Is there biblical support for Lord ship salvation?

[Deacon]

I am not a calvinist but I have to ask, why would you not think Christ was your Lord if you were trusting in Him to save you? When a person freely trusts in Christ Jesus for their salvation they are saying that He is the only one that can save them. Christ did not need us to make Him Lord. He was, is and always will be Lord.

Ahh, so there's the catch.
Both the Lordship group and the Free-Grace group believe that Jesus is Lord.
But with the Lordship group it's belief plus ...

Here's a quote from Wayne Grudem's recent book where he defines why he is against Free Grace Theology.

...Free Grace proponents have gone beyond the claim that God asks of us nothing more than faith when he justifies us. They have made an additional claim: that faith occurs by itself when a person is justified, in the sense that no other human actions necessarily accompany faith (such as repentance from sin or doing good works after we are justified)*. (*footnote - Free Grace advocates certainly encourage good works as the "normal" and "expected" response to God's saving grace, but they insist that no evident works must nessarily result from saving faith.)
Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 20.​

FG concerns salvation and clearly separates it from sanctification. Saving faith may result in works but it is not a necessity for salvation.

Grudem sets up many straw men in his book. Just as Reformed Theology has many branches, so too, Free Grace.

Some are FG groups are extreme, (as in "easy believe-ism")... many more are quite sound.
Some Lordship groups are extreme, (even pharisaical)... others, more sound.

Rob

 

[kyredneck]

LS is a cautionary rebuke of “easy believism”,

In my experience it's adherents tend to be Puritanical, judgmental, and intolerant fruit inspectors, reminiscent of Pharisaism. IMO, it's not Baptist, it's Puritan/Presbyterian 'front-loaded works', and runs counter to Christ's own words:

28 Come unto me, all ye that labor 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. Mt 11

 

[Revmitchell]

The false belief is that seeing Jesus as Lord snd in charge of ones life can only come in sanctification. Again, this is false snd without foundation. Romans 10:9 as is some others says otherwise

 

[Van]

First, Jesus said not all that call Him “Lord” will enter the Kingdom. His answer to these people is He never knew them. Therefore, to be in a right relationship with God (salvation) is far more than mouthing the the word “Lord”. It requires Jesus to “know you” in that right relationship.

Second, 1 Corinthians 12:3 “no can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Spirit” is also referring to much more than mouthing the word “Lord”. For someone to come into that right relationship with God (salvation) where Jesus is, in fact, Lord of their life and “knows them” requires the work of God Holy Spirit. That will result 100% of the time in a transformed life.

Concerning “Lordship Salvation” my understanding from reading MacAuthor is the expectation of a profession of faith is a transformed life.

I cannot declare anyone “saved” or “unsaved”. However, If your life hasn’t been transformed, then you shouldn’t have assurance of your salvation. It could be you are saved but immature or it could mean you were never known by our Lord Jesus to be in that right relationship.

LS is a cautionary rebuke of “easy believism”, where people are declared “saved” if they say a prayer, repeat after me, etc… and then never show evidence God Holy Spirit indwelling.. I.e. a transformed life.

Peace to you

Excellent post!

My only nit pick is the nuance of "never show evidence of a transformed life," would include never showing evidence of striving to keep our commitment to follow Christ. People can stumble pretty badly, but it is sometimes hard to deny they tried but failed.

 

[DaveXR650]

I think Mac was addressing a specific problem he saw in evangelical Christianity. He wrote some books which helped a lot of people but seemed to cause other people a lot of concern about legalism. This has been going on for years since Romans chapter 6. The Puritans called it antinomianism.

If Mac's books make you self evaluate and think then they have served their purpose. As for "fruit inspection", we are pretty much warned to confine that to examining ourselves mostly in scripture - but not leave that undone. To get a feel for what was going on I'd go back and look at Paul Washers "Shocking Youth Message" which I think is still on Youtube. Anyone who was involved in that youth group silliness will understand where he was coming from.

 

[Washad]

It almost seems that the two primary views expressed this far are just wanted to share my thoughts on this subject and state my reconciliation of the two points of view I have seen on this thread thus far.
First, the fact that Jesus is Lord. This is true whether a person is lost or saved. He is and always will be King of kings and Lord of lords. That this facet of His being is constant no matter our opinion or understanding of the matter is certain. So a person could very much call on the Savior without a full understanding of the extent that this Lordship will have on their lives.
However
The second issue, as I see it, is contained in the phrase “make Jesus Lord”. A person could not be saved without some understanding of surrendering themselves to His Lordship since the very word Savior implies the surrender of self to the one who would rescue you…so would that not mean He is your Lord under Whom you now live? To believe on the Lord Jesus, or to have faith in Jesus is not mental assent to the “Romans Road” as it were but rather to forsake or cease to trust in any other including self for eternal salvation. The exact meaning of repent has been debated here but those who I have been taught by and my own study leads me to define it as a change of heart or to turn from one thing to another. If my heart changes about Jesus then I have to change my thought about myself and cease to be my own Savior but I also cease to be my own god. He becomes my Righteous Judge (Lord) and my Savior.
So, again IMO, the phrase “make Him Lord” is simply the willful acknowledgment of the eternal fact of the Eternal King and as a believer to consciously determine that I will daily surrender myself to His will for His glory.

 

[Marooncat79]

Where in the Bible is there not a mandate for Lordship?

If ye love me keep my Commandments

if you are not willing to give up earthly treasure, you are not worthy

there are many others

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I think Mac was addressing a specific problem he saw in evangelical Christianity. He wrote some books which helped a lot of people but seemed to cause other people a lot of concern about legalism. This has been going on for years since Romans chapter 6. The Puritans called it antinomianism.

If Mac's books make you self evaluate and think then they have served their purpose. As for "fruit inspection", we are pretty much warned to confine that to examining ourselves mostly in scripture - but not leave that undone. To get a feel for what was going on I'd go back and look at Paul Washers "Shocking Youth Message" which I think is still on Youtube. Anyone who was involved in that youth group silliness will understand where he was coming from.

Nailed it…. “LEGALISM” Pure and Simple.. How many times did Jesus preach against it? Who was it who conducted a kangaroo court, bringing up Christs improprieties on Sabbath in order to trap Him and have him crucified. LEGALISM. PURITAN Tactics, No, I will not accept that baggage as part of my CHRISTIAN Life.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Where in the Bible is there not a mandate for Lordship?

If ye love me keep my Commandments

if you are not willing to give up earthly treasure, you are not worthy

there are many others

How about”Do Not Judge.” Or “He who is without sin can cast the first stone.”

 

[Deacon]

Where in the Bible is there not a mandate for Lordship?

If ye love me keep my Commandments

if you are not willing to give up earthly treasure, you are not worthy

there are many others

And this is where we begin to make a list of behaviors a person needs to do to be saved.

Rob

 

[JonC]

Ok....are we asking whether saving faith is belief or repentance and belief???

I'm not sure I get the arguments here.

 

[DaveXR650]

And this is where we begin to make a list of behaviors a person needs to do to be saved.

But Rob, I don't think MacArthur or Washer ever did that. They just pointed out that Jesus as Lord is what was preached and they suggested that it might actually mean something.

 

[DaveXR650]

Ok....are we asking whether saving faith is belief or repentance and belief???

I'm not sure I get the arguments here.

I guess it involves the question of if it is possible to so break down the gospel to the point where you can teach fragments and end up with people who think they are Christians but really have been taught just enough to give themselves a false security and inoculate themselves against the possibility of further understanding.

 

[JonC]

I guess it involves the question of if it is possible to so break down the gospel to the point where you can teach fragments and end up with people who think they are Christians but really have been taught just enough to give themselves a false security and inoculate themselves against the possibility of further understanding.

There will be many who say "Lord, Lord, didn't I..." only to hear "I never knew you". So I'd say yes, there are such people.

And James speaks of a useless faith even the demons have.

But at the same time turning from ourselves as lord of our lives to Christ as Lord is called repentance, a key part of saving faith (Christ commanded "repent and believe").

I'm still not sure that I get the Lordship dispute as a Christian who does not have Christ as Lord is not a Christian at all. We cannot serve two masters. This doesn't mean perfect works... when lost we didn't serve ourselves perfectly either.

I'm missing something in this thread. I don't think Lordship has been adequately defined. Are we talking about Christ being our Lord or the Christian at the moment of salvation perfectly obeying God in all things?

 

[tyndale1946]

And this is where we begin to make a list of behaviors a person needs to do to be saved.

Rob

Come on Rob... I found the list!... Brother Glen

1 Timothy 1: 15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save Sinners; of whom I am Chief.

 

[DaveXR650]

I'm still not sure that I get the Lordship dispute as a Christian who does not have Christ as Lord is not a Christian at all. We cannot serve two masters. This doesn't mean perfect works... when lost we didn't serve ourselves perfectly either.

I agree. But here is what MacArthur says the non-Lordship guys are teaching. I'm quoting from MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus", 2008 revised and expanded edition.
One segment of evangelicalism even propounds the doctrine that conversion to Christ involves "no spiritual commitment
whatsoever". Those who hold this view of the gospel teach that scripture promises salvation to anyone who simply
believes the facts about Christ and claims eternal life. There need be no turning from sin, no change in lifestyle, no
commitment - not even a willingness to yield to Christ's lordship. Those things they say, amount to human works,
which corrupt grace and have nothing to do with faith.
The indented part is the quote and Mac footnotes the above to things said by Zane Hodges in his book "The Gospel Under Siege". and Charles Ryrie's book "Balancing the Christian Life". I don't know how to do footnotes on here and I don't have either of the books by those guys so I don't know if Mac is being fair with them but that is the issue.

Later on the same page MacArthur says that "Contemporary Christians have been conditioned to believe that because they recited a prayer, signed on a dotted line, walked an isle, or had some other experience they are saved and should never question their salvation. I have attended evangelical training seminars where counselors were taught to tell "converts" that any doubt about their salvation is satanic and should be dismissed. It is a widely held misconception that anyone who questions whether he is saved is challenging the integrity of God's word."

So that's where MacArthur is coming from.

 

[JonC]

I agree. But here is what MacArthur says the non-Lordship guys are teaching. I'm quoting from MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus", 2008 revised and expanded edition.
One segment of evangelicalism even propounds the doctrine that conversion to Christ involves "no spiritual commitment
whatsoever". Those who hold this view of the gospel teach that scripture promises salvation to anyone who simply
believes the facts about Christ and claims eternal life. There need be no turning from sin, no change in lifestyle, no
commitment - not even a willingness to yield to Christ's lordship. Those things they say, amount to human works,
which corrupt grace and have nothing to do with faith.
The indented part is the quote and Mac footnotes the above to things said by Zane Hodges in his book "The Gospel Under Siege". and Charles Ryrie's book "Balancing the Christian Life". I don't know how to do footnotes on here and I don't have either of the books by those guys so I don't know if Mac is being fair with them but that is the issue.

Later on the same page MacArthur says that "Contemporary Christians have been conditioned to believe that because they recited a prayer, signed on a dotted line, walked an isle, or had some other experience they are saved and should never question their salvation. I have attended evangelical training seminars where counselors were taught to tell "converts" that any doubt about their salvation is satanic and should be dismissed. It is a widely held misconception that anyone who questions whether he is saved is challenging the integrity of God's word."

So that's where MacArthur is coming from.

Interesting.

I like listening to MacArthur when he explains his faith. He does a good job at it. But I don't trust him when he explains other people's faith. He always goes to the worst case scenario and offers that as the alternate position.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry, my indenting didn't work for the quote above. Start with "One segment... and end with "faith" for what Mac's book said.

 

[Salty]

Could we use this example?

Many "MAGA" do not recognize Biden as their President.
Regardless - Biden is still their President

But until MAGA accepts that fact, then (fill in the blank_______)

 

[DaveXR650]

But I don't trust him when he explains other people's faith. He always goes to the worst case scenario and offers that as the alternate position.

Yes. You could be right. I have Ryrie's book "Basic Theology" that a Cedarville grad gave me and on page 300 he says regarding the proof of justification that "Justification is proved by personal purity"....."Justification before the bar of God is demonstrated by holiness of life here on Earth before the bar of men". "This was the perspective of James when he wrote that we are justified by works. Unproductive faith is not genuine faith; therefore what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men".