Does 2 Peter 2's warning of false teachers describe Witness Lee?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus said if you do not forgive someone from your heart, the Father cannot forgive you. According to Lordship Salvationists if you die with unforgiveness, you do not receive forgiveness from God.

Then Lordship Salvationists believe in a salvation that can be lost. It is never certain until you die on the right side of the ledger. The life of any "believer" can be on and off again throughout their life. Just because death does not occur we don't have to take the status into account. But under that understanding, I have no assurance of my salvation. If something is done to me and I for a short period withhold forgiveness, but a meteor falls on me, I have passed from life to death (not talking about the meteor) due to becoming temporarily unforgiving but having insufficient time to return back to life.

I cannot accept that kind of constant taking of the temperature. (Not because I just don't like it, but because it runs contrary to what I see in scripture as a whole.) That does not mean that I 100 percent reject the very idea that a long and protracted rejection of God is not evidence that what was formerly thought to be faith was, in fact, just show. But even in that case, I am hesitant to declare that it means "no longer in the Father's hand" which would suggest that they actually were in His hand, but are no longer.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then Lordship Salvationists believe in a salvation that can be lost. It is never certain until you die on the right side of the ledger. The life of any "believer" can be on and off again throughout their life. Just because death does not occur we don't have to take the status into account. But under that understanding, I have no assurance of my salvation. If something is done to me and I for a short period withhold forgiveness, but a meteor falls on me, I have passed from life to death (not talking about the meteor) due to becoming temporarily unforgiving but having insufficient time to return back to life.

It depends if you're talking to folks from Reformed tradition or outside it. Reformed folks are Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists. There is Reformed Lordship Salvation and an Armininian version one also.

I cannot accept that kind of constant taking of the temperature. (Not because I just don't like it, but because it runs contrary to what I see in scripture as a whole.) That does not mean that I 100 percent reject the very idea that a long and protracted rejection of God is not evidence that what was formerly thought to be faith was, in fact, just show. But even in that case, I am hesitant to declare that it means "no longer in the Father's hand" which would suggest that they actually were in His hand, but are no longer.

Jesus told us to judge people by their actions because it gives an indicator of the condition of their heart. In the same way James said works was an indicator of the condition of our faith.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus told us to judge people by their actions because it gives an indicator of the condition of their heart. In the same way James said works was an indicator of the condition of our faith.

And as much as I give those the thumbs up, it is still not our place to be so certain as to how the only one who sees everything is looking at it.

I like any kind of theology that encourages active righteousness and obedience, along with a profession of belief/faith. But we must always be careful how we use snippets to define-away some people from the faith. Probably better to just suggest that there are hints that everything might not be as the cheap-grace people like to believe. Show that there is more to it than mere salvation (as in "initial salvation") and that what we do with what we are given does affect things to come. We just are not clear how that is because it is mostly found in metaphor (And just what is a meta for?)

It is the determination that a lot of verses that indicate significant spiritual and righteous activity is required means something about ultimate salvation when salvation is used in more ways than just "getting saved." And what is it saying when it says "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"? We can say that it is initial salvation. (I think that is clearly included there.) We can say that it is ongoing salvation. (That could be asserted, and I would not stand against it, but might suggest caution in such a certainty that it becomes dogma.) It could mean "saved from this perverse generation" or "from the world." And those could be implied within either or both of the previous verses.

But none of them speaks of a fact of losing it all if your active faith ceases. And that might be the real kicker in this whole conversation. Even for many who seem to really turn away, it may not be that they simply do not believe any more, or have no faith. It may be that they simply are captured by other things that have taken first place.

And one thought that has gone through my head on these kinds of issues that i have never spoken out loud to anyone (and don't even know what I really think about it other than it is something to consider) is as follows. Are there certain verses that are aimed at those who would be the active followers — the leaders, evangelists, etc. — that may still apply to everyone, but not in the same way? I'm pretty sure that those verses in 1 Corinthians 3 about wood, gold and being saved through fire are not aimed at the average local believer, but at those who would be their teachers. Someone already pointed out that the directive to "go and sell all" was aimed at someone who wanted to follow Jesus (as in be a rabbi trainee), not at the crowd that came to hear, to be healed, etc., and went back to their homes believing. I have pointed out several times that the so-called Great Commission was not given to all of those who were following after the resurrection. Jesus took the 11 aside and told them to go. He didn't tell the others to go. Does that take us entirely off the hook? Probably not. But it was not given as a general directive for door-to-door evangelism by the entire membership of the Church. It was a mandate to those that Jesus trained.

And someone is going to say "well, we all can be trained now." But is that what we all are called to? Or is it an important task in the kingdom that is primarily given to those who get specific training? Is it maybe quite good that churches ordain those that they determine to be fit to go out and lead the flock, whether there or somewhere else? Just might be.

Did I answer your question? Probably not. But did the question get questioned? Maybe so.