Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Here, at least, what you 'know' is, in fact, 100% Biblical. I believe that a great deal of damage is done and misunderstanding caused by not differentiating 'salvation' and 'Lordship' or 'discipleship'. There is all the difference in the world in "coming TO Christ" by faith FOR the "'Absolutely Free!(c)'" gift of salvation or eternal life vis`-a-vis` "following AFTER Christ" in faith for service. And there is simply no Biblical basis for the too often stated, confusing, and 'holier than thou' idea that ..."Either Christ is Lord of all; or He is not Lord, AT all". Another way this misnomer is said is "You have to "make Jesus Lord!" Got news for you- it can't be done! God done beat you to the punch, by 2000 years. As one individual I once heard say, "The Bible doesn't talk like that! It NEVER says, 'Make Him Lord!'; It says, 'He IS!'"
Well said!
Failing to get these two things in the Biblical order amounts to what I describe as "rope pushing". It is not too hard to pull a rope; it is almost impossible to push one.

In His grace,
Ed

 

Very well put, Ed!!

It is impossible to "receive Christ as Lord" or "make Christ Lord of your life." He IS Lord, always has been and always will be.

When I was a teenager, we talked about "dedicating yuour life to the Lord," and I believe this to be Biblical. What the Bible commands us to do is offer our bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1-2). When we do that, then we are willing for that body to be used by the Lord anyway He wants to--let's say in a far country as a missionary.

The stated doctrine (note carefully my phraseology) of "Lordship salvation" is fairly recent, to the best of my knowledge. I took a class from Arend Ten Pas in 1971 at BJU where he taught this. John MacArthur was influenced by Ten Pas, and has his book in the bibliography of The Gospel According to Jesus. I've never seen the doctrine stated explicitly (note carefully my phraseology) in anything before the 1970's.

 

Romans 10:9: "....confess Jesus as Lord..."
Romans 10:13 "...call upon the name of the Lord."

My guess is that Lordship Salvation was once the norm, but had to be defined again as a reaction to easy believism/decisionism.

Non-Lordship folks believe it's heresy, that adding anything to simple faith in Jesus is unbiblical.

My own view is that the non-Lordship view of salvation has produced churches filled with the unregenerate.

Jesus said "why do you call me Lord,when you don't do what I say?"

Tom B.

 

Okay, Tom, I have to go to bed shortly--it's late here in Japan. But I have a friendly challenge for you (and any others who believe in Lordship Salvation).

(1) You are quoting from Romans. But it is not the book of the Bible designed for evangelism. (Sorry, Romans Road fans!) What book is?

(2) Where in that book does it say you must receive Christ as Lord to be saved?

See you in the morning. (Insert sleeping Japanese smiley of your choice.)

 

I tend to agree with you Tom. The 1,2,3 pray after me method has filled our meetings with unregenerate and has decieved many. Not that I believe in sinless perfection but the saints will persevere. The modern soul winning methods are almost akin to selling a car. There seems to be very little conviction of sin in my experience with the Sword of the Lord type churches. Thank God for everyone that sticks though.

 

Lordship salvation is an well intentioned, however, misguided, reaction to perceived apostates in the church.

In order to chastise what are seen as false professors, LS advocates seek to make attaining salvation harder.

In part, this ties into Calvinism, since most Lordship advoicates are Calvinists. In Calvinism, your assurance of election is based on your perseverence, your works. Easy to jump from this to LS.

Of course, whether you really are elect or not is a whole other ball of wax. The problem for LS people is that there are many who appear to have the right works, appear to be elect, but are just as false as those they criticise.

 

The website Biblical Discernment Ministries has a review of books by John McArthur and Charles Ryrie on the subject. They take opposite views, of course.

web page

Tom B.

 

John of Japan said:

John, I'm guessing Acts.

But I'm wondering why you would eliminate Romans, written by the man who is the main character in Acts from the 9th chapter on, as a book where we can find what Paul said about salvation?

Was Paul's preaching in Acts contrary to what he wrote in Romans and his other letters?

Of course, if I guessed wrong, erase, erase all I said here.

Tom B

 

Expanding on the use by Tom Butler of the passage from Romans:

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This passage says confess the Lord Jesus, not the Savior Jesus. If Jesus Christ is not Lord he is certainly not Savior. We can often pick verses out of context to demonstrate some particular viewpoint. It is also worth noting that there is no Scripture that speaks of "accepting Jesus as Savior", a favorite expression of many Southern Baptist pastors. In fact there is no passage that speaks of Salvation or being saved absent the name Lord, or Lord Jesus, or Lord Jesus Christ. There is one passage of Scripture that speaks of "receiving Jesus Christ".

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Some sanity might return to the entire question of Salvation if we would understand that Salvation is the work of God, not the work of man.

 

Tom

I believe that one of the reasons that MacArthur raised the question of so-called "Lordship Salvation" is the idea that some believe that all one must do to be saved is give intellectual assent to certain facts about Jesus Christ

 

I agree with Ed on the salvation matter. John is also correct about discipleship.

But the term puts a requirement on salvation in the first place. I agree with Ryre as he argues for what Jesus said the the Gospel of John. (6:40,47; 11:28-30, etc.)

MacArthur sites Romans 10:9-10, the term "Lord" here is just a title given in the text. Paul says to confess the Lord Jesus. Not to confess Jesus as Lord. That's not to say that one shouldn't do that, but my question to MacAurthur is by what percentage of your will?

I have a news flash for Mr. MacArthur. No Christian that ever lived has surrended 100% lordship to Christ, including him.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Lk 6:46 I would argue that this verse precludes any chance for Lordship salvation since all Christians do not submit 100% to the Lord.

What Christian hasn't sinned after salvation? None. (1 John 1:8-10).

So then Mr. MacArthur, what is the percentage of lordship that the Holy Spirit requires for salvation, and where is this number given in Scripture?

To say that God requires complete lordship surrender, and the fact that the Holy Spirit has saved millions, all who have fallen short of true lordship, would lend to the idea that the Holy Spirit has been duped every time upon conversion. That's not an option for me. So then, Lordship salvation is patent nonsense.

More on the subject:

http://www.gracelife.org/library/LS-appendix.htm#_ednref2

 

Tom

I believe that one of the reasons that MacArthur raised the question of so-called "Lordship Salvation" is the idea that some believe that all one must do to be saved is give intellectual assent to certain facts about Jesus Christ </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know OR. I believe that what he means is that this surrender is a requirement for salvation. At least that's what I have gleaned from listening from him preach on the subject.

I also areee with Tom that easy-believism is a problem as well. But we are not to add to the Gospel as a means of a filter agent to keep the unregenerate from church membership.

I much prefer to hear a testimony, and to watch for the fruit of the Spirit.

 

Wrong! There is a book of the Bible the stated purpose of which is for people to learn how to believe. Personally, I believe that is where we should start in any discussion of how a person gets saved.

Anyone else have a guess?

I certainly don't ignore Romans, since it is Scripture! However, we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, agreed?

Since you brought up Acts, it is the book in which we learn how the Apostles actually preached salvation and did personal evangelism. And frankly, there are many places in Acts where they did this and the Lordship of Christ is not even mentioned!

Acts 2:38--"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter had mentioned "Lord" in his message but not when they said, "What shall we do?"

Acts 3:19--"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." While he uses the term "Lord," he does not say, "Receive Him as Lord."

And I could go on and on. Where in Acts does an Apostle, deacon, or believer say, "Receive Christ as Lord to be saved?" And don't give me Acts 2:21, because (1) it is not a command to the listeners, and (2) like Romans 10:13, it speaks of calling on the NAME of the Lord, not receiving Him as Lord to receive salvation. And what is the name of the Lord? Figure it out!

 

John.
You asked:

I would say that in the NT it's the Book of John. As I posted above, Jesus makes this clear in John 6:40,47; 11:28-30.

If you want to get technical, one would say in Genesis.

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6 (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:1-8)

 

I would say that in the NT it's the Book of John. As I posted above, Jesus makes this clear in John 6:40,47; 11:28-30.

If you want to get technical, one would say in Genesis.

"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6 (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:1-8) </font>[/QUOTE]Congratulations, JackRUS, you win the triple smiley! But you have the wrong passages.

John specifically states his purpose in 20:30-31--"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

In order for me to believe in LS, someone is going to have to point out where in John Jesus or one of the Johns or anyone else tells us to receive Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. I simply can't find it. It CERTAINLY isn't there in John 3 or, where Jesus specifically deals with sinners about salvation. And it isn't there in the passages JackRUS mentions in John--except don't you mean Matt. 11:28-30 instead of John, JackRUS?

 

How can someone believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and not bow to Him as Lord?

 

Please don't set up a straw man, OldRegular. I personally don't believe that salvation is the work of man, and I don't know anyone who does. John MacArthur did this over and over in his book, presuming to thrust upon his readers what the opponents of LS believe.

 

Very simply--and I mean that literally. When Arend Ten Pas told us in class in 1971 that it is necessary to trust Christ as Lord in order to be saved, I raised my hand in my shy little way and said, "I was saved when I was 4, and understood nothing about the Lordship of Christ. So how could I have accepted it?" Ten Pas had no answer--of course granted he was in a pickle, since he couldn't accuse me in class of not being saved.

Jesus told us that to be saved we must become as a little child (Luke 18:17, etc.). A little child can simply trust, but has no concept of the Sovereignty of God--at least I didn't, and I remember very clearly my salvation experience at age 4.

 

Very simply--and I mean that literally. When Arend Ten Pas told us in class in 1971 that it is necessary to trust Christ as Lord in order to be saved, I raised my hand in my shy little way and said, "I was saved when I was 4, and understood nothing about the Lordship of Christ. So how could I have accepted it?" Ten Pas had no answer--of course granted he was in a pickle, since he couldn't accuse me in class of not being saved.

Jesus told us that to be saved we must become as a little child (Luke 18:17, etc.). A little child can simply trust, but has no concept of the Sovereignty of God--at least I didn't, and I remember very clearly my salvation experience at age 4. </font>[/QUOTE]John you misstate Luke 18:17.

The passage in context states:

15. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

If we take verse 17 literally then those of us who claim to be saved as adults are still lost. There is nothing in this passage that states that a little child is lost and must be saved. In fact verse 16 indicates just the opposite, that little children are, in fact, in the Grace of God.