Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Boy, did I word that question poorly. Yours was a good answer, of course. Please let me try again.

How far can we go in disobedience before it becomes clear that we really do not believe?

 

No one here is saying that. This doctrine of LS is hard to nail down for some folks. It says that one must make a deal with God to completely surrender lordship of their lives to Christ as part of a sort of contract agreement to obtain salvation.

It is grace through works re-packaged for Christian consumption. </font>[/QUOTE]No one here is saying that either.

 

Please go back and read Gwen's post on the havoc LS is causing in her church. That is the LS I oppose and that is what John MacArthur teaches. If that is not your kind of LS, then fine. If it is, I oppose it.

Please note this quote and compare it to Gwen's post: "Teachers of lordship salvation frequently give 'tests' by which a believer may know whether he is genuinely saved. (38) These tests are all based on some observable change that one might see in his life as a result of regeneration." ("Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught Throughout Church History?" by Thomas G. Lewellen, Bib Sac, Jan 90)

Footnote 38 talks about MacArthur's study guide on Romans 5:1-11, where he lists 12 highly subjective "tests" of assurance, such as "Are you very sensitive to your sin?" "Are you obedient to God's Word?" "Do you experience the inner working of the Holy Spirit?" According to Lewellen, NOT ONE of the "tests" refers to the atoning work of Christ or the doctrine of justification by faith. This is extremely dangerous teaching and I oppose it.

 

Of course, this is a question that the LS people need to answer. It's obviously a subjective question that can probably only be given a subjective answer.

Here are a few questions to consider:
1. Is justification objective or subjective? Is it the same or different for those who have been justified?
2. Since we would all agree that more than a few people are justified, what is the lowest common denominator among them whereby they are all justified?

 

If your saved Jesus is your Lord period. If your saved your going to produce fruit. Some folk produce more than others. If your works don't back up your profession of faith you could be deceiveing yourself.
Yet be it John MacArthur or Calvin or whoever no man is completely qualified to look at a man's heart and determine if he is saved or not. All we can do is look at the fruit of a person's life and if it doesn't look consistant with what they have professed then all we can do is pray that God will either save them or chastise them in order for them to be where God wants them to be in their walk with Him.
The thief on the cross didn't have time to prove to anyone that he believed Jesus was Lord but I will take it that Jesus knew the thief's heart because Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise.
The thief did what Paul said you need to do in Romans 10 to be saved and that is confess with your mouth and believe with your heart. Evidently the thief meant in his heart what he said with his mouth because he is in heaven today.
My point is ultimately only God knows who is saved and who isn't the rest of us can only observe.
The fact of the matter is this. Getting saved is
EASY it is as easy as as calling on the Lord with a repentful heart. If you mean it when you do it then your saved. IF you meant it you'll live it.
God draws you to Himself anyway. So if He does the saving by sovereignly drawing you to himself then to me it is impossible for a person to make a false profession. They just never were saved to start with.
To me Lordship and Calvinism make for strange bedfellows. I mean if your saved you will do good works if your not saved you won't.
I just read J.Mac's book "Hard to Believe" I liked alot of the stuff in there. The book challenged me to want to want to continue to strive to be holy for God is holy. And yes I don't believe as many that claim to be saved are saved. Yet as I get to the end of that book I kind of get this vibe from it that I got to do good works to make sure I'm saved or something like that. I can't quite put my finger on it?
I can honestly say I haven't gotten talking points from either calvinists or non calvinists or dispensationalists or arminians. I havent' tried to take sides between David Hunt or James White. I have just come to the conclusion that while there are things I really like about reformed theology one thing I don't like is it seems to me those that on the one hand seem to stand so fiercely behind the sovereignty of God and election are also highly concerned about whether or not they will persevere.
Its kind of like this :"I believe in election but I sure hope I'm one of the elect the only way I can know is if I persevere." To me that is more dependent on one's self than the very sovereignty of God which a calvinist holds so dear.
I mean shouldn't it be like this : "Because I'm one of the elect I will perservere by His grace".

I guess I have just rambled on but I think this Lordship stuff is just kind of silly. Maybe even just semantics.
If your saved your saved. If your saved you will grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. It must not be automatic though or Paul would not have prayed that people would grow in grace and knowledge. Some christian's disobedience hinders this growth but there will always be some growth.
Is easy believism, pray a fast prayer etc... a problem? Sure it is. I went to a men's retreat awhile back and a evangelist there by the name of David Wood was the speaker. I had always heard good things about this fellow. Yet at the meeting he went on and on and on about the 1000's and 1000's that were being saved in such and such a place. Then he gave us this hand out that he almost garanteed would get results.
It was a "how to" sheet on how to lead someone to Christ. I'm telling you it was pathetic. I felt like He was teaching us a "sales pitch" I really did. He basically said that you didn't want to get hung up to long on each point. In other words I guess you get em saved before they know what they are doing?
Some of the laymen in our church even commented on the fact that they felt the guy came across like a snake oil peddler. I didn't even bring up the idea. Our pastor took us so I wasn't going to comment negatively as the missionary on something the pastor had lined up it would not have been right.
Yet that was the first time for me that I had ever seen the Gospel "peddled" like that before it was not right.So yes easy believism is out there but Lordship Salvation is not the cure for it.

 

Of course, this is a question that the LS people need to answer. It's obviously a subjective question that can probably only be given a subjective answer.

Here are a few questions to consider:
1. Is justification objective or subjective? Is it the same or different for those who have been justified?
2. Since we would all agree that more than a few people are justified, what is the lowest common denominator among them whereby they are all justified? </font>[/QUOTE]It's a question everyone needs to answer.

1. It is objective.
2. Faith

But that misses the point. Does the person who professes faith but lives according to his own will, ignoring God's revealed will for his conduct, actually posses faith? How does one know? Is belief objective or subjective?

 

I have thought this exact thing for a long time. Salvation is all of God, right? It is the Holy Spirit who draws us and makes us able to believe, right? Salvation is a gift of God, right? There is nothing I can do to save myself, right?

So why then do modern Calvinists believe in LS, that is that a person must consciously make Christ their Lord in order to be saved? That is a human action, not God's grace. It is really strange, to me, and the direct opposite to the ostensible teachings of Calvinism.

To quote Lewellen again: "To Calvin the ground of assurance does not lie within oneself. Faith includes assurance solely because the object of saving faith is the finished work of Christ as it is offered in the gospel. Faith looks to Christ alone and confidently rests on His saving promise."

 

ShannonL, MacArthur has written some great stuff. His book on the Charismatic Movement was great. But when I read his book on LS, The Gospel According to Jesus, I was very disappointed, and felt it did not live up at all to his reputation.

To give just one example of many, he quoted R. B. Thieme as a typical opponent of Lordship Salvation. You young whippersnappers have probably never heard of Thieme, but he was a big time heretic back in the 1970's. That seems a sad effort to me, to quote a man as your opposition who believed nothing like the typical LS opponent in most other matters.

 

That's not the way I would say it.

What is faith? I have heard that it consists of three essential parts: knowledge, assent and trust. If any of the three is missing then there is no faith.

I think part of the knowledge that is necessary for saving faith to be present is the realization of God's claim on the sinner's life. The person who wants to not burn forever when he dies but is absolutely unconcerned with what God requires of him at present does not have saving faith. That does not mean that he always does what God requires, but as I said earlier, he recognizes that those situations require confession and repentance.

Absolutely, but that faith that looks to Christ must be looking to Christ the Lord. There is no other Christ.

 

I will agree with this, that this book was not MacArthur at his best in my opinion.

 

Why is it that dispensational nonsense gets woven into nearly every thread on this Forum? By the way why are there Christians on earth during the GRrreat Tribulation? I thought they all got "snatched" away. </font>[/QUOTE]Who said they are Christians?

Are you then arguing that people get to heaven based on how they treated others? You know, by their works?

It's amazing how some people will even deny the faith while standing up for Preterism. </font>[/QUOTE]If you will read your original post above you will see the following:They are judged on how they treated Jews (His brethren) and Christians during the Tribulation to see if they get to go on into the Millenniun.

You are the one arguing that people get into some millennial kingdom based on how they treated Jews and Christians. I said nothing about treating people, period.

Also it is rather simple minded to accuse me of standing up for Preterism on the basis of what I wrote above.

 

Boy, did I word that question poorly. Yours was a good answer, of course. Please let me try again.

How far can we go in disobedience before it becomes clear that we really do not believe? </font>[/QUOTE]And once again, we see that the emperor has yet another new royal tailor! And he is wearing yet another set of new clothes. Once again the tailor has been changed, perhaps to keep up with the latest style. But the latest, along with the many before, have bought the cloth from the same roll of fabric.

Why the need to 'expose' those we assume to be hypocrites? We can't see this that clearly, at all. The best we can do is observe fruit. You might notice I did not say be a "fruit inspector". ("Ed chose his words well, here!" - Language Cop)

The parable of the tares among the wheat show something of this in Matt. 13:24-30. I do not know this for a fact, even though I probably should, as a farmer, but have been told that some, if not all, tares are almost identical to wheat when it first sprouts, and pokes through the ground. I do know what the Biblical tares are, I think. In fact, tares can be one of a number of plants. They may be vetch, darnel, ryegrass, cheat, or a couple of others. About any of these is a good feed for livestock, but not desirable for human consumption. The part that is eaten by ruminants is often the whole plant, in the form of hay, or pasture. However, when the seeds mature, some of these are considered toxic, especially in larger porportions. Most can be removed at the harvest, in one way or another, from a grain crop, with only the reduction of the yield of grain, which would not be absolutely devestating.
Take them out as the crop is young, and you may not differentiate correctly. Pull the plants halfway through the growing season, and you are likely to have wheat uprooted with the tares, from the roots, for most, and vetch tendrils around nearby plants, thereby stripping the wheat from the stalk when removing the vetch.

The second fallacy is germane to the whole discussion, we are here having. This is illustrated in Mat. 7:21-23. And 'Lordship', contrary to the advocates of LS is exactly what will not be the issue. This bunch KNEW Jesus was Lord; they attempted to fully 'follow' Him. They did everything you could think of, starting with recognizing him as "Lord". And they were doing it all for Him, so they thought. He thought otherwise, and said so.

The issue, again, WILL NOT BE 'Lordship'. The issue will be doing the will of the Father. What is that? I suggest it is stated in Scripture. And it has been mentioned several times in various threads on these pages. Perishing is not consistent with the will of God, in the sense of His 'determined' will, although allowed in his 'permissive' will. (II Pet.3:9) One of the things we are 'required' to do, is do God's work to be saved. What exactly? Scripture answers, again: "This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent." (Jo.6:29)

And we ain't even going to try to get into 'disobedience', except to say, this is a Lordship issue! And one cannot even think about having Him as Lord, BEFORE, one has Him as Savior. Nuff' said on this!
In His grace,
Ed

 

How does Lordship and sanctification go together?
Is not only a position but a action that is taking place until we die and our faith is made whole when we meet Christ face to face?
I think it is. So if we are progressively being sanctified then would it not make sense that I'm closer to being conformed to the image of Christ than I was the first year after I was saved? If so am I not in a constant state of yielding myself to the "Lord"?
Obviously some christians have a harder time than others "laying aside those things that easily beset them". Some should have been eating meat but they were still drinking milk. Yet they were still saved. Some were just more serious,devout or whatever you want to call it than other believers.
I look at it like this if you have been brough into the kingdom by the king then you will know the king and you will have a desire to serve the king. Some have a stronger desire than others. Some in the kingdom want to live near the palace gates so they can know everything that is going on. Others for whatever reason be it neglect, disobedience etc... dont 'want to live as close to the palace yet they still live under the authority of the king because they live in the kingdom because the king himself had decreed that they should be apart of his kingdom. the person living at the outskirts of the kingdom is just as much a subject of the king as the person living near the gates. Obviously the one who lives closer to the king will receive a better reward than the fellow that lived far off but the fact still remains that both persons are subjects of the kingdom. I supose it is left up to the free will of the king's subjects concerning just how close they want to live near the king once they have been chosen to live in his kingdom?

As believers we can either go to heaven first class or second class. First class is to live everyday yielded to the Holy Spirit.
Second class is to live the carnal life. Choosing to do little with what has been given etc...
Yet both classes are going to spend eternity in heaven.


BTW, Old Reg, I get tired of you refering to dispensationalism as heresy. It is another form of systematic theology that is within the pail of orthodoxy as much as reformed theology is.
I understand you disagree with it etc...Just like some don't agree with every jot and tittle of reformed theology but to label all of us who have a dispensational bent to our beliefs as heretics is a little bit over the top.
Take a look at any typical, mainstream commentary and you will find that premill. literal 1000yr. reign etc.. those kinds of issues are listed as recognized postions along with covenant theological positions.
I'm a heretic because I believe God really meant a literal land was going to be promised to Israel?
I guess that must be a mirage over there in the middle east where the Palestinians and the Israelies are blowing each other up everyday? Both of those parties seem to think that "land" means land in the OT. I realize that I just hit a few points but please quit trying to label those of us who take those positions as loons. I don't do that to you. Your not a heretic because you disagree with my position. Yours is within orthodoxy so we just have to disagree.

 

Old Regular writes:
"Perhaps you misunderstand what those who believe in Lordship Salvation actually believe."

I think not, but could be mistaken. Enlighten me, if I've missed this.
Ed

 

Mike, with all due respect, don't fall for this. There is no such term in Scripture as "true believer", "truly believe", or the worst of this sorry lot (not to be confused with 'my hero'), "REALLY and truly believe". The Bible knows of and speaks only of "believe (in Jesus)" and "believe not", in the area we are discussing. The 'qualifier', although usually well intentioned, IMO, is not Biblical. It is seeking to do exactly what I just wrote the long post about, weed out 'the tares' from the 'wheat field' before the harvest. It is based on an idea that 'demands' fruit, to 'prove' root, although I am not trying to sound poetic. And that is the seed germ of LS, in a nutshell.
In His grace,
Ed

 

You are correct in your analysis, here. You realized this was not right, and it wasn't! (It's called discernment, but this is not the place for a discussion on Spiritual gifts, so I'll drop it.) But you are correct. This is a case where the cure is worse than the disease. Right on! Hang in there Bro. You're getting there!
In His grace,
Ed

 

Originally posted by EdSutton:

In no way am I claiming to be perfect. As Paul Said in Romans 7:15-19, Christians will digress to their previous nature of sin. I believe that the important thing is for us to recognize our sin and repent. An important scripture in this area is the one I quoted before. I'll repeat it here.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

This says nothing about living a perfect life, as you claim, but rather emphasizes that a person can only serve one master, Christ or the flesh. Those who call after Jesus but are living in the flesh are not Christians.

Luk 6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

As Paul said in Romans 6:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

True Christians will live lives that are pleasing to Him. It is clear from the scripture I've posted and a lot of other scriptural references that the master of a Christian's life is Christ and they continually strive to follow His commandments.

 

ShannonL, MacArthur has written some great stuff. His book on the Charismatic Movement was great. But when I read his book on LS, The Gospel According to Jesus, I was very disappointed, and felt it did not live up at all to his reputation.

To give just one example of many, he quoted R. B. Thieme as a typical opponent of Lordship Salvation. You young whippersnappers have probably never heard of Thieme, but he was a big time heretic back in the 1970's. That seems a sad effort to me, to quote a man as your opposition who believed nothing like the typical LS opponent in most other matters. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes! My 'favorite' Houston Colonel! "Thieme... was a big time heretic back in the 1970's.", is probably going a little far, but I'll agree that he (well into his 80's and in the latter stages of Alzheimer's) is a 'legend in his own mind', and could give new meaning to obnoxious. I'd say he is one of a very few who could make Jack Chick look like Dale Carnegie!

Ed

 

An interesting theory. Can you support it by the Bible. I doubt it.

There will be no "second class" entry into Heaven. Christians will be in and non-christians will be out. Many on that day will call out to Him "Lord, Lord" but they will be condemned.

I believe that those are the ones who walked down the aisle one in their life and then maybe attended church occasionally but never got around to making Him Lord of their lives. (Yes, I said the unaccepted word.) There is no easy believerism. Christians are expected to endure until the end. There is no option to relax and slip in the back door. All those who have fought the good fight will be accepted with open arms as first class citizens into eternal life.

 

Okay, okay, Old Timer, small time heretic!