, or on the other hand that it is "cheap" and "easy" because she herself didn't pay for it. But many think in such stark, binary terms that if we humbly accept a gift then we should live like the devil. I cannot fellowship with those who can only be at one extreme or the other.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.

FearNaught
Posts: 25
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 6:27 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by FearNaught » August 18th, 2018, 1:22 pm

PS: I still don't see a clear definition of LS, a term you introduced in the OP and would thus be needing to clearly define.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.

DaveyT
Site Admin
Posts: 53
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 5:36 pm

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by DaveyT » August 18th, 2018, 1:48 pm

If the Wikipedia definition is correct then I don't consider myself as one who opposes the concept:

"
"one website advocating Lordship Salvation, "the doctrine of Lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior. Lordship salvation is the opposite of what is sometimes called easy-believism or the teaching that salvation comes through an acknowledgement of a certain set of facts."[2]Another website critical of it, defines it similarly, however: "As defined by its own advocates, Lordship Salvation could more properly be called "Commitment Salvation," "Surrender Salvation," or "Submission Salvation" since in actuality the debate is not over the Lordship of Christ, but the response of a person to the gospel and the conditions which must be met for salvation."
That is what I believe the Bible teaches. I think James agrees:

Works do not save the individual but works are the evidence that the individual's faith is genuine, the evidence that there is, in-fact "a new creation" in this individual.

What is your opinion of what I said of Solomon?

DaveyT
Site Admin
Posts: 53
Joined: May 2nd, 2018, 5:36 pm

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by DaveyT » August 18th, 2018, 1:57 pm

This topic was not supposed to be exclusively about "Lordship Salvation". I only mentioned that regarding what a believer is, verses a submitted believer.
As Psalm 2 says, the kings and rulers of the earth are believers in the fact that they know who they are up against, they know that Jesus is coming back and that He is the Anointed.

The difference between them and us though is that we are submitted believers. We are defined as having met the conditions for salvation which #1 is to recognize your wicked nature and how you have opposed God and his will all your life and then repent (make a U-turn), turn and submit (surrender) to him. This is Lordship Salvation. If you do not repent and submit, you are not saved.

FearNaught
Posts: 25
Joined: June 25th, 2018, 6:27 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Believers in Hell?

Post by FearNaught » August 18th, 2018, 1:58 pm

DaveyT wrote:
August 18th, 2018, 1:48 pm
If the Wikipedia definition is correct then I don't consider myself as one who opposes the concept:

"
"one website advocating Lordship Salvation, "the doctrine of Lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior. Lordship salvation is the opposite of what is sometimes called easy-believism or the teaching that salvation comes through an acknowledgement of a certain set of facts."[2]Another website critical of it, defines it similarly, however: "As defined by its own advocates, Lordship Salvation could more properly be called "Commitment Salvation," "Surrender Salvation," or "Submission Salvation" since in actuality the debate is not over the Lordship of Christ, but the response of a person to the gospel and the conditions which must be met for salvation."
That is what I believe the Bible teaches. I think James agrees:

Works do not save the individual but works are the evidence that the individual's faith is genuine, the evidence that there is, in-fact "a new creation" in this individual.

What is your opinion of what I said of Solomon?
If "goes hand in hand" means "required IN ORDER TO be saved" and not "required AFTER being saved", then I strongly oppose that definition. Likewise, the Wiki (seriously??) def. of "easy believism" is one I strongly oppose, since it cares nothing for reconciliation and gratitude, the true evidence of a changed heart. What LS fails to specify is exactly what works, how many, and for how long, are required in order to be saved. Neither LS nor EB is what the Bible teaches. And why keep ignoring Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles?

As for Solomon, was he either a Gentile or a Christian? Was he given the HS permanently, as a deposit guaranteeing his inheritance? Did he accept the risen Jesus as Savior--- which is the Christian Gospel, as Paul taught? Another question for LS is why Peter had to tell the people of Israel to be saved, when they already believed in and worshiped the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Something had changed--- something radical, something new, something unforeseen. Jesus did not come to put a nice polish on the doorknobs of the Temple; he came to open the prison doors and set us all free. That cannot be earned, nor can we work to stay free.
Those who know all the answers haven't heard all the questions.

Post Reply