Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Originally posted by JackRUS:
Whatever.
I don't understand this statement of yours in light of Scripture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm not sure why you think I am annoyed. Dumbfounded might be a better adjective. Why you would choose Lot, whom the Bible does not tell us to emulate, when you could choose from so many others who the Bible does tell us to emulate, is beyond me.

Click to expand...

That was certainly not Peter's take on Lot.

"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their
unlawful deeds
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:" 2 Pet. 2:7-9

And why do you suppose that God sent Jesus and two angels in Genesis 18-19 to deliver Lot out of Sodom if he was so bad as you suppose? </font>[/QUOTE]I am going to attempt to answer some posts in reverse order, here. I am doing it in this reverse order so that this "man may say" JackRus has analyzed this to a degree, at least, EXACTLY RIGHT, to a "T" , starting with his last three words, which are "as you suppose"?

And this is exactly the root fallacy of some of this teaching; it is "what is supposed" put against clear statements of Scripture. For example, I have previously posted on two threads on the BB asking what is, to me, an exceedingly simple question, with a specific Biblical answer.

That question was, "What must Ed Sutton do to be saved?" It was almost beyond pallor the "jumping around" I received in answer to this. Only one person answered with "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.", and let it stop at that. In fact, that is the exact answer Paul gave to the Phillipian 'prison keeper'.

Note Paul said, in answer to the direct question, nothing about what the saved individual should do after he was saved, here, for that was not the question. This question is answered, BTW, in so many words in the 'Benediction' or 'Doxology' at the close of II Peter, in II Peter 3:18 - "But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him, the glory both now and forever! Amen."

The problem comes when what is never stated, (nor implied) in Scripture is read 'back' into this and other Scriptures, (although without stating so, of course) namely that "Since 'whoever' is not 'growing' (at least according to my standards, anyway) in the way that I think they should be growing, undoubtedly the seed was never really and truly planted, (or took root only superficially) and therefore 'whoever' was probably never '"really and truly saved"', in the first place!" By this, we have managed to rationalize all the "judging" that is involved. And that is the problem!
In His grace,
Ed

Hello,
Not sure if this post of mine got overlooked and if it did that is OK. My question is what would you all think of those who would be soft core Lordship Salvation and believed in our inability to make Jesus 100% Lord of our lives but that we should be at least WILLING to. That it deals more with the attitude of our heart. What do you all say to that? Thanks

Originally posted by Gwen:
On the side of truth,

I read the article by John Mark Charlton. Thank you so much for telling me about it. It sounds remarkably similiar to what happened in my home church, and various others that I know of in the Atlanta area. Charlton made some excellent points about the error of LS.

As to the Matthew 7:15-19 passage, Jesus is the one speaking in the Sermon on the Mount. He is warning the people about false teachers:

Vs. 15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Vs. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Vs. 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Vs. 18 A good tree connot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Vs. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.

Vs. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

As you can see, the context is false teachers, not salvation. Jesus is warning us to be on the lookout for false teachers, and how to spot them. Ask yourself about the fruit of the LS teaching. If you read the website of Charlton, you will see that the fruit is confusion, loss of assurance of salvation, focus on ourselves and not the finished work of Christ. And as I posted earlier about my friend, mental anguish and torment. There is no peace, no trust, no rest.

I will go ahead and warn you about another passage the LS teachers take out of context. 2 Tim. 2:21 says "If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." The context is false teaching, not sin in your life. Paul is warning Timothy to be on guard against error in the Church. Paul warns in (I think) Corinthians that false teaching will shipwreck our faith if allowed to go unchecked. That is why this doctrine is so troubling to me. I've seen the damage it can do firsthand!

Gwen

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for clarifying that passage. I understand it now. The whole context thing is so scary to us right now. They make everything sound so right. I hope the damage to your church was not too severe.

Originally posted by Faith alone:
FUNDAMENTAL AXIOM:
At law, a bilateral contract is defined as “a promise for a promise.” In “Lordship” salvation, a lost sinner gains eternal life by making a contract with God. The sinner offers a promise of future obedience in exchange for God’s promise of eternal life. . . “a promise for a promise.” In less extreme forms, the sinner need only promise future obedience in the area of sin. In more radical forms, a lost sinner must promise complete and total dedication to the cause of Christ. Either way, simple faith in Jesus is not sufficient for salvation. God offers eternal life in exchange for the lost sinner’s promise of future works. Salvation is not the gift of God, it is a contract at law.

Click to expand...

This is a gross misrepresentation of LS. Since most LS'ers are Reformed, to say that it is a contract that the man agrees to is dishonest. No LS'er suggests that eternal life is offered in exchange for anything. But neither do they say that a person can "gain" salvation by just agreeing to facts. "Simple faith" as defined by biblical theologians involves not only believe fact, but a volitional aspect as well.

COMMON FORMS:
1.Repent of your sins in order to be saved.

Click to expand...

Acts 2:37-40 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation."

2.Make Christ the “Lord of your life” in order to be saved.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've never heard an LS'er say "make Christ Lord of your life." That type of phrase is usually heard from the Word of Life crowd that the LS'ers are arguing against.

3.Make a “Personal commitment to Christ” in order to be saved.

Click to expand...

I hope this person isn't trying to represent MacArthur's view, because I have heard MacArthur say that he can't stand this kind of gospel "presentation." He does emphasize comittment, but I've never heard him, or anyone else say this.

Lordship salvation redefines the word “grace.” In the Bible, grace is the disposition of God to offer eternal life freely. In lordship salvation, grace is redefined as a divine substance infused into the sinner to strengthen or enable him to “repent of his sins” and follow Christ.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like this writer is confusing LS with Catholocism.

This infusion of “grace” (redefined as an empowering substance) is said to be a sovereign act of God, and not dependent on human works. “Grace” is therefore free, but salvation requires good works! This is theological doublespeak.

Click to expand...

After reading this, I'm not really sure if Ron Shea has ever interacted with anything written by someone who holds to LS. The basic point LS'ers are trying to make is that when Jesus called one to discipleship, that was His gospel. And He, knowing people's hearts, would not allow them to come to Him while still holding on to their sin. They had to be willing to give it up, to give up themselves. LS'ers (at least those of the Reformed stripe) believe this is impossible without the miracle of regeneration. But they are also very clear that no one, not even the apostle Paul, is completely sold out for Christ. That is the work of sanctification. But Jesus often told those who said they wanted to follow Him that it was not just a matter of saying the right things or believing some facts. Following Him would require a lot of changes in their lives. LS'ers don't believe these changes need to be made in order to come to Christ, but that coming to Christ will make these changes inevitable.

I do agree that some LS'ers say things at times that are way too extreme. I like MacArthur, but he does sometimes sound like he expect 100% obedience before a person is saved. He has been questioned on this and has clarified his position as being a yielding of the heart that eventually works out in the life of the believer during the process of sanctification.

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Do you accept this Biblical statement?

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.

You're either serving God or serving the flesh. Why do you not find this an acceptable interpretation?

Are you saying at the moment of salvation you have to pledge to be perfect in order to be saved? Of course I don't believe that. But you do have to repent and having been born again of the Spirit you will change your life.

The answer to you original question is YES. Someone must accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. This follows from MA 6:24.

Click to expand...

You still have not answered my original question to you. I specifically and deliberately asked about personal evangelism, and you have still said nothing about personal evangelism.

You use Matt. 6:24 for LS at your exegetical peril. There is nothing in the passage or the context about the moment of salvation. It is specifically talking about serving a master, not accepting a master.

If a person trusts Christ as Savior, they are born again. God changes them--they do not change themselves. After they are born again, they then become able to serve their Lord, who is Christ. So we are agreeing so far. And frankly, since you bring it up, I believe MacArthur's brand of LS (the one the theologians discuss as has been amply shown on this thread by me and others) is a new kind of perfectionism. You don't believe in perfectionism, so your brand of LS is not heresy to me.

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Hello,
Not sure if this post of mine got overlooked and if it did that is OK. My question is what would you all think of those who would be soft core Lordship Salvation and believed in our inability to make Jesus 100% Lord of our lives but that we should be at least WILLING to. That it deals more with the attitude of our heart. What do you all say to that? Thanks

Click to expand...

My response would probably not be a good one because this is what I consider LS. This is also where MacArthur stands if we take the time to listen to him. I agree with this view. I don't agree that people will be 100% obedient to Jesus ever in this life, let alone right when they come to Him. If that is what people understand as LS, it is unbiblical.

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Hello,
Not sure if this post of mine got overlooked and if it did that is OK. My question is what would you all think of those who would be soft core Lordship Salvation and believed in our inability to make Jesus 100% Lord of our lives but that we should be at least WILLING to. That it deals more with the attitude of our heart. What do you all say to that? Thanks

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, this is not the brand of LS that is causing havoc in churches, and thus this is not the heresy. Something becomes heresy when it splits churches, as per the Scriptural use of the term, and "hardcore" LS is splitting churches, as I believe a couple of people on this thread have amply proven.

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Hello,
Not sure if this post of mine got overlooked and if it did that is OK. My question is what would you all think of those who would be soft core Lordship Salvation and believed in our inability to make Jesus 100% Lord of our lives but that we should be at least WILLING to. That it deals more with the attitude of our heart. What do you all say to that? Thanks

Click to expand...

My response would probably not be a good one because this is what I consider LS. This is also where MacArthur stands if we take the time to listen to him. I agree with this view. I don't agree that people will be 100% obedient to Jesus ever in this life, let alone right when they come to Him. If that is what people understand as LS, it is unbiblical. </font>[/QUOTE]Calvibaptist, have you read the whole thread? The 100% brand is indeed what is being taught in some churches.

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Calvibaptist, have you read the whole thread? The 100% brand is indeed what is being taught in some churches.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I probably shouldn't stick my nose in on page 8 of a thread! I've been involved in a lot of other threads. I saw MacArthur's name mentioned in the same breath as 100% yielding and I knew he had clarified his view differently when asked, so I chimed in. If this is in fact what is in view, then I would agree that it is dangerous.

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Hello,
Not sure if this post of mine got overlooked and if it did that is OK. My question is what would you all think of those who would be soft core Lordship Salvation and believed in our inability to make Jesus 100% Lord of our lives but that we should be at least WILLING to. That it deals more with the attitude of our heart. What do you all say to that? Thanks

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, this is not the brand of LS that is causing havoc in churches, and thus this is not the heresy. Something becomes heresy when it splits churches, as per the Scriptural use of the term, and "hardcore" LS is splitting churches, as I believe a couple of people on this thread have amply proven. </font>[/QUOTE]JOJ,
Does something only become heresy when it splits churches? Is this really what you meant? I do not recall their being a split at MacArthur's church but would you not classify his LS teaching as heresy? I believe Paul would have. If you preach any other gospel.....let him be anathema . Would you classify LS as another type of gospel as it appears to add works.

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Calvibaptist, have you read the whole thread? The 100% brand is indeed what is being taught in some churches.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I probably shouldn't stick my nose in on page 8 of a thread! I've been involved in a lot of other threads. I saw MacArthur's name mentioned in the same breath as 100% yielding and I knew he had clarified his view differently when asked, so I chimed in. If this is in fact what is in view, then I would agree that it is dangerous. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi, Calvibaptist.

If MacArthur has clarified this, that is good. He did that years ago on the controversy over his teaching on the blood. He may have abandoned his LS teaching completely for all I know. Being here in Japan I'm kind of out of the mainstream of US Christianity, if you know what I mean. However, since his name appeal through his book The Gospel According to Jesus is what started the controversy, I still lay the blame at his feet.

Now to reply to whatever: ( and again, I'll start at the bottom and attempt to work my way to the top) He writes:

You do realise that this makes you sound like an LS advocate, don't you?

Click to expand...

With all due respect, absolutely nothing I've posted, or believe, comes even remotely close to 'Lordship Salvation'. The only thing that is ANY further away from Lordship Salvation than I am, is the heresy of 'anti-nomianism'. I will grant you, I fully claim to be one of the so-called "Free Grace" types (you know, the ones your mother warned you about! ), which tag, in itself is inaccurate, for it is redundant. Grace that is not 'free' is not grace at all, by definition, but is some hob-gobbed amalgamation, and is not found in Scripture, nor is the idea found in it, that there is something other than grace that is, by definition, free.

Again:

OK, let me try again. How far can I go in disobedience before it becomes clear that I really do not believe? Does it really come down to observing my own fruit? Is that all the assurance that I can have?

Click to expand...

In reverse order: The "assurance that I can have" is based on Scripture, as I read it. And on this and this alone. There is only one book in the Bible that is said to be written for the expressed purpose of 'assurance'. That is I John. And the specific verses are I John 5:9-13. They read:
"9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which[a] He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

I find nothing about 'observing' one's own fruit, in the just quoted Scripture. So the answer to that question is "No!"

If these two answers are answering what you are really wanting to know, vs. some 'debating points', then we are agreed. And I think the testimony of Scripture agrees, as well.

As to "how far can you go...?" ,not that I understand "WHY" you would want to go there at all, the question is irrelevant, in the first place, for as Mike posted, when you phrased the question in version one, as to "How much disobedience one can get away with?", "All of it.", it is not Biblically accurate to say there are any limitations, in the sense you are asking. The Bible speaks of a 'sin unto death', nad gives the statement that some of the saints 'sleep' in I Corinthians, apparently because of this. I'd tend to say a believer that is 'still breathing' has not committed this sin, at least yet.

Im response to my post, I asked who would you suggest as an example from Scripture a "righteous saint" to model our lives after. You made this statement:

And I gave you some suggestions.

Click to expand...

IN fact, you did not, at least after I asked the question. I went back and read each post of yours twice, just to make sure. You had previously quoted one non-specific verse as to leaders in Hebrews, III John 11, and II Tim. 1:13; which might be the closest to a suggestion, although it does not mention a name, per se. But to make sure, Are you offering Paul as my role model? BTW, he is not, as far as I have found, so far, specifically called 'righteous' or 'just' which was part of my original question. But is that who you were referring to?

And again, FTR, who, if any, individual does the Bible tell us to 'emulate', apart from the Lord Jesus Christ? I'm not sure that I necessarily recall any, but could be here mistaken. I don't have time to look this up, as I am further behind in answering posts, than I was last night, and still haven't gotten around to Craig, yet. And I am going to have to knock off with this one, basically tonight, as I've got too much on the agenda for the next two days to not get adequate sleep.

I said that Lot was my Biblical 'hero'; I said nothing about wanting to follow his example. I would use a couple of secular figures as 'heroes' as well, to illustrate. President John F. Kennedy, and Senator John McCain. I do not particularly want to follow their examples, for I have no desire to be assassinated, or be tortured in the 'Hanoi Hilton'. Respect and honor does not always equal imitation. G'nite!
In His grace,
Ed

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
JOJ,
Does something only become heresy when it splits churches? Is this really what you meant? I do not recall their being a split at MacArthur's church but would you not classify his LS teaching as heresy? I believe Paul would have. If you preach any other gospel.....let him be anathema . Would you classify LS as another type of gospel as it appears to add works.

Click to expand...

On the Side of Truth, that "only" is a huge "only" to me. I don't know if you've ever lived through a church split, but I did when I was a child and my father was pastor, and it is incredibly damaging spiritually to the believers.

To answer your question, MacArthur's teaching may not have split his church, I don't know. But there is ample evidence on this thread that it is splitting other churches. I believe in the church of all believers which will meet in Heaven, but here on earth I am primarily a local church guy. Anything that hurts the local church of Jesus Christ is, then, heresy. The term "false teacher" is also extrememely important in this context, but I won't go into it.

Now if Joe Baptist comes into the church I am planting believing in softcore LS and speaks in tongues, but is humble and willing to learn, I'd work with him. But the minute he started spreading doctrine opposite to what I teach, he'd be in big trouble. Splitting the church of Jesus Christ is a horrible thing to do in my Book.

Also, you make a good point about the Gospel, one that you may remember I made earlier. To me whether LS is a false Gospel all comes out in how the adherent presents the Gospel. As soon as he adds committment to the Lord to his presentation of the simple Gospel as protrayed in 1 Cor. 15, as mentioned earlier, to me then he becomes a false teacher, with all that entails in the NT.

I have to quickly inject this to whoever posted about Ron Shea. Ronald L. (Ron) Shea is a personal friend of mine. I assure you that he, I, and some other friends have well, and often interacted with Lordship Salvation advocates, and of varying degrees of 'advocacy', and not just on the BB. In fact, I am not aware that any of these others are members of, or have ever been on the BB.
In His grace,
Ed

Originally posted by EdSutton:
I have to quickly inject this to whoever posted about Ron Shea. Ronald L. (Ron) Shea is a personal friend of mine. I assure you that he, I, and some other friends have well, and often interacted with Lordship Salvation advocates, and of varying degrees of 'advocacy', and not just on the BB. In fact, I am not aware that any of these others are members of, or have ever been on the BB.
In His grace,
Ed

Click to expand...

Let me edit my own post, belatedly. Ron's middle initial is "R", not "L" as I previously typed, but did not see. Shows I should not try to stay awake too long so I make more typing mistakes than normal. Either I should go to bed earlier, or I should make Language Cop stay up later! Thing is, when LC gets too tired, HE tends to have a bad attitu...!

In His grace,
Ed

I thought I was an adherent of the Lordship Salvation view, but I have to tell you that the LS I'm seeing described in this thread bears little resemblance to what I believe.

I, too, hold to salvation by grace through faith alone. But I have come to believe that a salvation that does not transform the believer is suspect. Babes in Christ must be taught, of course, and Christian growth is an ongoing process.

My view of LS has always been that, beyond repentance and faith, such salvation produces a desire to be obedient to Christ's commands, to desire to be Christ-like. It's a natural outgrowth of salvation, not a requirement.

Tom B.

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Calvibaptist, have you read the whole thread? The 100% brand is indeed what is being taught in some churches.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I probably shouldn't stick my nose in on page 8 of a thread! I've been involved in a lot of other threads. I saw MacArthur's name mentioned in the same breath as 100% yielding and I knew he had clarified his view differently when asked, so I chimed in. If this is in fact what is in view, then I would agree that it is dangerous. </font>[/QUOTE]With all due respect, Calvi, uh- weren't you being just a wee little bit disingenious here, somewhat implying you had no 'real' knowlege of what was going on? Especially since I see four posts under your heading, with one on page 4, and three on page 5?

Stick your nose in and chime in where you like; the rest of us do. Just be accurate with the comments. If you had a "senior moment", that is understandable to one (ME!) who has "senior hours and even days". Is that a fair request?
In His grace,
Ed

[ March 06, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: EdSutton ]

Quick note to whatever: I see that somehow I managed to embolden a section of my last post responding to you. I am not the most computer adept person in the world, and obviously did not recheck it for what it looked like. Therefore it may be full of spelling errors, etc. I intended to emphasize only the word "Why", and your name, not the rest of what got done that way. I apologize for something here that might appear misleading.
In His grace,
Ed

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Do you accept this Biblical statement?

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.

You're either serving God or serving the flesh. Why do you not find this an acceptable interpretation?

Are you saying at the moment of salvation you have to pledge to be perfect in order to be saved? Of course I don't believe that. But you do have to repent and having been born again of the Spirit you will change your life.

The answer to you original question is YES. Someone must accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. This follows from MA 6:24.

Click to expand...

You still have not answered my original question to you. I specifically and deliberately asked about personal evangelism, and you have still said nothing about personal evangelism.

You use Matt. 6:24 for LS at your exegetical peril. There is nothing in the passage or the context about the moment of salvation. It is specifically talking about serving a master, not accepting a master.

If a person trusts Christ as Savior, they are born again. God changes them--they do not change themselves. After they are born again, they then become able to serve their Lord, who is Christ. So we are agreeing so far. And frankly, since you bring it up, I believe MacArthur's brand of LS (the one the theologians discuss as has been amply shown on this thread by me and others) is a new kind of perfectionism. You don't believe in perfectionism, so your brand of LS is not heresy to me. </font>[/QUOTE]Basically, I agree with John, here.
In HIs grace,
Ed

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
All of this made me think about growing up in a SBC church in KY. If someone had preached that someone could be saved without making Jesus the Lord of their life it might have caused a riot.

Click to expand...

So a question, StraightAndNarrow, if you wouldn't mind answering candidly. In the church you grew up in, when they did personal evangelism did they make a point of telling the prospect, "Remember, you must accept Christ as Lord as well as Savior to be saved." And nowadays, when you witness for Christ, do you tell them they must accept Christ as Lord to be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you actually believe that it is possible to be saved if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Of course I think that's necessary. Do you believe a Christian can accept Christ as his Savior but keep power or making money as lord of his life? That isn't what Christ told the rich young ruler. Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? </font>[/QUOTE]Sir: either you didn't understand my question or you chose to ignore it, since what you are answering is not what I asked. Either way, that's fine. I'll make my point another way.

Nothing I have written on the Baptist Board (or elsewhere, or preached, or taught, etc.) should have elicted your answer. I have no idea why you wrote, "Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?" I am a missionary who gave up all (counting it but trash) to follow Jesus and come to Japan.

I believe that faith saves a person, the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, and the Holy Spirit, indwelling from the time of salvation, makes it possible to offer up one's self as it teaches in Romans 12:1-2.

Lordship Salvation, as propagated by John MacArthur and defined by the theologians, teaches that one must make Christ the Lord of 100% of his life in order to be saved. I believe that is impossible for an unregenerate person, and therefore cannot be a part of salvation. That is why I asked you my question based on personal evangelism, which deals with the moment of salvation. If you grew up in a church that did not practice personal evangelism and/or you do not, then of course you could not answer my question. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you accept this Biblical statement?

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.

You're either serving God or serving the flesh. Why do you not find this an acceptable interpretation?

Are you saying at the moment of salvation you have to pledge to be perfect in order to be saved? Of course I don't believe that. But you do have to repent and having been born again of the Spirit you will change your life.

The answer to you original question is YES. Someone must accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. This follows from MA 6:24. </font>[/QUOTE]S&N, This may surprise you somewhat, but I happen to agree with everything you have responded with here except your announced certainty of "...you will change your life.". And I do fully agree that this is something we SHOULD do, absolutely. It's known as "growing in grace", 'spiritual growth', "being filled with (i.e. controlled by) the Spirit", "going on to maturity", 'laying aside the things of being spiritual babes' [ the laast thing here is my own (poorly) attempted verbalization, without having my Bible in my hand, of something said in relation to spiritual babes, so please don't nail me on this one, as to terminology ] etc.. But each and every one of these is a command, meaning they are not assured results, else we would find them stated as thus. They are all in the 'active' voice, not in the 'passive' as is something that is done for us.

An example of this is the statement about being 'baptized in the Spirit'. The voice is 'passive', and the tense is that it is something that has been done for us. But we are commanded to "keep on being filled with the Spirit" This is a different tense and voice, and it is a responsibility of us, therefore. The 'baptism' lays with the Holy Spirit, himself; the 'filling' lays with us, in the sense I'm using.

In the same vein, salvation, (or saved) by grace through faith, is always, to my knowledge spoken of in the passive voice, as related to eternal life. As I read it, it is a free gift, even though that terminology is redundant. And it is presented as a one-time event, as I read it. It cost God 'everything'; it cost me nothing.

Over fifty things happened to me Biblically, at that point of time, not one of which I consciously 'experienced', including being regenerated, receiving the spirit of adoption, being baptized by the spirit, being sealed, receiving spiritual gifts, a new nature, justification, imputation, plus another 50 or so.

Now once we are a believer, we hit another idea, "What happens next?". The answer is service, growth, as I've previously alluded to, 'discipleship', and yes the dreaded "L" word of 'Lordship', as in he can now be our Lord, as Master of our lives. Unlike salvation which cost you nothing, discipleship can and may well cost you everything. Paul's testimony from Scripture speaks to this, JoJ has testified to this, in his testimony. But we have to get them in the right order, and we cannot intrude one on the other. In the usual vernacular, that is putting the cart before the horse, or as I like to say, we are trying to push a rope. I guess it would be possible to hook up a cart, so that it could be pushed along in front of a horse; but attempting to push a rope can only wind up with an absolutely hopelessly knotted mess, and that is a perfect description of Lordship Salvation.
In his grace,
Ed