Featured People are so ignorant these days of Lordship Salvation...

I don't like the LS movement. It is confusing - read my other posts - it is insufficient as a title when it comes to expressing our conviction concerning the person of Jesus Christ.

I personally understand what is meant however by those who propound it, yet I still disagree because babes in Christ need to be carefully nurtured and dealt with in patience and long suffering. Milk not Tbone at first.

Secondly no one can tell me or anyone else when they have achieved a passing grade in LS.
What? Must I attend morning and evening service and midweek prayer service, tithe my income, make a missionary pledge, etc, etc...

Third, when one is critical of LS then comes the inevitable "you don't understand LS" or "you misrepresent LS".
Not really, I escaped from such a local church as a new born in Christ.

I don't often express my anger, but in My own personal opinion and FWIW - the LS movement has done more harm than good to the church by the "strong" laying heavy burdens upon the backs of the weak and the babes in Christ and no doubt have driven many babes from church attendance.

Matthew 11
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

HankD

 

They do but that does nothing to address LS.

 

You show by your own words you don't even begin to understand so called LS, which you call a movement.

No one who believes in the true Gospel, who are labelled LS'ers even remotely believe in what you've stated nor do they drive babes from church attendance. As you say it is all your own personal opinion and is 'FWIW'.

 

You proved my point.

HankD

 

Thank You!

 

What should be done with verses such as :

Mat_10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

 

Moving around the way we have, we have encountered LS in Calvinist churches, in Arminian churches, and in free grace churches. Oh wait, yeah, and in the northern plains we have encountered it in Lutheran churches.

The same can be said for the non LS brand of the faith.

My two cents, not worth a wooden nickel but what I see:

Both sides believe in repentance, in regeneration, in justification, in sanctification, and in glorification. The differences are in the definition of repentance, and in when and how fast sanctification occurs.

The LS type have probably encountered churches where individuals continued in lives of adultery, lying, stealing, abuse, addiction, etc without ever facing any degree of church discipline or even the whiff of suggestion this is wrong. So they define repentance more or less as cleaning up your act and move sanctification up to happening at the time of regeneration. And so if they don't see lots of immediate fruit, they MISTEACH what MacArthur says and become legalistic horses' nether ends.

And on the other side, the nonLS type have probably encountered those legalistic horse backsides and seen baby believers have the faith beaten into still birth, seen the long time saints grow worried if they are saved, and seen the unscrupulous pad their baptisms record by preying on that fear. So they MISTEACH what the free gracers like Wilkins or Ryrie or Stanley or Zane Hodges teach or taught. They are willing to just "love on" folks to the point there is no more good old Baptist accountability. And that makes them also the southbound end of north bound horses.

What both sides get right? That we are all sinners by birth and deed, that we must come to a point of that change of mind where we see things from God's perspective and throw ourselves on His mercy, that once saved He IS eventually going to clean up our acts and we will eventually truly bear the image of Christ.

To spend time arguing, or trying to either force sanctification on the unsaved ( some poorly taught LS) or fail to expect growth (some poorly taught non LS) is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Me? I consider myself a LS leaning free grace advocate. Yes, Christians can backslide or be carnal for a time. But it ought not be so, and we need to flee that pile if we step in it.

But with so many lost folks out there, why waste time on theological conversions?

 

That is not the issue.

 

I don't know because I have never felt worthy to follow Him.

HankD

 

The verse is there, using a false sense of humility does nothing to deal with the issue or address the verse. The word worthy means to be suitable. Is one who has been made whole and holy in the eyes of God more suitable than someone who has not?

This verse is dealing with those who are saved and those who are lost.

 

Whether it is in a book or no I wouldn't know, I actually heard this statement spoken by R.C. himself, and it struck me as a profound statement, because I found it to be true in my heart.

Perhaps a lesson in the fact that people can make statements in the midst of a lot of words (I think it was a conference of Reformed teachers) that hit home and stick with people.


God bless.

 

And I think that is the focal issue of Lordship Salvation for those that contrast it with Easy Believism (the true target of skepticism for Lordship Salvation): following Christ.

You say you have never felt "worthy" to follow Him, but, you do follow Him all the same, right?

Could you give an example of how you would interpret what it means to be a follower of Christ?


God bless.

 

I would agree "it is insufficient as a title," because Lordship Salvation is a Doctrinal Debate, it is not a denomination.

Lordship Salvation doesn't really impact babes as much as it does those with long association with Christ. How often do you see babes debating it, lol. Usually, the names that arise in this debate are well known teachers.

Completely irrelevant to Lordship Salvation.

If you have sat under teaching that has used the title Lordship Salvation for legalism, I am very sorry for you, but, that is no more credible than Charismatics using the name Baptist.

Lordship Salvation deals with genuine salvation as opposed to false association for the most part. The primary argument being that if it doesn't walk like a duck, talk like a duck, swim like a duck...it might not be a duck.

The purpose is primarily to combat what some call Easy Believism, and some call "greasy grace." That one can be saved and for the rest of their lives ignore Christ and the evidences of salvation given us in Scripture.

Could you show me a Lordship Salvation adherent that teaches such doctrine? I would be right there with you to stand against the equally erroneous teaching that salvation demands adherence to man-made doctrines. But that is completely unrelated to the debate about Lordship Salvation.

That is Manship Salvation, lol.

And it is generally true. You are evidencing that you view Lordship Salvation as legalism, and while there may be those who borrow the name for their legalistic teachings, that doesn't mean that this is what Lordship Salvation deals with.

Here is a teaching from a Lordship Salvation teacher directly speaking about Lordship Salvation:


What Is Really at the Heart of the Lordship Debate?

It should be obvious that these are real doctrinal differences; the lordship controversy is not a semantic disagreement. The participants in this debate hold widely differing perspectives.

Nevertheless, the issues have often been obscured by semantic distractions, distorted interpretations of lordship teaching, mangled logic, and emotion-laden rhetoric. Often it is easier to misconstrue a point than answer it, and sadly that is the tack many have taken. All it has done is confuse the real issues.

But, to be clear, the lordship controversy is not a dispute about whether salvation is by faith only or by faith plus works. No true Christian would ever suggest that works need to be added to faith in order to secure salvation. No one who properly interprets Scripture would ever propose that human effort or fleshly works can be meritorious —worthy of honor or reward from God.?

The lordship controversy is a disagreement over the nature of true faith. Those who want to eliminate Christ's lordship from the gospel see faith as simple trust in a set of truths about Christ. Faith, as they describe it, is merely a personal appropriation of the promise of eternal life.

(the title is the link)

I would just recommend taking a look at what Lordship Salvation teachers believe, and recognize that "distorted interpretations of Lordship Salvation" do not mean that is what is in view when this controversy arises.

It sounds like what you escaped from was a legalistic church. If you attended a church that properly taught the issue I doubt seriously you would feel the need to "escape." But you can look at the teachings of MacArthur on GTY.ORG and see if you disagree with what he teaches. I'll be happy to look at it with you.

Your opinion is pretty clear: you think Lordship Salvation teaches legalism and works-based salvation. You have identified a church you "escaped from," and putting two and two together, it is reasonable to assume they taught "attend morning and evening service and midweek prayer service, tithe my income, make a missionary pledge, etc, etc..."

That's not Lordship Salvation, that is the teachings of the doctrines of man, and has nothing to do with following Christ and being His disciple.

And as long as people misunderstand the issue they will continue to give credibility to those who hijack the name for their purposes.

A parallel would be saying "The Baptist movement has done much harm because they teach ecstatic speech," because one was a member of a "Baptist Church" that was charismatic in their doctrine.

And this is how things go in many of these discussions about Lordship Salvation...Bible Pong. "You show me your verse that teaches that men must do works and I will show you mine which teach that works are not important."

That's not the issue.

The issues that do apply are usually overlooked. There is the tendency to go to extremes where both sides can trespass into positions that are not Biblical: legalism and antinomianism.

You say that the Lordship Salvation "movement" has done much harm, so, I would suggest that as a spokesman for Lordship Salvation, John MacArthur is at least near the top of the list as a credible spokesman for Lordship Salvation. On his site, GTY.ORG, he has plenty of teachings about the issue. If you would like to go through some of them, and point out that which you object to, then we could address the issue within credible parameters, rather than from a perspective of one who has attended a fellowship that claims to teach Lordship Salvation.

I can understand getting "angry" about false teachings, believe me, but, let's make sure our anger is directed at the right false doctrine and the groups that teach them.


God bless.

 

No need to deal with hypothetical circumstances concerning fellowships that may or may not understand Lordship Salvation, why not deal with the actual issues that are relevant to Lordship Salvation?

Your experiences are not the definition of those issues.

Do they?

I would suggest that Lordship Salvation actually deals with the concept that repentance is unimportant, and sanctification may or may not happen. In other words, one can be saved yet there be no evidence of salvation, and no-one has the right to question the validity of another's profession of faith.

So if a person that embraces Lordship Salvation encounters a church where "individuals continued in lives of adultery, lying, stealing, abuse, addiction, etc without ever facing any degree of church discipline or even the whiff of suggestion this is wrong," how exactly should a Christian view that, Nodak?

Secondly, you define these "Lordship Salvation embracers" as, when they encounter this kind of mentality being taught, as "...they define repentance more or less as cleaning up your act and move sanctification up to happening at the time of regeneration..."

...?

That is your definition, not the definition of those who understand the controversy. Show me one credible teacher of Lordship Salvation that demands rapid sanctification.

Secondly, from your definition, it seems that you include fruit as an evidence, and point out that seeing lots of fruit"can be incorrectly diagnosed as salvation. My guess is that you, like most Christians, understand that salvation produces fruit. That is a point of Lordship Salvation. It is not, however, taught that fruit must be rapid, or plentiful, because this stands in direct contradiction to the pruning process, and bearing "more fruit."

You are trying to address Lordship Salvation through your own understanding, and again, you don't define Lordship Salvation based on your experience.


Continued...

 

Again, you are acting as though "non-legalistic" believers are contrasted with legalistic believers.

This is irrelevant to the Lordship Salvation Controversy.

I am a Lordship Salvation adherent and I am also non-legalistic.

Lordship Salvation is not dealing with what one does in salvation, it deals with whether one is saved or not. The Controversy centers more on entrance to salvation, rather than what has to be done or not done within one's salvation.

For example, when repentance is referenced, it is repentance unto life in view, rather than repentance for sin committed while saved.

Sorry, no, both sides do not believe that.

That is why the Controversy continues.

But if we can define the debate and address the issues, we can help stop the "emotional rhetoric," lol.

So tell me, do you think that those who are saved will produce fruit, and that Christ is going to "clean up your act?" I don't want an opinion, I want what Scripture actually teaches.


Continued...

 

And the "poorly taught Lordship Salvation" is yours, lol.

Lordship Salvation doesn't "force sanctification on the unsaved," but quite the opposite, it exposes false sanctification "forced" on unbelievers.

It cautions believers not to assume that they are saved if there is no change in their hearts and lives. Salvation results in the new creature, and there is going to be a change, even if it takes some longer than others.

So is it profitable to spend time "arguing" these points? Absolutely.

Not at all. It is a direct opposition to Easy Believism," and little harm can come from cautioning Christians about it.

Christ and the Apostles did that, why wouldn't we?

So you want to ride the fence. My suggestion would be to take a look at the controversy itself and you might realize that there is a higher ground in this debate.

Your understanding of it seems to be built on misconceptions as to what is actually taught by either side.

Because there is the ever present condition of Tares in the Church, and it is our responsibility to understand that we are given numerous teachings designed to help us see whether we are in the faith or not, and that we are to examine ourselves in light of Biblical Doctrine.

In view is not necessarily "theological conversion," but conversion itself. I have met people who sat in a "church" for years that came to the point where they realized they were not saved, simply playing church. What brought about conversion was the Word of God. So our time is well spent, even in a "Christian" setting, in having a focus on what Scripture teaches.

My advice to anyone on this issue is take a look at MacArthur's teachings on the issue at GTY.ORG. Few would argue that his teaching is credible, or that he is not a spokesman for the controversy.


God bless.

 

Dear brother Rev, I also am a "rev".
First, you have judged me incorrectly, there is no way you can know the condition of my heart - only God.
I do indeed feel unworthy (or unsuitable if you wish) in many aspects of my life in Christ and I acknowledge this to my Lord daily.
I do indeed have a "cross to bear" (which incidentally is a subjective statement).
Also, I looked through several lexicons and could not find the definition of "unsuitable" for axios.

Lou W-Nida 65.17 axios A relatively high degree of comparable merit.

HankD

 

Don't they teach though that sinners must repent and confess all known sins before coming to Christ?

That one cannot even have assurance received Jesus and was saved apart from having him made Lord over all areas of their lives?

if one claims to be one of His, and yet refuses to deal with all aspects of sinningm then were not really saved?

I know that they want to make sure the conversion was real, but haven;t they tend to swing too much into good works at times to counteract what they have seen as wrong evagelism?

 

Concerning "easy believism" : I am guilty because believing on Jesus Christ is one of the easiest things I know how to do.

Having left the very environment of LS and its attendant legalism I found an unparalleled freedom of power to overcome those aspects of my life which were not pleasing to Christ.

As previously mentioned I am far from perfect and will not be so until I reach the city not built with hands.

I have an analogy: I saw a movie (for shame?) once which showed a troupe of slaves aboard a roman galleon.
They were in the lower parts of the ship rowing furiously following a cadence master. If they got out of line or failed to produce sufficiently they were whipped individually or collectively. This is LS legalism (IMO).

I escaped that environment and have found a much better way. The word pneuma has a dual meaning - spirit or wind. Now I walk (or sail) with the Spirit who has never lead me into sin (I have wandered on occasion).

HankD

 

I can make judgments based on your words and actions. the sense of humility that you placed on this verse is in fact misplaced. The context of worthy is placed in the value of taking up our cross. Instead of dealing with that passage you dismissed it with a misplaced sense of humility. The humility that you expressed over this passage is inappropriate.

The cross to bear is not subjective. Our "worthiness" is based on the cross of Christ. Our actions are a reflection of our relationship with Christ. the use of the word "worthy" is used in the sense that the actions of one who does not take up their cross does not fit the character of one who is a disciple of Christ. If we claim we are something we must show we bear the character of which we claim.

Uh I suggest you look harder.