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

You're not turning into Van, are you??

If Christ is not one's Lord, He is not one's Saviour either.
'Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for a tree is known by its fruit' (Matthew 12:33). The tree is made good at salvation via the New Birth. From that time it must bring forth good fruit, or why would one think its a good tree? There may be some sour fruit appearing at the same time (John 15:2), especially at first, but if there is no good fruit, the tree is bad and is destined to be chopped down (Luke 13:6-9).
I greatly dislike the term 'Lordship Salvation' because it suggests that there is some other kind of salvation. There isn't.

 

Martin, all are in agreement fruit should show, even Zane Hodges. The issue of LS as SOME teach it is that it goes back to the old sinless perfection teaching. Many Nazarenes carry their MacArthur study Bibles and eat up what he writes, even though they are not Calvinists. They consider him quite a holiness preacher.

Truth is truly in the middle: not that one can have Jesus as Savior and not Lord, NOR that one must be sinlessly perfect or be unsaved. Hopefully fruit shows in abundance and early, but even Jesus taught not all produce the same amount of fruit.

And consider this: an apple is an apple be it tiny post bloom green apple, little green apple, large green apple, or ripe apple. At each stage it is perfect fruit, but not mature fruit until the end.

Same with us.

 

Well I must be the most ignorant brother on here because I never heard of Lordship Salvation until Evan brought it up... And according to the comment by Brother Martin it would not interest me anyway because we know according to scripture that God is not the author of confusion and this has been one confusing post... Brother Glen

I greatly dislike the term 'Lordship Salvation' because it suggests that there is some other kind of salvation. There isn't.

 

OK the above statement and the one below are contradictory. Further, what is the "worthy" status of the "Christian" who has this has not "happened" to yet?

Then they are not Christians

In fact i agreed with it in previous posts. However, that does not mean it does not have implication for those who are being saved.

 

I gotta be me, just gotta be me....

You've taken this quote out of context. It is speaking of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, not salvation.

You appear to be using parables to prove your theology. In theology we call that a no-no.

It is relevant how you define the term.

 

Sorry, I disagree.

Sorry, I disagree. Obviously our arguments are coming from our theology of sanctification here.

Only if you take it out of context.

 

If they have not taken up their cross then according to Christ they are not worthy. If they are not worthy then they cannot be saved.

One thing you said earlier that I disagree with is that one cannot make the decision to follow after Christ prior to salvation. Follow after Christ meaning take up your cross. I posted the verse about counting the cost to show that we can in fact consider the weight and the cost of deciding to follow Jesus prior to salvation.

 

I was four when I was saved. I remember clearly conviction of sin and trusting Jesus Christ to forgive me and save me. I knew absolutely nothing about the Lordship of Christ, and would not have understood it if told about it. (Now since I gave a personal illustration, I suppose you can make this personal too by doubting my salvation or something similar. )

I say that to point out that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, we must become as little children. The Greek word there in Matt. 18:2-3 is paidion (toddler or baby), not simply teknon (child). The point of this passage is that we are saved by absolute trust, just like the little child who came up to Jesus and allowed Jesus to do whatever He wanted. A toddler can trust but not make anyone their Lord.

Just so a sinner cannot make Christ Lord because he is dead in his trespasses and sins. He is totally depraved. All he can do is go to Christ in simple trust in answer to the Holy Spirit's work, believing on Christ to save him from his sins.

None of the LS advocates here have remarked yet on my statements that one is not able to make Christ Lord until after regeneration, but this is where the rubber meets the road. Calvinists believe in LS because they believe that logically regeneration precedes salvation, thus making the sinner able to "make Christ Lord" at salvation. I say that salvation occurs simultaneously with regeneration, therefore making Christ Lord must come after salvation.

And that is why this type of discussion never settles the question.

 

I see nothing to disagree with here.

I misspoke myself when I used the phrase "make Christ Lord." I agree with you that no one makes Him Lord, since He is Lord already. My terminology had been "dedicate your life to Christ," and I should have stuck with that.

 

This is a strawman. I have never claimed sinners make Jesus Lord. They can however, weight the cost and decide if that is the direction he/she wants to go. There is no scripture that says man cannot, after hearing the gospel, weigh the cost and choose to accept Jesus and follow Him or choose to not do that. Its just not there.

I never expect I will change anyone's mind. I do like to have discussions where both sides are being fair and representing each other as we represent ourselves.

 

I apologize, then. I assumed you were putting forth the normal arguments for the LS doctrine.

Have you read John MacArthur? He portrays the "take up your cross" statement as an invitation to be saved, and I assumed that is what you were doing. So, near as I can figure your LS doctrine is not the typical one. It's certainly not what others here on the BB have argued for.

That's what I always try to do.

 

I believe the only qualified fruit inspector is the Lord. However, I can also see in the Bible that if a professing believer, member of the church, after admonition continues willfully in a life of egregious sin we are to turn them over to Satan for the salvation of their soul and treat them AS an unbeliever.

That isn't to say we get to judge that they ARE an unbeliever. Rather, treat them AS with the hope and prayer that is sufficient to bring them to their senses if saved, or to salvation if not. But this solemn and serious step is a last resort with deliberate sin, not anyone falling into sin and then realizing it and repenting. Willful, deliberate, and on going.

 

I know his position well and I have never seen that. Further, it would be contrary to Calvinist doctrine of which he is. My experience, not so much with you, is that MacArthur much like myself, gets misrepresented by reading into his and my statements based on presuppositions of what they believe something means prior to any conversation with said person.

 

I know its context; look at its meaning and follow it through to verse 37. Is it really not speaking of salvation?

Is John 15 a parable? Look at Galatians 5 if you prefer, and compare the 'deeds of the flesh' with the 'fruit of the Spirit.' It all points the same way: no fruit, no salvation. Or consider Romans 8:5. 'For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Sprit, the things of the Spirit.' If someone claims to be born of the Spirit but has his mind on nothing but the things of the flesh, he's deceiving himself and preachers need to be warning people of this.

I know T Cassidy says we're not to be fruit inspectors and I understand that, but the Scripture says, 'Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? unless indeed you fail the test' (2 Corinthians 13:5). We should inspect our own fruit

I never use the term. All I know is that if Jesus Christ is not your Lord He's not your Saviour. End of story. 'If you love Me, keep My commandments' (John 14:15).

 

When you want to discuss Amil versus the right position...



...let me know.

Let's stick with the wheat and the tares for now, lol.

Its a really simple point I am trying to make, Martin: the wheat is contrasted to the tares, the children of God with the children of the devil.

Would we not assume that in this Age...the children of God are the Church?

Your eschatology forces you to conclude that.



Just consider that specific to my own, my friend. If you want it to be two ages, or one, that's okay with me, I understand the position you are coming from.

I will reiterate the pint, though, and take it in light of my eschatology: God's Kingdom existed prior to the establishment of the Church, you would agree with that, right? God's Kingdom was established when the New Covenant was established, right? God's Kingdom, for the Pre-millennial, will be established when Christ returns. And even for the A-millennial, a Kingdom distinguished from the current Kingdom will be established, right?

Now, having said that...that wasn't even what I was talking about, lol.

I think (and I say that with the utmost reservation, lol) I was simply pointing out that within Christ's ministry thee is the Kingdom that Israel awaited in expectation of. This is the "third Kingdom" so to speak which is relevant when we study Christ's teaching. For example, when Christ is speaking to Nicodemus in John 3, there are two Kingdoms which have to be acknowledged, that which Nicodemus understood, and that which the Lord was actually teaching about. And both are relevant to the teaching, because we would not suppose that the Lord would be teaching outside of Nicodemus' understanding which the lord Himself had provided to him. He rebuked Nicodemus for being ignorant of what He was speaking about.

The Two Kingdoms in view are the Spiritual Rule and Reign of Christ, and...that literal Kingdom, whether Pre or A-millennial we can both acknowledge as the Kingdom that ultimately comes. We do not view this Age as that Kingdom, but, we can view this Age as that Kingdom.

Hope that makes sense, brother. We are in the Kingdom of Heaven/God but there is a Kingdom coming that will be entirely different than that which is found in this Age.

And I am a little tired, we have had 100 degree days here and even with a day or two off I am at a point where my brain is getting tired, so if I contradict myself, no worries, I'll figure out why its your fault when I have had a little rest amd perhaps a few cups of coffee.




Continued...

 

As I have said before...Abraham is not my father, God is.

The faith I have comes, not from the example of Abraham, I did not know of him until after I met Christ, and knew Him. Sorry, just had to get that out there.

And if you can show me a single solitary verse that shows Abraham was trusting Christ, I'd be happy to take a look. Abraham was not aware that the singular seed was the Singular Seed.

And there is that Kingdom that precedes the Church Age. Here we see both Gentile Inclusion as well as the blindness that has been placed upon National Israel.

So would you say...there is something different about our salvation from John's?



And is that Kingdom that he will sit down in different from the one we are in today? We are in the Kingdom, you know:


Colossians 1:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:


So do we exclude John the Baptist from the Kingdom of God which was present under the Law and in previous Ages?

Do we not recognize John as a man of faith, just, and without question...saved by the grace of God?

But we see the distinction Christ draws between John and the least in the Kingdom.

Was John, according to the teaching of Christ...in the Kingdom you and I are in while he was alive?

Depends on the context. The Kingdom of Heaven is in large part a reference to the Kingdom God will establish in fulfillment of His Promise to Israel. That is the Kingdom Nicodemus, John, and the disciples were awaiting.

However, the spiritual rule and reign goes back to the very beginning. The Kingdom of God does, in my view, consist of those that, even while here on earth, are part of that Kingdom as contrasted with those who are not. That includes every Old Testament Saint, every member of the Church, whether Jew or Gentile in any Age. THe ultimate fulfillment is in the Eternal State, and there will be One Fold with One Shepherd.

Again, it seems as though you reject the notion that God could have children who are not attending an approved fellowship. The simple point we can see is that in view are those who are genuine, and those who are not.

We don't usually try to determine who is genuine in the world (presidential election aside, lol), or assume that the world is a general field where we try to deermine who is who.

I think we can give a general application to this in a larger context, where we might assume that there are those who profess to trust Christ, who do, sincerely, but are not associated with a known group or any group at all. I myself have a hard time associating myself with others, and Fundamental Baptists, and some Southern Baptist fellowships are about as close as I can get. We actually visited a SB fellowship this weekend, and it wasn't bad. The music was modern, and while I am not a bog fan of that, I did in fact enjoy some of the music. The message, as luck would have it, was in...James 2, lol. Not bad, but, he preached it with some of the same issues that I would critique here, and quite possibly it could have been interpreted as "bad Lordship Salvation teaching," though it was okay. It is true that James is speaking from a temporal perspective of justification before men, not how Abraham was saved.


Continued...

 

Well, Lets look at the full statement again (and that's for my benefit mostly):

Basically, we don't look at the world and assume wheat, right? God did not make the World in general as the Kingdom. It is when the Children of God are examined that tares are discovered.

Hope that clarifies it a little bit, My wording is a little confusing, I see.

Now is that an honest debate tactic I should adopt?



My human reasoning, also known as common sense to some of us here in the States...

...reiterates the point: the world is not the Kingdom, it is the field, and the wheat are the children of God, the Children of the Kingdom.

Where do we find the Children of the Kingdom these days? And is their disposition tied to the world? The field? Do we get surprised when we see tares in the field?

No, we get surprised to discern that which is genuine when they are in proximity to the wheat. This wouldn't be in the world, but in the fellowship of the Children of God, which usually takes place...at church.

Thanks, my humor is so unappreciated, it is always gratifying when it is recognized without having to explain it, lol.

I would indeed. It would be awesome to visit your fellowship and listen to you preach.

And if it is raining, all the better.

Hey, you're not supposed to agree, don't you know it works around here? lol

Okay, so lets open up another issue: can tares be converted? Can we see an application for such a view in this parable?

And that's it for me.


God bless.