[OBW]

Originally Posted by bearbear

My data for this is simply that most bible scholars come from Lordship Salvation backgrounds and not free grace. Millennial exclusion theology is only found in seminaries that adhere to free grace theology. It really sounds like a case of eisigesis to me.

Now there is as out-of-hand a dismissal as you can find.

You are defining something you call "Lordship Salvation" that is opposed to "free grace salvation" and presume that it is simply two totally diverse and internally unified camps. And your prejudice stands in the capitalization of your title for one group and simply "descriptive" lower case words for the other.

While there may be some general differences in the two general camps, there also are differences within those camps.

And most seriously ignored is the idea that salvation is a word of equivocation. Your Lordship salvation scheme is a view of the combination of what some call salvation and sanctification. Others simply use the term salvation to refer to both aspects of the Christian life (as do certain scriptures). But the only part of salvation that you ever refer to as lacking in the "free grace salvation" camp is what evangelicals often view as the line in the sand when a person first acknowledges Christ and, as is said in at least one place, passes from death to life.

While grace is always in play in our ongoing Christian lives, few take the position that sanctification is simply by grace. But then most don't recognize that grace teaches to obey (Titus?) and is not just "unmerited favor." Grace is not simply some passive activity on the part of man.

And when it comes to eisigesis, much of the same can be said for some of your interpretations. It is arguable that insisting that all references to punishment are permanent and eternal is simply reading into the verses what is wanted to be read.

Like others, you choose which verses you will read and include in your analysis and which you will ignore, or suggest that it must mean something else. For example, take Matt 18:34. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." Do you ignore this verse? Or do you presume that we can never pay all that is owed, therefore the words spoken are irrelevant? It does say until all is repaid. So there is given a sense of something in the punishment that does repay, not just torture. To presume that the punishment has to be forever and is considered repayment sort of flies in the face of the word "until." And even mobsters don't often kill those who owe them because dead people cant repay. It is generally bad for business.

I find that when God wanted to say that he was putting someone into eternal perdition, he tended to be rather straightforward about it. He didn't beat around the bush and hint at a lesser sentence.

And so far I have not seen a comment on Ohio's reference to 1 Corinthians 3. There is some question as to whether this is talking to Christians in general or more specifically to the teachers of Christians, but either way, it says that there will be a fire and that those whose work burns will be saved, yet as through fire. Care to comment directly on that? While the post you linked to does very limited reference to the "yet as by fire" part of the verse, it doesn't really do much more than dismiss it and/or ignore it. The verse very clearly says "be saved, yet as by fire."

I find nothing in the unrelated passages provided to make me think that this was simply some metaphorical way of saying "your stuff just burned, but you are simply OK. . . move on." If it is that simple, then there is not a lot of teeth in the earlier warning to take care what kind of building that is undertaken. If it has no impact on you personally, then why not just do whatever you think is the thing to do and let the fire sort it all out later. It's no skin off your back.

It reminds me of Nee's simple dismissal of home churches when establishing that his church=city rule was true. He couldn't deal with the contradiction to his rule, so he declared that his rule trumped the obvious meaning of the contrary verses and moved on.

And, as Ohio has since pointed out, weeping and gnashing of teeth is not simply relegated to the lake of fire. It appears in other places with other descriptions. Do you therefore presume that the common link of the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" makes the two synonymous?

Mr. Dust Bunnies does not particularly impress me with superior reasoning. More like an ability to quote a lot of verses and then make the conclusion that he wants to make without any real evidence that it is correct. I'm busy here trying to help people get out of a group I call a cult who have been hoodwinked by men who approach scripture in just such a loose way. I don't need to be taking on yet another "I've got the decoder ring" approach to emphasizing some verses over others, or some phrases over others to arrive at the conclusion that is desired. Let's stick to dealing with the screwed-up theology of the LRC. We don't need to combat yet another screwed-up version. We've had several come along over the years. A couple even had their own modern-day messiah to push.

I will be the first to say that I really do not know clearly what it all means. But it is too clear that it is not just heaven and no downside v hell to waste my time fighting yet another kind of group playing selectively with their verses to read and verses to skip, and uncompromising positions on the meaning of words when viable alternatives are available. I am not saying that the meanings may not be as are suggested. But unwillingness to actually engage in the discussion as to how it is that you/they think it is so suggests an unwillingness to come together to reason, and instead a desire to teach and direct with the certainty that it is so without another thought. I've wasted enough time with those kinds of teachers in years past. Not again.

And not with you. Unless you actually address the passages and positions that I and others write about, you will become another Lee. You will be ignored as yet another wannabe MOTA. Or his John the Baptist. "Make way for the MOTA!"

Needless to say, for all the certainty that I may seem to display, it is rather certainty in my uncertainty. I distrust those who are so certain. Who always have a proof text for their position and do not even deal with the possibility that they may not be so certain or sure. I am not as sure as I once was. But I am more comfortable in my faith as a result. I am very sure of my salvation. It is neither simply "free grace" nor "Lordship salvation." Instead, it is believe. And believe means obey because if you don't obey, you really don't believe. Don't need to force any particular meaning out of those various verses we are discussing to arrive at that.