Forthright Talk on the “Non-Lordship” Message

Those who teach and preach a message of easy-believism, cheap grace, non-Lordship salvation, hyper grace, so called free grace, once saved always saved/eternal security (without including the perseverance of the saints as being necessary), preach a false gospel. I've been looking into this subject as of late and have been deeply grieved by how much this false gospel has influenced so many evangelical churches for the past century and continues to do so today.

Basically this false teaching says that one can believe in Christ as Savior without submitting to Him as Lord. It’s a view which says that one does not need to renounce and turn from one's wicked ways (repent) in order to be saved; that one only needs to give mental assent to (or believe the facts about) Jesus as Savior. This view says that one can be a saved born again Christian without being a disciple (follower) of Jesus Christ.

One of the arguments that proponents of this teaching commonly use is in reference to the fact that the Gospel of John does not contain the actual word "repent". But it's a faulty argument because John's Gospel contains the truth of repentance all throughout despite not containing the actual words "repent" or "repentance". Besides, repentance is clearly taught throughout the whole Bible as being necessary for salvation. A myriad of scriptures can be sited in this regard.

I learned that Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) has been one of the main hubs if not thee main hub of this teaching, which explains why many ministers who have promoted this teaching have been graduates from there. This seminary was founded in 1924 and the founder (Lewis Sperry Chafer) believed and taught this false teaching. It's easy to prove this from his writings which are readily available online.

I learned that in the 1980s there was a big controversy over this issue among well-known ministers. On one side you had men like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul denouncing easy-believism and defending the truth of the Lordship of Christ in the life of all true believers, and on the other side you had men like John Walvoord, Zane C. Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and Joseph Dillow (all four associated with DTS) denouncing the Lordship view and defending easy-believism.

In 1986 an organization called Grace Evangelical Society was founded by DTS graduate Robert N. Wilkin. The purpose of this organization is to promote easy-believism and denounce the truth of the Lordship of Christ in the life of all believers.

I was checking out a debate recently between Robert N. Wilkin and Reformed apologist James White on this issue and was shocked at how Wilkin twisted so many clear passages of Scripture. One clear example is in reference to 1Cor.6.9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 where Paul the apostle says clearly that those who practice sin will not inherit God’s kingdom. Wilkin says that inheriting the kingdom there means receiving a special reward, that not inheriting the kingdom has nothing to do with perishing in hell. Another example is in reference to James 2:17-20 which declares that a dead kind of "faith" cannot save. Wilkin says that James is speaking only of a weak faith and that that passage has nothing at all to do with salvation. He even says that one can become an atheist and still be saved. Those are just a few clear examples of many scriptures that are twisted.

In recent times, one of the most well-known and respected ministers who has promoted easy-believism is Charles Stanley. I know that many solid believers endorse him. I used to like hearing his preaching on the radio and TV a lot. I believe he teaches sound doctrine in many areas. But I feel I must be honest and tell it like it is when it comes to the cheap grace, easy-believism message which he preaches. I’ve heard that message from him on several occasions as I've listened to him. I know at least one person who has been spiritually damaged and deceived through hearing him teach that heresy.

To serve as examples, here are some quotes which I believe are causes for serious concern from Dr. Stanley’s book titled Eternal Security:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand."(p.74)
"believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful”(p. 94)
"Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy”(p. 93)
"there are Christians who show no evidence of their Christianity"(p. 71)
"Where is this place represented by the 'outer darkness' in Jesus' parables? To be in the 'outer darkness' is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority. The 'outer darkness' represents not so much an actual place as it does a sphere of influence and privilege".(p.126)

And here are quotes from Dr. Stanley’s book Handbook for Christian Living:

"You and I are not saved because we have enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our Lord"(p. 190).
"Discipleship has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven or not"(p. 505).

In Charismatic circles Joseph Prince has been leading the way these days with this easy-believism false gospel. I have not taken the time to compile any of his heretical teachings; I’ve only heard them and read them. As one clear example, I'll share the link to this video in which Prince clearly denies that repentance (turning from sin) is necessary for salvation:

http://www.christian-faith.com/joseph-prince-says-turning-from-sin-not-necessary-for-justification-or-forgiveness/

In that video Prince first denies that repentance is necessary, and then admits that it is necessary but tries to redefine repentance as only a change of mind about trusting in one's good deeds. He completely rejects the truth that repentance involves renouncing and forsaking one's wicked ways. And he mentions the terms "easy-believism" and "cheap grace" because he knows that many have called him out for teaching that heresy.

If you’re confused on this issue of easy-believism vs the Lordship of Christ in the life of true believers I’d highly recommend this well-written article:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html

A.W. Tozer also dealt with this issue in his day long before the Easy-believism vs Lordship controversy of the 80s. Tozer too called easy-believism a heresy. I came across this compilation of Tozer's sermons dealing with that issue:

http://cciog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-Call-it-a-Heresy-A.W.-Tozer.pdf

Some have linked the practice of altar calls and the "Sinner's Prayer" method with the cheap grace message. I can see the logic behind that but I would not say that they are one and the same thing. I’ll try to explain. Many of those who use the altar call and sinner’s prayer methods do not actually preach easy-believism per se but do in fact include the preaching of repentance from sin along with the preaching of faith in Christ in their gospel messages. And they preach that one must bear good fruit as evidence of true conversion or salvation just like the Word of God teaches. Yet their methodology betrays their theology, and they do in fact cheapen the gospel message by their methods; because they make the gospel and salvation look like a simple formula of repeating words, regardless of whether or not those words come from a broken and contrite spirit-Psalm 51:17. Since they are so quick to pronounce people saved without waiting to see any actual fruit, they show that they have a very shallow view of the new birth.

I know that we see examples in Scripture of people being saved on the spot and being welcomed into the church immediately, such as in Acts 2:41 where we’re told that about 3,000 souls were saved and added to the church right after hearing Peter’s sermon. But I want to point out a couple of things from that scriptural example to explain why I believe it differs widely from what we see today with the sinner’s prayer method. Here’s the passage:

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

So first of all, it was Peter’s hearers who took the initiative in expressing their desire to be saved after hearing Peter’s sermon and being convicted of their sins against God. We see this same type of thing with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35-38, and in many other examples in Scripture. By contrast, in much of modern evangelism we see the exact opposite; it is the evangelist or worker who tries to get the people to repeat a prayer before the people even express a desire to be saved. And notice what Peter’s answer was in response to their inquiry. Peter told them to repent and be baptized. That’s not to say that baptism is taught as being necessary for salvation because it isn't. It’s sort of like saying, "Repent and bear fruit in keeping with repentance; one such fruit being obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus’ name.” My main point here is that Peter told them to repent on their own and be baptized which is way different than telling people to repeat a sinner’s prayer. There’s more that can be said about that passage but I don’t want to make this post too long (It’s already quite long lol).

So it’s a bit tough for me to say which is worse between actually preaching the easy-believism message blatantly on the one hand, and using the sinner’s prayer method on the other. I lean toward the former being worse but I do not leave the latter off the hook in the least.

"Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' but won't do what I tell you?"

Good post as usual, Oracio!

In another thread there is a vision/prophecy by a Norwegian woman from 1968. Looks like the Easy Believe message was forecast back then as well. For some reason, entertainment is more popular than repentance...?

Who gives these modern pastor-priests the authority to devise a formula by which a person becomes a Christian, and then with a wave of the two-finger magic sweep they pronounce the supplicants saved and heaven bound?

Certainly not the New Testament apostles. As in your example of Peter's sermon, with a repentant turning to Christ the crowd was told that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, not a glossy brochure and a pledge card. They were to receive something by which they would know that they were indeed recipients of salvation, a spiritual reality that would transform everything about their lives.

Paul mentions it casually in Ephesians 1, how believers have an inner witness from the Holy Spirit that they are children of God. God alone reserves the right to declare that a person is a Christian! Shame on any church leader who subverts that and makes a pronouncement on unsuspecting inquirers who truly want to be saved! They will take that false assurance and quit their pursuit of God right there- short of the finish line!

Indeed, no one is a Christian until God tells them that they are His child! As Tozer used to bellow from his pulpit- "Do you accept Christ? Wrong question! Does Christ accept you?!"

The world is aflood with people who have accepted Christ without the foggiest notion of what that means. Nothing in their day to day life reveals that, they can't answer a simple question about it, will often say "Well, I hope I'm saved."

Easy believe is the current model for the vacuous Christianity that fills churches all across America and probably most of the western world. It will prove powerless against Satanic forces, will not recognize true evil, will not lay down in sacrifice for truth, will accept moral perversion in the deceptive names of fairness and tolerance, and eventually turn with their sweet Satanic friends against people of genuine faith.

Every man is either a disciple of Jesus Christ or a mission field.

Amen brother. Your description of them as "pastor-priests” is spot on. Indeed, the only difference between them and Catholic priests is that Catholic priests pronounce people forgiven by means of the people confessing their sins to them and saying some Hail Marys and doing some type of penance, while many evangelical pastors pronounce people forgiven and saved by means of the people coming forward during an altar call and repeating a "sinner’s prayer”, or sometimes even just by the raising of hands while remaining seated in the pews. It’s pure superstition. No wonder we've been in such a mess within Evangelical Protestantism. Many have been practicing these superstitious methods on the one hand, and many have been preaching a watered down false gospel on the other, and many have been doing both. Indeed, we desperately need a true revival.

This is a very relevant issue to me at this time. We have just come back from the morning service at the independant baptist church we attend on Sundays (we are not members) and are shocked and grieved at tbe preachibg we just sat through. We are well aware of their doctrinal belief in OSAS, but the full time Pastor does not promote easy believism, in that he would preach the neccesity of repentance and accompanying fruit to faith. However they have a interim pastor (from the USA) for a few months as the full time pastor (English) is on a trip to get extra support in the USA.

So this morning this interim pastor preached on OSAS in the most outlandish way I think I have ever heard in person. He gave examples of people who lived extreemly sinful lives with no evidence of any interest in Christ or His church and that you would consider to be unbelievers and unsaved. He then told us that he discovered that they had 'believed' and made some confession of faith many years before and therefore on that basis declared that they were saved people and would inherit eternal life, that God saw them as perfect and they would come into all the blessings of God's kingdom. The way he dishonestly used the scriptures is what really upset me. He basically butchered them! Cut and past, quoting part of verses (like first half of Romans 8:1, but not the rest) and quoting some verses in a chapter and ignoring the ones that give clarity on the importance of fruit or continuing faith like in 1 John, which is one of the clearest letters that explains what a real christian looks like. However he managed to quote two verses in 1 John 2 to try and support his view while ignoring all the rest.

Unfortunately there are many in that church that will lap this up, as they are already deluded by this false gospel. The funny (not) thing about this is that they think they are one of the few churches in the local area that is a solid bible church! They claim to hold a high postion of bible only (KJV only really). However the cut up the sciptures to suit their doctrines. They mistakenly believe that "rightly dividing the word" means you can slice it up into pieces and get a true understanding. To 'rightly divide' means to handle in an honest way and this was anything but honest this morning.

Only this morning I was praying with my wife before we went that God would revive His church (the church worldwide that is). God have mercy on us!

There seems to be a big misunderstanding on what it means to 'believe' and an ignorance that 'believing' is in the continuous present tense, not a one time act in the past. The other huge thing they miss is that salvation is in Christ, not something we can have separately from Him.

"He who has the Son (Christ) has (eternal) life, he who does not have the Son of God does not have life".

As a hyper grace believer I find your post misinformed and a false representation of the gospel.

I was checking out this Wikipedia article dealing with the traditional view of the Perseverance of the Saints and felt led to share a portion of it here. This is the main statement that stood out and the reason I decided to share that specific portion here:

"Both traditional Calvinism and traditional Arminianism have rejected Free Grace theology.”

As I pointed out in the OP, the so-called Free Grace doctrine has been promoted by well-known ministers and theologians and has been influencing and creeping into multitudes of evangelical churches for many decades to one degree or another. Unfortunately, there has been much confusion and much tolerance for this doctrine. The confusion has to do with the fact that both the Calvinistic position of the Perseverance of the Saints and the so-called Free Grace doctrine have been called or referred to as "Eternal Security" and "Once Saved Always Saved". But they are in fact two different views, the former being within historic, Christian orthodoxy and the latter being outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy and being in fact heretical. Indeed, I firmly believe that both Calvinists and Arminians (and Christians who consider themselves to be neither) should completely reject this so-called Free Grace doctrine and have no tolerance for it because it is very deceptive, dangerous, and damning.

From the Wikipedia article:

"Free Grace doctrine
The Free Grace or non-traditional Calvinist doctrine has been espoused by Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, Zane C. Hodges, Bill Bright, and others. This view, like the traditional Calvinist view, emphasizes that people are saved purely by an act of divine grace that does not depend at all on the deeds of the individual, and for that reason, advocates insist that nothing the person can do can affect his or her salvation.

The Free Grace doctrine views the person's character and life after receiving the gift of salvation as independent from the gift itself, which is the main point of differentiation from the traditional Calvinist view, or, in other words, it asserts that justification (that is, being declared righteous before God on account of Christ) does not necessarily result in sanctification (that is, a progressively more righteous life).

Charles Stanley, pastor of Atlanta's megachurch First Baptist and a television evangelist, has written that the doctrine of eternal security of the believer persuaded him years ago to leave his familial Pentecostalism and become a Southern Baptist. He sums up his deep conviction that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone when he claims, "Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy… believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation."[6] For example, Stanley writes:

"Look at that verse [John 3:18] and answer this question: According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual "believe in" Him.””” Charles Stanley[6] (p. 67).

In a chapter entitled "For Those Who Stop Believing", he says, "The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand (p. 74)." A little later, Stanley also writes: "You and I are not saved because we have an enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our enduring Lord" (p. 80).

The doctrine sees the work of salvation as wholly monergistic, which is to say that God alone performs it and man has no part in the process beyond receiving it, and therefore, proponents argue that man cannot undo what they believe God has done. By comparison, in traditional Calvinism, people, who are otherwise unable to follow God, are enabled by regeneration to cooperate with him, and so the Reformed tradition sees itself as mediating between the total monergism of the non-traditional Calvinist view and the synergism of the Wesleyan, Arminian, and Roman Catholic views in which even unregenerate man can choose to cooperate with God in salvation.

The traditional Calvinist doctrine teaches that a person is secure in salvation because he or she was predestined by God, whereas in the Free Grace or non-traditional Calvinist views, a person is secure because at some point in time he or she has believed the Gospel message (Dave Hunt, What Love is This, p. 481).

Evangelical criticism

Both traditional Calvinism and traditional Arminianism have rejected Free Grace theology.[7] The former believes Free Grace to be a distorted form of Calvinism which maintains the permanency of salvation (or properly speaking, justification) while radically divorcing the ongoing work of sanctification from that justification. Reformed theology has uniformly asserted that "no man is a Christian who does not feel some special love for righteousness" (Institutes),[8] and therefore sees Free Grace theology, which allows for the concept of a "carnal Christian" or even an "unbelieving Christian", as a form of radical antinomianism. Arminianism, which has always believed true believers can give themselves completely over to sin, has also rejected the Free Grace view for the opposite reason of Calvinism: namely, that the view denies the classical Arminian doctrine that true Christians can lose their salvation by denouncing their faith (see conditional preservation of the saints). Free Grace theology struggles to maintain a middle ground, hoping to grasp the permancy of salvation (Calvinism) with one hand, while maintaining a true believer can still give up faith and choose to live a life of sin and unbelief (Arminianism). Both Calvinists and Arminians appeal to Biblical passages such as 1 Cor. 15:2 ("By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain"), Hebrews 3:14 ("We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first"), James 2:21-22 ("faith without works is dead"), and 2 Tim. 2:12 ("If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us").”

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints…

Zeke, what do you think was false representation, the OP or my experience this morning.? While I accept there are various ways that OSAS people see this, my experience this morning and at other times shows the OP description is true in many cases.

I do also have issues with the reforrmed 'perseverance' position as this creates other problems. I believe we are eternally secure in Christ, but only as we remain in Christ by faith. He only is our security!

Jesus "breaks off" those who do not produce fruit and prunes those who do.

Zeke, what do you think "breaking off" means?

If a person is not producing fruit they are not attached to the vine, I.e. they are not saved. Eternal life is only found in the vine so if a person is broken off the vine there is no life in them.

That is what Jesus says on the matter.

So this morning this interim pastor preached on OSAS in the most outlandish way I think I have ever heard in person. He gave examples of people who lived extreemly sinful lives with no evidence of any interest in Christ or His church and that you would consider to be unbelievers and unsaved. He then told us that he discovered that they had 'believed' and made some confession of faith many years before and therefore on that basis declared that they were saved people and would inherit eternal life, that God saw them as perfect and they would come into all the blessings of God's kingdom. The way he dishonestly used the scriptures is what really upset me. He basically butchered them! Cut and past, quoting part of verses (like first half of Romans 8:1, but not the rest) and quoting some verses in a chapter and ignoring the ones that give clarity on the importance of fruit or continuing faith like in 1 John, which is one of the clearest letters that explains what a real christian looks like. However he managed to quote two verses in 1 John 2 to try and support his view while ignoring all the rest.

I didn't want to possibly start a Cal vs Arm debate with my last post. I shared all that because I think it's important to understand those differences because like I said there's been much misunderstanding due to this "Free Grace" heresy.

The traditional reformed view of perseverance says that a true believer may have occasional moral lapses. But as in the cases of David, Peter(even after Pentecost), and others, they will eventually repent and get back on track if they are true believers; that they will not continue in unrepentant sin without conviction and true repentance. The false Free Grace view says that conviction and repentance of sin may not necessarily be involved in the lives of true believers.

So again to recap, the traditional reformed view says that repentance, fruit and perseverance in the faith are necessarily involved in true salvation. That's something both Calvinists and Arminians can agree on and unite on. And that's why they both point to the same scriptures which support the need for persevering in the faith to the end.

My hope is that both Calvinists and Arminians (and Christians who claim neither side) will unite in exposing this false gospel that has been deceiving and damning multitudes of souls for many decades.

What is a carnal christian and how do they fit into the lordship message?

Edit: to add 'how do they fit into the lordship message'

Excellent post, Brother Oracio. This has been a matter of concern for me as I also attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. The pastor is much more lenient than most IFB pastors about his free grace theology, sounding almost more of a believer in the perseverance of the saints, but claims to renounce Lordship salvation all the same. I, however, do not understand how anyone can possibly reject the doctrine of Lordship salvation. It is so clearly laid out in the Scriptures, especially 1 John. I do believe in the perseverance of the saints, but it is only in their persevering that they do show themselves to be born again. It is as Paul said, how can we who have died to sin live any longer in it (Rom. 6:2)?

The church of Jesus Christ needs both revival (of things lost from the "good old days") but also advancement into vitality never seen previously. All ethnic nations must yet be taught and disciples made to an extent not yet seen.

Saving faith must reside in the heart (Romans 10:9-10) and anything less than whole-hearted devotion to the cause of Christ may leave the heart devoid of faith regardless of the level of intellectual assent.

Earthly kingdoms have policies and laws and standards and those who transgress against them can expect adverse consequences. God's kingdom will also have standards. Those who receive pardon from the King should submit themselves to the standards of the Kingdom and not rebel. Pardons for those who continue in rebellion could easily be revoked.

God's kingdom is a supernatural kingdom and its citizens must experience the new birth brought about by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be expected to force its ways upon an unrepentant life not dedicated to holiness and righteousness.

Prayer: May God's Kingdom come and God's will be done on earth as is in heaven.

Those who have formerly been in rebellion to the Will of God need to repent and develop conformity to the Will of God as evidence of genuine, saving belief.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. [1Jo 3:7 NKJV]

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. 8 For you were once darkness, but now [you are] light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. [Eph 5:6-8 NKJV] "Walk in newness of life.”

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. [1Co 6:9-11 NKJV]

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. [Gal 6:7-8 NKJV]

Each passage begins with "do not be deceived" and "let no one deceive you" - because many will try! Cheap grace, imputed righteousness, justification without regeneration are the earmarks of Big Church theology. I say "Big Church" because no movement ever got big, prosperous, popular and respectable by preaching the real gospel.

Colin asked: "What is a carnal christian and how do they fit into the lordship message?"

I would say that to be 'carnal' or walking in the flesh (carnal = flesh) is not necessarily the same as wilful rebellious sin that does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ. It is possible to have a heart that is submitted to Christ as Lord, but walk in the flesh at times in some areas of our lives, e.g. as outlined in Galatians 5. Also those mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 who he called carnal because of divisions / party spirit. Interestingly it is quite common for those in the IFB camp to consider all other denominations as wrong or inferior to themselves, thus making them 'carnal' or in the flesh.

I agree with Heydave’s last post.

The "Carnal Christian” doctrine is another term used to describe this easy-believism, cheap grace, non-Lordship message. It is based on what I’d contend to be a misinterpretation and misapplication of 1Cor.3:1-4. Here’s the passage:

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?”

"Free Gracers” say that that passage teaches clearly that one can be "carnal” and still saved, and by "carnal” they mean indulging in any type of sinful or fleshly behavior. I admit that Paul is not questioning the salvation of the Corinthians in that passage despite calling them "carnal”. But Paul is not saying that one can practice all types of sins and still be saved. That would contradict passages like 1Cor.6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 which declare that one cannot practice sin and inherit God’s kingdom. And it would contradict 1Cor.5 where the Lord, through Paul, commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate a man who was living in adultery with his father’s wife. That teaching also contradicts many other clear passages of Scripture which warn of false conversions and of not inheriting God’s kingdom due to sinful rebellion against God.

So what is Paul saying there in 1Cor.3? He is simply saying that by reason of them being sectarian or factious toward one another, the Corinthian believers were behaving in a carnal or fleshly manner. Paul was rebuking them for behaving that way toward one another. But that’s way different than him saying, "You can be a fornicator, murderer, thief, drunkard, etc. and still be saved as a "Carnal Christian.”

This is the thing. Whenever we as Christians commit any sins, whether sins of omission or commission in thought, word or deed, at that very moment we are behaving carnally or fleshly. Any sin is carnal or fleshly. And simply because we may fall into certain types of sinful behavior at any given moment it doesn’t mean we automatically lose our salvation. For example, let’s suppose we have a weak moment and are tempted and are caught in the sin of lust, maybe by looking at a billboard or something. Would that mean we lost our salvation and need to be born again, again? I don’t think so. But falling into those types of sins occasionally as believers is much different that running headlong into all types of sins, unchecked and unrepentant. If we are true believers we will experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit and will be repentant and desire to live a holy life pleasing to the Lord.

For an in-depth study on this issue of the Carnal Christian doctrine I’d recommend this sermon article by Al Martin:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/carnal-christian-by-albert-n-martin/

To me the disagreement comes down to a lack of understanding of the difference and likeness of Salvation and Regeneration.

The latter part of Isaiah 43:13 says "when God acts, who can reverse it?"

Do we all agree that someone being born again is a work of God where He raises someone up from being dead spiritually and being alive in Christ?

So, some of you are saying that we as humans have more power than God to reverse that experience?

That we can one day wake up and say " I don't really feel like being a new creation today, I think I am going to go back to being dead." does that work?

I believe the problem is that we have combined salvation and regeneration into one big plate. You never read of Paul saying "to those of us being born again", but he does say "to those of us that are being SAVED" 1 Cor 1:18 .

If you are claiming that you have been born again and are not producing fruit, or have never produced fruit, then yes I would say you probably need to go check yourself. I do not agree with this cheap grace non sense of being born again and looking no different than you were before. That's non sense. You've been given a new heart with new desires etc.

But I know people right now that have been truly born again that are resisting God's salvation process in their life.

Salvation: Saved, Healed, Delivered, Rescued etc.

If you have been truly born again then yes you have Been Saved from the wrath of God and punishment of hell. But it doesn't mean that you are being saved right now does it? Maybe you have let an idol of t.v. to come into your life and has led you to start having lustful, worldly thoughts. Don't you think you need to be Saved from that? How do you obtain that salvation? Through repentance.

Regeneration is an experience, salvation is a process.

the word Saved has become this majestic word in most churches to where people walk around claiming "I have been saved!"

Hallelujah! That's awesome! How about today though? Is God saving you today from this world and from satan?

So I agree with the premise of OSAS, but only based upon God's work and His word. Not because you prayed some prayer.

Carnal christians that have fleshly desires and sins they have to fight and sometimes they fall prey to? Yes I agree with that translation. But I do not think he is talking about a continuosly sinful chrisitan when he speaks of those Corinthians being carnal.
I do not read Paul speaking anywhere of worldly christians, or dead christians. Just ones that have yet to crucify all of their carnality.

back-to-acts, I agree with all of what you said in essence. The only thing I'd point out is that your use of the word "salvation" there is also known and taught in the Word as the process of "sanctification". It's been said that WE WERE saved, ARE BEING saved, and WILL BE saved when we get to glory.

Yes I agree with that. But there is also is a distinction in the words as well. But I wouldn't argue the point. I believe we are being sanctified ( being set apart) by being constantlty saved ( healed, rescued, delivered) from the world, flesh and the devil, through God's pattern of repentance, obedience, self denial etc.

But back to the point of this thread.

If you agree with what I said in essence, then do you believe that someone who has been genuinely born again can become un-saved? Which is the opposite of OSAS.

Another issue I see is ministers are trying to make converts instead of disciples. If we were truly focused on making disciples ( which could take a lot of time) then this debate would almost be non existent. Christ gave us a command to make disciples, not converts who will do everything that He commands of them. Which points out directly "lordship salvation" in my opinion. Unless we fall into the teaching that I believe is false, that you can be a christian and not be a disciple. Don't see that in scripture.

Travis wrote: "Do we all agree that someone being born again is a work of God where He raises someone up from being dead spiritually and being alive in Christ?

So, some of you are saying that we as humans have more power than God to reverse that experience?

That we can one day wake up and say " I don't really feel like being a new creation today, I think I am going to go back to being dead." does that work?"
____________________________________________________________

The problem with this is it is using human reasoning to say we cannot forfeit eternal life once we have it. I have heard similar things like, "Your children don't stop being your children even if they disown you." Again using human reasoning to establish a doctrine. It's not a good comparison, because you could say that every human is in a way a child of God, in that God created them, but only those who choose to submit to His authority will have the rights and privilege of sons. If they afterward walk away from Him, then they loose that privilege. You see anyone can use the same examples to argue either way! we have to look at what scripture teaches in it's full revelation and not isolated text taken out to make a point.

We talk as if at regeneration something physical happens and equate that to not being able to be undone like a physical birth, but in fact our regeneration is spiritual and is based on us being joined to Christ. We also talk as if we have this eternal life independently from Christ, but apart from Him, we don't have any spiritual life. So if it is possible to separate from Christ, then it is possible to loose that spiritual life. The bible has too many warnings about continuing in faith and not turning back and the consequences of turning away to ignore the possibility of loosing the life we once had.

Just one example I'll give (there are many others) is Hebrews 10:26-27 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

Why is there no sacrifice for sins for those who sin wilfully? Because they reject the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore His sacrifice for their sins. That leaves them to face the consequence for their sins and the judgement will be 'guilty' and the punishment that follows. In the context of the surrounding text and in fact the whole book, I believe this is talking to true believers.

I know there are different views on OSAS and eternal security and I have respect for those who take a slightly different position that say that perseverance is necessary, but also guaranteed for true believers. I guess that is the only point of disagreement I have with Oracio, as I agree that perseverance is necessary, but not guaranteed. The typical OSAS view that Oracio put forward is a lot different to eternal security/perseverance position of the reformed people. It is this OSAS position that is dangerous and unbiblical.

I agree with the following you wrote.
"Another issue I see is ministers are trying to make converts instead of disciples. If we were truly focused on making disciples ( which could take a lot of time) then this debate would almost be non existent. Christ gave us a command to make disciples, not converts who will do everything that He commands of them. Which points out directly "lordship salvation" in my opinion. Unless we fall into the teaching that I believe is false, that you can be a christian and not be a disciple. Don't see that in scripture."