Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

EdSutton · Mar 9, 2006

Originally posted by Faith alone:
Yes, well said, Ed.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A final passage that speaks to this, is found in John 5:24: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

Didja notice? The "gospel according to Jesus" has a three-fold assurance and certainty, past, present, AND future. This is for the one who hears and believes in Him who sent Me. This one -

1.) present - has everlasting life;
2.) future - shall not come into judgment, but...;
3.) Past - has passed from death into life.

And that, boys and girls, is the message of "the gospel according to Jesus"!!

Uh, nice little dig about MacArthur's book.

One comment. The Greek translated "passed" has the idea of "crossed over."

METABEBHKEN is perfect tense of METABAINW - to pass from one place or state into another. In this case, out of spiritual death into spiritual life. Also it says here that we will NOT come into judgement (KRISIN). Pretty clear to me.

The koine Greek perfect tense has no real corresponding tense in English and refers to an act occuring at a point-in-time in the past with a resulting state in the present. IOW, we remain in a state of having crossed over from death into life - and that occured when we trusted in Christ.

Also the conjunction used is the strong one (ALLA) - "...does not come into judgment BUT has crossed over out of death into life."

Thx,

FA [/QUOTE]FTR, there was no "nice little dig about MacArthur's book" here, per se. I was actually quoting S&N where, on page 14, he said:

"Follow Me" IS His requirement for salvation. I am talking about the gospel according to JESUS.

I admit to being capable of making that sort of "dig". I just did not do it here.
In His grace,
Ed

StraightAndNarrow · Mar 9, 2006

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Well said, Ed.

I don't think I have much to add except that I've given up asking S&N for a definition of the Gospel. I've asked politely twice, and I never get anything but a bunch of verses addressed to believers, and the ever-nebulous phrase "gospel according to Jesus." To me this is a crucial point, but no defender of LS wants to answer it. I have given a clear definition of the Gospel based on Scripture. So, anyone, what is the LS Gospel?

I don't see why you need for me to post the same thing multiple times but this IS my view of the gospel according to Jesus.

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Why do you have such a hard time with my statement that this is the gospel according to Jesus? This is what He said was the requirement to be saved while He was alive on earth. I don't see how that is a nebulous statement. It's literally "the gospel."

John of Japan · Mar 9, 2006

Okay, okay, I believe you, S&N. This is your "gospel according to Jesus." It's just so weak a position, IMO, I can't understand why you would take it after being so strong on LS. Here you present a Gospel with no atonement for sin, no death on the cross (taking up a cross is not the same as dying on it) no resurrection. Strange--very strange!

But I was asking for a definition of the Gospel for us, now, since that is what LS is about. LS is not about the pre-cross Gospel, though John MacArthur would evidently like us to think so.

StraightAndNarrow · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Okay, okay, I believe you, S&N. This is your "gospel according to Jesus." It's just so weak a position, IMO, I can't understand why you would take it after being so strong on LS. Here you present a Gospel with no atonement for sin, no death on the cross (taking up a cross is not the same as dying on it) no resurrection. Strange--very strange!

But I was asking for a definition of the Gospel for us, now, since that is what LS is about. LS is not about the pre-cross Gospel, though John MacArthur would evidently like us to think so.

No, I don't mean to say that I don't believe that repenting, accepting Christ as Savior and Lord (due to His death and resurection) and being born again aren't important to salvation. I was basically asking what did Jesus actually ask of someone for them to be saved. He said come and follow me.

But let me think about that again. He was making this request before His crucification and resurrection. All anyone had at that point was to believe in His message and to join Him.

I'm really not sure, though, that the requirement really changed after His ascention into Heaven. The requirement is still to believe on Him (which now involves believing in the salvation provided for us on the cross) and following Him. I have been emphasizing the second part because I believe it has been lost on modern day Christians. I don't believe that decipleship is an option. I think it's a requirement based on the message that Jesus preached while He was on the earth. None of us are perfect. The deciples certainly weren't perfect. The objective is to abide in Him or to maintain a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Without this relationship there is no salvation.

Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John of Japan · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Okay, okay, I believe you, S&N. This is your "gospel according to Jesus." It's just so weak a position, IMO, I can't understand why you would take it after being so strong on LS. Here you present a Gospel with no atonement for sin, no death on the cross (taking up a cross is not the same as dying on it) no resurrection. Strange--very strange!

But I was asking for a definition of the Gospel for us, now, since that is what LS is about. LS is not about the pre-cross Gospel, though John MacArthur would evidently like us to think so.

No, I don't mean to say that I don't believe that repenting, accepting Christ as Savior and Lord (due to His death and resurection) and being born again aren't important to salvation. I was basically asking what did Jesus actually ask of someone for them to be saved. He said come and follow me.

But let me think about that again. He was making this request before His crucification and resurrection. All anyone had at that point was to believe in His message and to join Him.

I'm really not sure, though, that the requirement really changed after His ascention into Heaven. The requirement is still to believe on Him (which now involves believing in the salvation provided for us on the cross) and following Him. I have been emphasizing the second part because I believe it has been lost on modern day Christians. I don't believe that decipleship is an option. I think it's a requirement based on the message that Jesus preached while He was on the earth. None of us are perfect. The deciples certainly weren't perfect. The objective is to abide in Him or to maintain a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Without this relationship there is no salvation.

Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. [/QUOTE]Okay, I'll look at little morewith you at the pre-cross Gospel. You are barking up the wrong tree. You are still looking at verses wherein Jesus addressed those who were already followers.

Start looking at where Jesus actually dealt with lost people at length about salvation. A long time ago in this thread I asked LS advocates why Jesus did not deal with his Lordship in John 3 and 4, where He dealt extensively with sinners about salvation, and no one has yet answered me. So, can you answer this?

On the side of truth · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
Okay, okay, I believe you, S&N. This is your "gospel according to Jesus." It's just so weak a position, IMO, I can't understand why you would take it after being so strong on LS. Here you present a Gospel with no atonement for sin, no death on the cross (taking up a cross is not the same as dying on it) no resurrection. Strange--very strange!

But I was asking for a definition of the Gospel for us, now, since that is what LS is about. LS is not about the pre-cross Gospel, though John MacArthur would evidently like us to think so.

No, I don't mean to say that I don't believe that repenting, accepting Christ as Savior and Lord (due to His death and resurection) and being born again aren't important to salvation. I was basically asking what did Jesus actually ask of someone for them to be saved. He said come and follow me.

:flower: S&N,
Couple of questions. How can an unsaved person come and follow Christ? The Lord said "Come and follow me" only to those who already believed ON Him. (Matthew 4:19) The Lord would not have made the disciples fishers of men if they were not already saved. The Lord does not ask them to come and follow HIm first but rather to repent of their sins,and come to him in faith believing that He is who He says He is. Paul quotes in I Corinthians 15:1-4 that the Corinthian church(which by the way was a carnally minded church)was saved through the Gospel that Paul preached unto them. What was that Gospel? That Christ died for our sins,was buried and rose again. Without those three ingredients there is no salvation. With those three ingredients we have all the riches in Christ Jesus ,AMEN. There is nothing in those Scriptures that tell us to follow Christ as part of our salvation. We are not saved any differently then those who were in the Corithian church. The Gospel is simple and need not be complicated as that would doom souls to hell. :flower:

But let me think about that again. He was making this request before His crucification and resurrection. All anyone had at that point was to believe in His message and to join Him.

:flower: S&N
This was not the message of salvation that Jesus preached before his Crucifixion and Resurrection. His message was Matthew 4:17 which says "From that time Jesus began to preach,and to say, Repent:for the kingdom of heaven is at head. Repentance and faith were the only requirements that Jesus preached for salvation. :flower:

I'm really not sure, though, that the requirement really changed after His ascention into Heaven. The requirement is still to believe on Him (which now involves believing in the salvation provided for us on the cross) and following Him.

:flower: S&N
You are right. The requirements never changed after his ascension into Heaven. The apostles were to "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. As per above, I Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the Gospel for us. Following Him is not however, a part of the Gospel it is not there. Following Him comes after salvation because He has saved us. :flower:

I have been emphasizing the second part because I believe it has been lost on modern day Christians.

:flower: S&N,
I could not agree with you more. It has been lost on modern day Christians. But that is due to a lack of sound Bible believing preachers and churches who get more caught up with issues and social practices of the day rather than focusing on the whole counsel of God. Lordship Salvation is not the answer. It is not a purposeful action that brings assurance to the soul. I can testify of that. Lordship Salvation is more of a reactionary movement against quick prayerism which I am totally against. Christians need to get back to studying what the Bible really says about holy living and apply it to there lives. :flower:

I don't believe that decipleship is an option. I think it's a requirement based on the message that Jesus preached while He was on the earth.

:flower: S&N,
I absolutely agree with you here. Discipleship is not an option but a command. However, it is a command for Christians. Not for unbelievers wanting to be saved. The Lord gives us a free will to obey. If He did not then there would be none of us who could claim to be saved for we still have the old nature. Any yes, that can rule us many times over. :flower:

None of us are perfect. The deciples certainly weren't perfect. The objective is to abide in Him or to maintain a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Without this relationship there is no salvation.

:flower: S&N,
No way !!! What about the Corinthian church,they were living in habitual sin which angered Paul to no end. In fact he did not even think he could stand preaching to them a second time. Thus he wrote a letter. They were not having a close and meaningful relationship to the Lord so these folk were not saved? First Corinthians 1:2 refers to them as the church of God and that they were sanctified in Christ Jesus. I heartily disagree with your last statement. It cannot be found in Scripture. :flower:

Jhn 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
[/QUOTE]S&N
:flower: Can you love the Lord 100% of the time? Of course not unless you deny the fact that we have the old nature which I do not think you do. The contrapositive of the above verse is also true. The Holy Spirit will not manifest Himself to us if we do not keep the commandments that the Lord has given us. Unconfessed sin and living in sin AS A BELIEVER will cause us to quench the HOly Spirit thus His presence will not be felt and my relationship will not be the same but that does not mean I do not have one.
:type:

[ March 10, 2006, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: On the side of truth ]

On the side of truth · Mar 10, 2006

Well I apologize for the confusion in my last post...I am not sure as to how everything got placed in bold print when I did choose that as my option. I have placed a flower at the beginning and end of my posts and so anything else that is written is part of a S&N's post that I was responding to. If any one can drop some hints on how to do a proper post then please pass it on !!!! Sorry about it all

EdSutton · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Well I apologize for the confusion in my last post...I am not sure as to how everything got placed in bold print when I did choose that as my option. I have placed a flower at the beginning and end of my posts and so anything else that is written is part of a S&N's post that I was responding to. If any one can drop some hints on how to do a proper post then please pass it on !!!! Sorry about it all

Fortunately, your confusion is mainly centered on how to use a computer.

But fortunately, you seem to use your 'computer' very well, and very Biblical-ly, I would add!!

In His grace,
Ed

Faith alone · Mar 10, 2006

Another pesky issue here - sometimes you get that hourglass forever and it simply will not post, so when you hit "stop" and post again it gets double-posted... but you can't delete your own post. (This is a deleted double post, if any mod wants to delete it.)

Faith alone · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
Well I apologize for the confusion in my last post...I am not sure as to how everything got placed in bold print when I did choose that as my option. I have placed a flower at the beginning and end of my posts and so anything else that is written is part of a S&N's post that I was responding to. If any one can drop some hints on how to do a proper post then please pass it on !!!! Sorry about it all

Otsot,

Well, It may be due to those pesky [ QB ] which turns everything in the quote to bold. I often just delete them.

FA

ituttut · Mar 10, 2006

Originally posted by John of Japan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ituttut:

Originally posted by John of Japan:

Click to expand...

Missed this one John.

Thanks for reading and have noticed we are not too far apart in some things.

Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if there is something you have disagreed with me in.



Click to expand...

The “great commission” is back there; we are here, and the tribulation lies ahead.”

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I heard your question and tried to answer, but am not doing too well. I’ll try another route via the Gospel of John, and the Epistles to the Gentile of Paul. Lordship worship cannot be proved error by using Acts 2 salvation for the Jew.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Those of the Jewish “covenant” belief in Acts 2 find in the Gospels, and the writings of James and the Apostles Peter and John to be applied with the addition of Paul’s Epistles. In this approach it is difficult to escape from the mixing of the Law and Grace to the pure Grace of God that comes to us through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The reasoning of Acts 2 in this situation puts us on the turf being under the “schoolmaster” again for we must always go back to all the “Lordship” references in those writings. When we go from one dispensation to another we find truth of Lordship in each, and when we do we find “contradiction”. As long as we see no dispensations of God, the whole Bible is full of contradictions.

Christian faith, ituttut

StraightAndNarrow · Mar 12, 2006

Originally posted by EdSutton:

Okay, S&N, this is the post you have been a-waiting with bated breath. And probably baited breath, as well. Let's start from the top.

You wrote:
"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. "

In fact, you are the one who said, in response to JackRUS' question of-

"What is the percentage of lordship over ourselves that we must give up in order to be saved, and where is the number found in Scripture? (If it's 100%, then the doctrine falls flat on it's face since we all sin.)"-

the following:

"Bad news. The Biblical answer is 100%. Basically, what you'rer (sic) saying is you want to be saved but you want to go on living as you did before. I'm afraid God won't accept your deal with Him. It's not the gospel."

My response to your '100%' claim was my post. I could say that here you answered two 'points' that JRUS didn't say, for he made no such claim.

Neverthless, how are you reconciling "the Biblical answer is 100%" with your closing statement here of -
"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."?

Going from "100%" to being "Lord of our lives" to "True Christians will live lives that are pleasing to Him." to "... are expected to endure until the end." to "...continually strive to follow His commandments", in my mind, covers an awful lot of ground, as we farmers say. (And all the above are your quotes, BTW.) At what point is this 'break'? One sin? Two? Three? Twenty-seven? One hundred twelve? One thousand, eight hundred fifty nine? Forty-one thousand, three hundred twelve? You tell me!; you made the claim of "100%". I'm pretty sure one sin 'not repented of', (which words 'repent of, or from sin' are not found in the Bible, BTW) is something else than 100%.

The answer is 100% because MA 6:24 says we can serve only one master. We can serve God 100% or we can serve the world 100%. There is no answer in between as you insinuate (One sin? Two? Three? Twenty-seven? One hundred twelve? One thousand, eight hundred fifty nine? Forty-one thousand, three hundred twelve?) I’m not talking about counting sins. I’m talking about who you serve as master. If you refuse to serve Him as Lord, you are serving the world 100%.

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. (Quoted for the third time.)

I don't know how you, or anyone else for that matter, are intending to appear "on that day". I only know for myself. And I'm going to be there as the 'biggest chicken' you've ever seen, even though I'm going to be perfectly righteous. Without question! And I'm not going to be basing it on some attempt of "making Christ Lord". AS i (sic) once heard one person say, "You're too late for that. It can't be done! God has already beat you to it! The Bible doesn't talk like that! It never says 'Make Him Lord!' It says He is!!"

I'm going to be hiding behind my 'Big Brother', the Lord Jesus Christ. I'll not be easy to find! When I am found, I will "... be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Phlp. 3:9) And that is going to be the same righteousess(sic) imputed to Abraham, when he 'wised up', and believed God, 'stead of trying to do it on his own, as I have mentioned in a previous post, and I'm gonna be one of those David spoke of who, apart from works, has this righteousness placed to my account by faith, in the manner of which Paul speaks in Romans 3.

What are you going to answer when He says:

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

**********************************************

I didn't believe that following you was required? That's "Lordship Salvation?"

I'm not going to try and stand on how 'good a job' I did of ''yielding' to Him as Lord and Master'. I don't like those chances of being how sure I got my ducks all lined up, 'cause I got it figgered (sic) out. That would put me right there with Cain, Judas, and those of Matt. 7:21-23 who all "did many wonderful things for God." I don't like that religious crowd.

Since I accept Christ as my Lord, There isn't any chance I'd side with them either.

I'd rather be with a group I can better relate to, like Noah, Jacob, Rahab, Job, David, Solomon, Peter, Samson, Paul and 'my hero' - Lot. Way I got it figured, that's a drunk, a thief, an harlot, the biggest egoist in history, an adulterous murderer, the greatest 'womanizer' in history, a 'Christ denier', a whoremonger, the chief of sinners, and the Mayor of Sodom. That's some of the ones who were righteous by faith. That's where I 'takes my chances'.

If that is "easy-believism", whatever that means, then I guess I qualify as one of those. However I detest the straw man of "cheap grace". How dare ANYONE to speak of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, that was purchased with His own precious blood as 'cheap!!

That is about as close to being blasphemy, as one can come, IMO, and certainly falls under the condemnation of Hebrews 10:29-30 .

In His grace,
Ed

Easy-believerism is the prevailing "gospel" of today. It teaches that Christianity doesn't require discipleship, risk or suffering. In fact, in many places in America (a "Christian" nation) it's easier and more beneficial to your business career to be a Christian than not. It was nothing like that for the early Christians and it's nothing like that today in places where Christians are persecuted. I spoke to an Indian man who visited our church who said he was in constant fear for his life in India because he had become a Christian (from Hindu).

I don't see anywhere I have used the term "cheap grace." Can you please point that out to me? The "cheap" part refers to the unwillingness of people to give Christ lordship of their lives.

You don't believe in making Jesus lord of your life but you call him the Lord Jesus Christ ? Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?

Faith alone · Mar 12, 2006

SAN,

Easy-believerism is the prevailing "gospel" of today. It teaches that Christianity doesn't require discipleship, risk or suffering. In fact, in many places in America (a "Christian" nation) it's easier and more beneficial to your business career to be a Christian than not. It was nothing like that for the early Christians and it's nothing like that today in places where Christians are persecuted. I spoke to an Indian man who visited our church who said he was in constant fear for his life in India because he had become a Christian (from Hindu).

I don't see anywhere I have used the term "cheap grace." Can you please point that out to me? The "cheap" part refers to the unwillingness of people to give Christ lordship of their lives.

The italics above is my emphasis. FG does not teach or emphasize such a thing. FG teaches that we give all to Christ not because we must or we will be spiritually executed by a God who can't make up His mind whether his love for us is unconditiional or not, but out of love for our Lord. FG is based on developing a genuine relationship with our Lord, not one based on fear and ignorance of our position in Christ.

You don't believe in making Jesus lord of your life but you call him the Lord Jesus Christ ? Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?

Not true. You need to understand what free grace teaches. And we most certainly do serve Him!

We believe that Christ is Lord and we should respond to Him with such an understanding. We also believe that we cannot earn our way into heaven/eternal life. We believe that we are saved by grace - a gift - not by works.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, as a gift, or not?

FA

Major B · Mar 13, 2006

Not to throw a cog in the wheel of this long-lasting argument, but for several hundred years, "free grace" has been a synonym for five-point Calvinism, which, by the way teaches that we are saved TOTALLY by grace, but that IF true salvation has happened, there will be a changed life. If there is no evidence of a changed life, then real salvation has not taken place. "FG" has, apparently, hijacked the historical term.

JackRUS · Mar 13, 2006

Originally posted by Faith alone:
Another pesky issue here - sometimes you get that hourglass forever and it simply will not post, so when you hit "stop" and post again it gets double-posted... but you can't delete your own post. (This is a deleted double post, if any mod wants to delete it.)

You can delete your own post if you edit it in time and take out the text. Some folks just leave the term '(bump)'. But the post will still be there blank and is still better that a double post.

John of Japan · Mar 13, 2006

Originally posted by Faith alone:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />S&N: You don't believe in making Jesus lord of your life but you call him the Lord Jesus Christ ? Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?

Not true. You need to understand what free grace teaches. And we most certainly do serve Him!

We believe that Christ is Lord and we should respond to Him with such an understanding. We also believe that we cannot earn our way into heaven/eternal life. We believe that we are saved by grace - a gift - not by works.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, as a gift, or not?

FA [/QUOTE]Good answer, Faith Alone.

I find it tiresome and frankly shallow that LS advocates (including S&N over and over again in this thread) accuse us of not believing in following the Lord simply because we don't believe you must "accept Him as Lord" to be saved.

There is absolutely nothing logically or Biblically in my belief that salvation is only by grace through faith (minus dedication) that says I must therefore live an undedicated life. In fact, the logic is the opposite. When I believed I was born again, which means that God changed me at salvation and MADE ME ABLE to be dedicated to Him. In this teaching, all glory goes to God, and none to me for being so dedicated.

Tom Butler · Mar 13, 2006

Major B, thanks for saying this:

IF true salvation has happened, there will be a changed life. If there is no evidence of a changed life, then real salvation has not taken place.

I've lifted this part out of a larger context, forgive me, but it defines in a nutshell my view of what LS is all about. No more, no less.

You are blessed with the ability to cut through all the junk. Imagine, after reading 200-plus posts debating the subject, you've synopsized LS in two--that's two--sentences. Amazing.

Thanks, Charlie

Tom B.

John of Japan · Mar 13, 2006

Originally posted by Major B:
Not to throw a cog in the wheel of this long-lasting argument, but for several hundred years, "free grace" has been a synonym for five-point Calvinism, which, by the way teaches that we are saved TOTALLY by grace, but that IF true salvation has happened, there will be a changed life. If there is no evidence of a changed life, then real salvation has not taken place. "FG" has, apparently, hijacked the historical term.

And it is exactly this, Major B, that mystifies me when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!!

Lordship salvation in it's theological meaning (that is, in the scholarly literature and theological journals) deals primarily with what is necessary for salvation (faith alone, as the Reformers believed, or faith plus dedication, as LS advocates believe), and only secondarily with what happens as a result of salvation. In Internet debating, on the other hand....

StraightAndNarrow · Mar 13, 2006

Originally posted by Faith alone:
SAN,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Easy-believerism is the prevailing "gospel" of today. It teaches that Christianity doesn't require discipleship, risk or suffering. In fact, in many places in America (a "Christian" nation) it's easier and more beneficial to your business career to be a Christian than not. It was nothing like that for the early Christians and it's nothing like that today in places where Christians are persecuted. I spoke to an Indian man who visited our church who said he was in constant fear for his life in India because he had become a Christian (from Hindu).

I don't see anywhere I have used the term "cheap grace." Can you please point that out to me? The "cheap" part refers to the unwillingness of people to give Christ lordship of their lives.

The italics above is my emphasis. FG does not teach or emphasize such a thing. FG teaches that we give all to Christ not because we must or we will be spiritually executed by a God who can't make up His mind whether his love for us is unconditiional or not, but out of love for our Lord. FG is based on developing a genuine relationship with our Lord, not one based on fear and ignorance of our position in Christ.

You don't believe in making Jesus lord of your life but you call him the Lord Jesus Christ ? Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?

Click to expand...

Not true. You need to understand what free grace teaches. And we most certainly do serve Him!

We believe that Christ is Lord and we should respond to Him with such an understanding. We also believe that we cannot earn our way into heaven/eternal life. We believe that we are saved by grace - a gift - not by works.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, as a gift, or not?

FA [/QUOTE]I don't know what "FG" is. I was talking about a prevailing false gospel. As far as making Jesus Lord, I was speaking to Ed's denial that that is necessary for salvation and yet he calls Him the Lord Jesus. That's inconsistent. I believe that we are save by grace. When this happens it is necessarily accompanied by repentence and being born again. Our christian life is characterized by making Jesus Lord of our life. Those who don't do this have not had a genuine conversion. Do you accept Jesus as Lord of your life?

John of Japan · Mar 13, 2006

Originally posted by Tom Butler:
Major B, thanks for saying this:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> IF true salvation has happened, there will be a changed life. If there is no evidence of a changed life, then real salvation has not taken place.

I've lifted this part out of a larger context, forgive me, but it defines in a nutshell my view of what LS is all about. No more, no less.

You are blessed with the ability to cut through all the junk. Imagine, after reading 200-plus posts debating the subject, you've synopsized LS in two--that's two--sentences. Amazing.

Thanks, Charlie

Tom B. [/QUOTE]Sigh. 200 plus posts, complete with definitions from theological journals, descriptions of what the doctrine is doing in churches, showing how the Reformers didn't believe this, saying that the doctrine doesn't really fit Calvinism (and no one has interacted yet on that with me). And we come once again back to this. It makes a man want to quit trying. This Internet style debating is starting to get to me.

Maybe I should put it differently. NOTE!!!!! The doctrine of Lordship Salvation and the doctrine of the perseverence (or preservation of the saints, as I much prefer) ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!!

LS: What must take place for salvation to occur.

Preservation: What God does for the saint after salvation.

Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

<img src=/6069.jpg>

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member