To Be Clear

I, Mark Pierson, hold to doctrinal positions that would earn me the moniker "L/S Calvinist". And though I differ with MacArthur on how he views 2 Corintians 13:5 I do not shy away from that label. In my spiritual and theological journey of the past 36 years my views that one coming to Christ MUST surrender to His Lordship as well as to His salvation in order to be saved have done nothing but to solidify. In this I differ greatly with the classic dispensationalists.

Over the past twenty years I have developed a great disdain for that system that teaches that only the Savior-hood of Christ should be preached to the lost, while His Lordship should be taught only to those already saved. I believe that it is wrong that they teach that there is such a thing as the "carnal Christian", one who can go on to live a life that is completely indifferent to the claims of Christ after having once made a profession of faith. I do not hold to the "once saved, always saved" mentality. I do not have any respect for a system that seems to throw all of Christ's Kingship into some future millenium, thus changing the biblical face of Christianity wherein Christ's Kingship is experienced within the heart and mind of the truely converted - a true Christian.

In short I fault the system of classic dispensationalism for having altered the face of biblical Christianity. They have put forth a view to the unsaved masses that Christianity is a ticket to Heaven, while watering down the truth that Christianity is discipleship, that one coming to Christ is taking upon themselves Christ's yoke - His rule in their lives - and has then and there become a learner of His ways.

FGA vs GES

The last couple of days have been interesting. I've seen both the FGA and the GES reach back to L.S.Chafer as an early forebear of their system. Both seem to believe that their position is a direct descendant of his theological train of thought; yet they are at odds with eachother. Hmmm.

Some in the GES say that their system is actually consistent free grace (consistent as far as taking Chafer's theology to its logical conclusions?), while the FGA says that is not so and point up things that Chafer taught that would seem to suggest that he would be opposed to the GES gospel.

Well which is it?

Chafer taught that there is such a thing as a "carnal Christian". He sought to draw a dichotomy between a spiritual Christian and a carnal one. Therein he introduced a whole new way to do theology - draw man-made divisions into God's word, divisions that are not warranted in scripture. Thus I wonder if indeed the GES is onto something in claiming direct lineage from Chafer, and that the FGA's conclusions are arrived at by being inconsistent with Chafer's way of doing theology.

Let's discuss this... Also, check out http://easygoer1.blogspot.com/

I'm in good company with my take on John 8:30-32

Here is Ryrie's comment on John 8:31-"believed". Likely only a profession because of what they said in verse 33.
Ryrie Study Bible (KJV), page 1604

Here is what J. Vernon McGee said about John 8:31-32 - Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone. It will produce something. After a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will want to "continue in His Word." The proof of faith is continuing with the Savior.
THRU THE BIBLE, with J. Vernon McGee, Vol. 4, page 419

Carnal Christians?

Where did the idea that there are two kinds of Christians, carnal and spiritual, come from? It apparently originated in the mind of a dispensationist, yeah, that's right, a dispensationist. His name? L.S. Chafer.

Two kinds of Christians? Might just as well rewrite Romans 8 - you know, like put a whole lot of qualifying statements in there. For example: Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God... should read "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (though some might go on to be carnal, and therefore this verse should not necessarily be used to define all Christians) these are the sons of God".

You get the point.

A great paper on the subject can be found here...
http://electexiles.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/history-of-the-lordship-salvation-controversy/
Happy reading!