Featured Is there biblical support for Lord ship salvation?

Is there biblical support for Lord ship salvation?

Nah.

The Lordship of Christ. 20 min.
One of the Best 20 minutes you may ever spend....

 

Why You Can’t Have Justification without Sanctification

 

If God saves, He saves to the uttermost w/o anything from me

when he changes me, I am forever changed

 

No list here

 

That is so wrong and so lame. The works that James is espousing are the very works that will appear at the judgement BEFORE CHRIST, not man. OUR WORKS JUSTIFIES US BEFORE GOD, NOT MEN.

 

This is not supposed to be the Judgment Seat of Christ, in context;

James 2:6b "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?"

This is;

2:12; "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

13; "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."

Both are in James 2. Which words of James do you mean?

26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also."

If a soul has faith with works they are saved and not dead.

 

so I’m curious, how do they grow up? My continued fear is they grow up and act like the Puritans, ie self righteous, arrogant in their own pious purity, and the title Christian then takes on a new face, that of a self righteous and judgemental bully.

 

Before Christ, not men:
Doers/Fulfillers Of The Law

Before God, not men:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Ja 2

11 And the angel of Jehovah called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here I am.
12 And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him. For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. Gen 22

 

The Puritans love God and devoted themselves to living for God.

I do understand that people are often critical of Puritans, referring to them as self righteous and judgmental.

The Puritans, from what I have read, would not even refer to themselves as “saved”, as they believed it was presumptuous, but rather “hopefully saved”.

Peace to you

 

James 2, James is using the word “justified” as “validation” Your faith is validated by your works. The expectation is that faith in Jesus will always produce validating works. Therefore, faith without works is a dead faith.

Paul uses “justified” as legal justification on God’s court.

peace to you

 

"PARDON LEADS TBEDIENCE
This may serve for a trial to who may lay just claim to Christ's mercy. Only those who will take his yoke and count it greater happiness to be under his government than to enjoy any liberty of the flesh; that will take whole Christ and not single out of him what may stand with their present contentment; that will not divide Lord from Jesus, and so make a Christ of their own, may make this claim. None did ever truly desire mercy for pardon but desired mercy for healing. David prays for a new spirit, as well as for a sense of pardoning mercy." Sibbes "A Bruised Reed"

MacArthur spoke strongly in making his case but as the above shows he wasn't making this up new. He cites a lot of scripture if you read the book. If you read it and happily realize he is not talking to you then rejoice. If you examine yourself and find out you aren't really a believer at all then consider it a blessing and a "means" for your benefit that you came across this. Repent and all is well.

In fairness to MacArthur when he sees actual influential preachers and theologians making claims that lead to error he gets upset. I don't think he was completely fair to Ryrie but still, his points are valid.

 

"Pardon leads to obedience" I don't know what happened above.

 

Paul and James are using the same word here for justified:

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Ro 2

24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2

You want to justify how you can derive two different meanings with the same word? As I've pointed out, these works James is referring to by which we are justified are before God, not men.

K. James uses it that way, but he is not saying that our faith is the source of our works. Paul says that works validates what's in the heart, the source of both our works and our faith:

14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

It is the circumcised heart with the law written upon that produces both our works and our faith.

 

Dallas Theological Seminary teaches Free Grace Theology.
This is article 11 of their Statement of Faith

Article XI—Assurance
We believe it is the privilege, not only of some, but of all who are born again by the Spirit through faith in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures, to be assured of their salvation from the very day they take Christ to be their Savior and that this assurance is not founded on any fancied discovery of their own worthiness or fitness, but wholly upon the testimony of God in His written Word, prompting within His children filial love, gratitude, and obedience. (Luke 10:20; 22:32; 2 Cor. 5:1, 6–8; 2 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:22; 1 John 5:13) (bolding added)​

so...
Are all who profess (to claim or affirm one's faith in or allegiance in Christ) saved?
Some set up a proposed strawman of "easy believism" ("simply recite this prayer and you're saved!").
That's not what Free Grace Theology teaches.

Saving Faith has it's roots in the heart of the individual, it's a turning from my way to God's way - this is the New Birth, the Regenerate Life.

Rob

 

When it comes to assurance there should be assurance as a component of faith. Calvin agreed with that also, if that matters to anyone. But the above statement looks like a deliberate attack by the guys who wrote it. No one is suggesting a "fancied discovery of their own worthiness or fitness". If they really believed that then why in the next sentence to they say "prompting within His children filial love, gratitude and obedience". In other words "His children" will operate under the lordship of Christ.

If "the heart is deceitful above all things" and you should show your faith by your deeds because our mental gyrations tend to be untrustworthy, why is it wrong to examine yourself and look for evidence of what you really believe? What if you don't find filial love, gratitude and obedience? What if you don't even care to look but instead have been told to put your faith in the fact that you have faith. That is what some of the modern teachers are teaching according to MacArthur. I do not think this applies to most Baptists, Calvinist or non-Calvinists, and I don't think most of the guys from Dallas or Charles Ryrie actually lived that way. I would say read the book and get out of it what you think is worthwhile, and discard what you don't need.

I do find the level of pushback on this subject a little confusing. Most of the old guys like G. Campbell Morgan were big on the lordship of Christ and the very early church preached it as a primary issue. It's not a Calvinist issue. Morgan was no Calvinist.

 

DaveXR650, as I wrote earlier, both the "Lordship" and the "FG" believers accept that Jesus is Lord.

For the FG believer assurance is a matter of fact, "I trust (in God's word) therefore I am (a child of God)." (Descartes was close lol).

I'll quote Wayne Grudem, who paraphrases Calvin when he writes, "We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone."
In other words, Grudem believes works play a role in our justification.

The question then become what fruit, and how much is acceptable for a believer to assure their salvation.

In Free Grace Theology, works are fully a part of the believers sanctification.

Rob

 

Look in a Greek lexicon, or English dictionary for that matter, and you will find a list of possible meanings for nearly every word.

The context always determines the meaning.

If I remember correctly, if you look in a Greek lexicon for the word “justified”, you will find one possible meaning of “validation” and it will reference James 2.

Peace to you

 

I did. I didn't see the 'meaning' that you're seeing.

...and in James 2 it is justified before God, and it validates our faith.

KJV w/ Strong's Concordance - Romans 2 (godrules.net)
KJV w/ Strong's Concordance - James 2 (godrules.net)
"Word: dikaiow
Pronounce: dik-ah-yo'-o
Strongs Number: G1344
Orig: from 1342; to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent:--free, justify(-ier), be righteous. G1342
Use: TDNT-2:211,168 Verb
Heb Strong: H974 H2135 H6663 H7378 H8199

1. 
   1) to render righteous or such he ought to be
   2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
   3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be"

 

Yeah. Like I said before MacArthur speaks strongly and quotes people without quoting other things they said also. I know that people are just trying to protect the purity of the gospel and I know from past controversies in this area everybody goes too far in one direction or another. Richard Baxter in the 1600's saw soldiers when he was a chaplain who didn't live out their profession and it bothered him. He ended up redefining justification and getting off into the weeds theologically. The Puritan Marrow men and Robert Trail were both called antinomian because they were thought to have believed too much in "free grace". Horatius Bonar is also accused of being a little too "free grace". Martyn Lloyd Jones said once that if you are never called "antinomian" you are not really preaching the gospel. But all those guys taught that a Christian must live like a Christian and they even taught that the law is still in use as a rule for life. What MacArthur is talking about is a step beyond - to where there is no change at all. To where there is a belief that it is truly possible to get forgiveness of your sins and knowingly and consciously refuse to have Christ as Lord in areas that you do understand what the right thing to do is. He is not talking about levels of maturity, or levels of failure, or imperfections but of people who really don't get it. And he thinks he should warn such people, which he did.

 

Quote from A W Tozer describes the same thing.

Savior But Not Lord?

In the New Testament salvation and discipleship are so closely related as to be indivisible. They are not identical, but as with Siamese twins they are joined by a tie which can be severed only at the price of death.Yet they are being severed in evangelical circles today. In the working creed of the average Christian salvation is held to be immediate and automatic, while discipleship is thought to be something optional which the Christian may delay indefinitely or never accept at all

It is not uncommon to hear Christian workers urging seekers to accept Christ now and leave moral and social questions to be decided later. The notion is that obedience and discipleship are unrelated to salvation. We may be saved by believing a historic fact about Jesus Christ (that He died for our sins and rose again) and applying this to our personal situation. The whole biblical concept of Lordship and obedience is completely absent from the mind of the seeker. He needs help, and Christ is the very one, even the only one, who can furnish it, so he takes Him as his personal Savior. The idea of His Lordship is completely ignored.

A. W. Tozer