Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Uh, no. Born again is regeneration.

CYL,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying that being born again is not required for salvation? That contradicts Christ's statement to Nicodemus. Or are you saying that salvation is grace PLUS regeneration? That would put you in agreement with (Gulp) me. </font>[/QUOTE]No, that's not what I said. Gaining eternal life happens immediately upon our conversion. One who has placed his faith in Christ alone ---&gt; has become a child of God ----&gt; has gained eternal life as a promise.

Now if he relies only upon the work of Christ, that is, by definition, salvation by grace alone.

Now, I would really like to know where you stand on the following 2 questions - asked this twice now without a response:


Are we saved by grace alone?

Are we saved by faith alone?


I am not asking as a place to attack your position - I just want to know where you stand here. If I do not know where you stand, and then I say something, you might become offended because I have misunderstood what you believe. That's already happened once. This will help prevent that.

You can comment on other things if you like. But the ONE THING I'd like to know is the answer to those two questions.

Thx, and have a great weekend.


FA </font>[/QUOTE]You didn't answer my question so I'll restate it.

You say that we gain eternal life immediately upon conversion but being born again is regeneration and not a part of salvation.

So you're saying that being born again is not required for salvation? That contradicts Christ's statement to Nicodemus. Or are you saying that salvation is grace PLUS regeneration? That would put you in agreement with (Gulp) me.

 

S&N,

Thank you for being straightforward. I think regardless what church we are attending we should have the freedom to genuinely pursue truth, and sometimes that pursuit requires that we consider things that others might consider to be almost heresy. So your comment that you do not believe that we are saved by grace alone does not bother me, FYI.

FYI, my position is that I do believe that we are saved by grace alone, though fait halone in Christ alone. Hey, sounds noce.

I believe you probably hold to what's referred to as "prevenient" grace. Prevenient means "coming before," and is in general a reference to the grace of God which causes us to be convicted by sin, though we are nopt born again yet. Calvinists do not hold to that, of course. But I do as well, though we will define it differently.

"No one can come to me the Father who sent me draws him." (John 6:44) God is at work in our lives causing us to perhaps eventually respond in faith to the gospel. IOW, unless God is at work in our lives, we cannot come to Him. I agree, as you do I imagine. But, is that enough? IOW, once someone has become a child of God by faith, can he be kicked out of God's family?

IMO grace extends beyond just the drawing to Christ and then the new birth. Everything we do in Christ is saturated in His grace. I believe that we also agree that God's grace is not irresistible, but you will say, I imagine, that just as we chose to come to Christ so we can choose to leave.

But you see, who would ever choose to have eternal life taken away from them? I agree that man has a free will to choose or not choose to respond tothwe gospel - to the grace of God in his life - drawing Him to God. But once we have responded in grace, we are born into God's family. We are changed. (2 Corin. 5:17 - we are a new creature.)

That's why we cannot lose our salvation. Now, Lordship salvation is commonly held by those who are Reformed - in fact, though you do not need to be Reformed IOT hold to it (as for example - yourself), it is very difficult to be Reformed and not be LS. But LS comes in all shapes. You can also be Arminian and hold to it.

So it'sreally not a matter of whether or not you can lose your salvation, but whether grace is enough.

FA

 

When Jesus said "Come and follow Me" what do you think He meant?

What is meant by these two passages of scripture?

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

2Ti 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished [my] course, I have kept the faith:
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

If a believer has eternal security why would Mathew say that only those who "endure until the end" will be saved.

Why did Paul say that because he had fought a good fight, finished the course, and kept the faith that he would receive a crown of righteousness (be saved)?

Why do these two descriptions of the Judgement talk about what we've done in His name?

 

Faithalone: I didn't say he shouldn't express his opinion. I said he should resign from his church. That is, if he's actually a member (I'm not trying to imply that he's not a member, it's just that so many people will just repeatedly visit a church and then refer to themselves as members, even though they were never actually legally voted in as a member).

He doesn't believe what his church believes. Or perhaps his church is so liberal that they don't think doctrine is important and so why not just stay in the church anyway? "All are wecome, we don't judge anyone". Sort of like Lakewood church - just believe in yourself!

 

S&N,

Well, here's the dispensationalist response to the question re. Matthew 24. (The Reformed response will be different, since they, in general, view eschatology - end time events - differently.)

Matthew 24 and 25 is referring to the time of Jacob's trial - to the great tribulation. During that period, only those who "endure to the end" will be "saved" from physical death. Now Calvinism sees "enduring" to the end as something which all true believers will do. I do believe that all believers in Christ have been re-born and changed as a result. They do show fruits which relate to that. But they may or may not "endure" through various trials which we all go through. Paul spoke of various co-laborers who did not endure, but during persecution caved in.

OK, when Jesus said to "follow Me" the idea is that we are to become His disciples - learners. He did not say that was how we become a child of God, but that this happens to the person born "from above." Following Jesus is what a disciple does - it's not how we become, or remain, a Christian. It is possible to be a Christian, yet not a disciple of Christ - or at least, not a faithful disciple.

In 2 Timothy 4 Paul is confident that he will be rewarded for his faithful laboring on behalf of the gospel. He has "fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith." He did not say that because of this he was assured of eternal life, but that there was awaiting for him a crown of righteousness which the Lord would give to Him on that Day. This has nothing to do with gaining eternal life. And Jesus said that the moment that we believed in Him that we had "crossed over from death into life" (eternal). It is a present possession, not something which we will gain as a result of a faithful life serving Christ. There are rewards for such, but eternal life is a "gift." Can't be a gift if we have to do something to receive it.

When talking to Martha, Jesus said...

"Whoever lives and believes in Me will never die-ever... do you believe this?" That was essentially what I was asking you earlier... do you believe this? If more was required than simple faith, Jesus could simply not have said this? How could Jesus have said that everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die if more was required than faith?


(Please answer this particular question, if you do anything with this post. Thx.)


2 Timothy 4 is referring to the BEMA seat of Christ. It is not the same thing as the Great White Throne (KRISIS) Judgment. In John 5:24 Jesus said that those who have trusted in Him have already crossed over into eternal life, and promised that they would never be judged (KRINW) for their sins. I don't think He is an Indian-giver:

Here are some descriptionms of the BEMA seat of Christ, where all believers will stand before Christ and give an account of their faithfulness:

As you can see, Paul was referring to not doing something which might cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble. Why not? Because we (all Christians here) will all stand before our Lord to give an account for our actions at the BEMA seat of Christ. We will never be "condemned" for our sins - that penalty was paid for by Christ "once for all." (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; Romans 6:10; 1 Peter 3:18)

Paul said that they were confident that when they would be "absent from the body" that they would be "home with the Lord." He "knew" that, it wasn't just something that He hoped would happen, if he didn't blow it. Then Paul said that it was his aim to "be pleasing to Him" because he knew that we (again, all believers - "we" refers to himself, his co-laborers and his readers - all Christians) will all appear before the BEMA seat of Christ - to be repaid for what he has done in the body - at the BEMA seat. Believers will never stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20...

Finally, here is another description of the BEMA seat of Christ:

Then Paul adds...

We are holy. It is "imputed" to us - not earned. Now because Christ's blood covers all of our sin, past, present and future, we have already been "declared to berighteous." That is literally what "justified" means - "declared righteous." It is similar to our own declaration "not guilty." Just as OJ Simpson was declared "not guilty" and hence cannot be retried for the same crimes, so we have been declared to be righteous by the righteous Judge, and there will be no "double jeopardy."

LS essentially makes light of the Judge's pronouncement of being righteous.

The reason that "Lordship salvation" is a misnomer is because it is the Lord who will save us - by faith alone. Those who require additional works - such as making Christ Lord of your life - are trying to save themselves, so perhaps it should be called, "Earned salvation," and perhaps free grace should refer to it as the "Lord's salvation."

Thx,

FA

 

JD,

I realize that. But I had encouraged S&N to share freely, and that it would not be used to attack him. Hence I wanted to assure him that I merely wanted to be clear on where he stood.

And though nearly all Baptist churches hold to eternal security, some do not. There are some here who are clearly not members of a Baptist church, based on their theology, and they should not be posting in this particular forum but in the one for other denominations. I am aware of one in particular who is Wesleyan Arminian - no Baptist church is such - and yet he posts here. That is just plain dishonest. But I don't think S&N fits that category. Besides, don't Baptist churches want all people, believers or not, LS or not, eternal security or not, to come and grow in Christ in their churches? My point was simply that it is key that we genuinely examine our beliefs and not hold anything as sacred - if we are going to grow in our understanding.

Thx,

FA

[ March 20, 2006, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Faith alone ]

 

Faithalonge said: "Besides, don't Baptist churches want all people, believers or not, LS or not, eternal security or not, to come and grow in Christ in their churches?"

The issue I brought up was membership. No, members should not hold to heretical doctrine. Denying grace alone is an aggregious error. It's not like arguing over how many songs should be in the program. You sound like a Rick Warren type. "Just get em in the church". I'm not trying to be mean, it's just my observation.

 

Well, Rick Warren has served as the president of the SBC in that region, FWIW. And it is simply a fact that some Baptist churches do not hold to eternal security - to grace alone. So it is possible for someone to be a member of such a church and not believe as we do.

BTW, I lived within 5 miles of Saddleback until last fall - for 11 years... never attended. Wasn't what I was looking for.

I am not a "seeker style church" type, FYI. That's funny. But when it comes to individuals in the church, yeah I want them there. Perhaps they will comes to trust in Christ. I don't want a church that looks nice and cozy. I want one where people sometimes feel a little nervous. Doesn't mean that we do not carefully hold to sound doctrine. It means that we want people to trust in Christ... that we go out into the highways and byways and compel them to come in... not to become members! And we want people who THINK, not just mouth back what they've been told! Bah humbug!

My point is simply that we can just bury our head in the sand on some doctrines and not honestly and genuinely consider what may be the truth. One who has not genuinely considered that the Bible might teach that we can lose our salvation can have no deep convictions on the matter. It takes digging and genuine soul-searching. We should not go the status quo way, so as to not rock the boat. We have to seek truth, it doesn't come seeking us. Do we want parishers to just accept what they are told by their pastor our Bible Gellowship Group[ teacher without thinking it through?

But if a nonOSAS walks through the doors of the church, I want to be his brother in Christ.

Thx,

FA

 

What I'm saying isn't liberal. It simply doesn't agree with your beliefs. I know what Baptists believe. I've been one for 50 years and never have attended a "liberal" church." You see, until the radical fundamentalists took over the SBC one of the Baptist distinctives was something called Priesthood of the Believer. Now Al Moeller is planning to take that away from the Baptist Faith and Message. Personally, I don't care what those of his ilk do because I still take seriously doing my own Bible study and determining my own beliefs.

I've posted a lot of scripture here. Neither you or anyone else seems to be able to answer it. All you can do is tell me I should leave my church because we don't agree. Here again I disagree with you. I'd never tell someone to leave their church especially if I had concerns about the validity of their beliefs. Who do you think you are? Thank goodness I just ignore what you've said because you haven't contributed anything worthwhile to the discussion.

 

Oh, come now. This is getting ridiculous. You have again and again posted a lot of Scripture aimed at believers and then claimed they proved Lordship Salvation. And several of us have answered you over and over again. Stop patting yourself on the back before you throw your shoulder out of joint!

And you still have not answered my Scriptures, though I've asked you to at least three times, so I find it silly for you to claim we have not answered your Scriptures. Frankly I'm tired of it. You've given us many words "full of sound and fury but signifying nothing."

 

?? Do you really believe this?

John has posted much of value to this discussion. If you view it such, then you are being closed-minded.

FA

 

?? Do you really believe this?

John has posted much of value to this discussion. If you view it such, then you are being closed-minded.

FA </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. I've told John of Japan more than once that:

1) First of all not all of the scripture I've posted pertains to believer's. Christ's command to "Come and Follow Me" was not to belivers. Both believers and non-believers, in fact everyone who ever lived will be at The Judgement. Is there really any argument about about these two points John?

2) Secondly, the scripture I've posted that pertains to believers warns them to "fight the good fight" and to "endure until the end." This is not something that would be said to someone who doesn't need to continue to make Jesus Lord of their lives.

Finally, my position is not that much different than what is said about true believers in the New Hampshire Confession of 1833.

Of the Perseverance of Saints
We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end;58 that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors;59 that a special Providence watches over their welfare;60 and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.61

The requirement for "a persevering attachment to Christ" identified in the NHC is the need to recognize Jesus as Lord. If you don't have it you aren't saved.

Now, let's discuss Christ's requirement for salvation while He was here on earth (Come and follow Me) and why the two Judgement scenes in MA 25 and Rev. 20 talk about what we've done in His name. Anybody want to talk about the Bible rather than sling the word heretic around?

 

Closer to my beliefs is the Helwys Confession (1611) which was the first known Baptist Confession of Faith.

http://www.generalbaptist.net/modules/wfsection/
print.php?articleid=7&PHPSESSID=
016a9b24e5c5201d0f1ec75046da8284


Helwys Confession (1611)

To all the humble minded which love the truth in simplicity Grace and Peace.

We believe and confess:

That God before the foundation of the world hath predestinated that all that believe in him shall be saved, and all that believe not shall be damned. All which he knew before. And this is the election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and condemnation, and not that God hath predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be damned, for God would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, and would have no man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance, and wills not the death of him that dies. And therefore God is the of no mans condemnation, according to the saying of the Prophet, Hosea 13, Thy destruction O Israel, is of thy self, but thy help is of me.

That man is justified only by the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, yet faith without works is dead.

That men may fall away from the grace of God , and from the truth, which they have received and acknowledged, after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come. And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein and overcome. That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish. And therefore let no man presume to think that because he has, or had one grace, therefore he shall always have grace. But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling. .....

That after the resurrection all men shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged according to their works , that the Godly shall enjoy life Eternal, the wicked being condemned shall be tormented everlastingly in hell.


I believe that Baptists need to return to their true spiritual roots.

 

S&N.
I believe that you should turn to the one true Gospel. The one without works.

 

(1) Yes, there is definitely an argument about your first point here. I certainly do disagree. You have not proved exegetically and cannot prove that any command of Christ to "Follow me" was said to unbelievers. You make these long lists without exegeting the passages, and then expect others to just take you at your word. Sorry, I believe in exegesis.

(2) With this and with the rest of your post, you once again mix up perseverance with LS. You once even wrote on this thread that you thought you might be using the wrong terminology, but you didn't follow up on that. And reading your quotes of the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 and the Helwys Confession, all I find is perseverence, not LS as defined by its advocates and opponents in the world of theology.

NOTE TO ALL CALVINISTS: It is entirely possible to believe in the perseverence of the saints without believing in Lordship Salvation. Simply remember that according to your doctrine God makes us able to believe, and then you will understand that committing yourself to Christ as Lord is an action of the human will which cannot save you. In fact to be a consistent Calvinists, believing that salvation is all of God and nothing of Man, you MUST believe that LS is wrong. Unfortunately S&N is not being a consistent Calvinist. He evidently thinks a person's free will can make Christ his or her Lord before salvation in the "ordo salutis" (order of salvation) before regeneration. That is completely contrary to proper Calvinist soteriology.

 

Follow Me

S&N insists that we must deal with his arbitrary verse lists, which he insists are to unsaved people. But he doesn't exegete them or interpret them. Okay, I'll deal with this one.

Matt. 4:19 is to Peter and Andrew, but there is no indication in the text or context whether or not they were saved. I believe they were saved and this was their call to service.

Matt. 8:19 is to a scribe, but we find from the context that he was already a disciple, a believer, since the man in v. 22 is called “another disciple.”

Matt. 8:22 is to “another disciple,” so he was already a believer.

Matt. 9:9 is to Matthew, but it doesn’t say if he was saved yet or not.

Matt. 16:24 is to “His disciples,” so they were already believers.

Matt. 19:21 is to the rich young man. Jesus tells him to sell all he has, and then he will have treasure in Heaven. I dealt with this passage when it was mentioned by S&N earlier, and I don’t believe it proves Lordship Salvation at all. The significant thing here is that, according to the order of salvation given by S&N earlier, the man would have been saved if he had sold his possessions. Jesus told him to “Follow Me,” then, after he would have been saved.

Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 are parallel to Matt. 9:9.

Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23 are parallel to Matt. 16:24.

Mark 10:21 and Luke 18:22 are parallel to Matt. 19:21.

Luke 8:57-59 are parallel to Matt. 8:19-22.

John 1:43 is to Phillip, but we don’t know from the context exactly when he got saved.

John 10:27 is about “My sheep,” which means believers.

John 12:26 has someone serving Jesus before following Him. I would say this means the follower is already saved.

John 13:36 is to Peter. Jesus is speaking of His own death, therefore this is about literally, physically following, not metaphorically.

John 21:19 is once again to Peter. If Peter wasn’t saved by then, it would be very strange.

Acts 12:8 is about literally, physically following, not metaphorically. And besides, it is about following an angel, not Jesus. This proves to me how careless S&N is being with the Scripture. He evidently didn’t even realize this is about following an angel out of prison, since he included it with verses about following Jesus.

At the end of his list, S&N tacked on Luke 9:61 and John 21:22, out of order. Luke 9:61 is a continuation of the parallel passage to Matt. 8, and is therefore redundant.

John 21:22 is a continuation of the words of Jesus to Peter from earlier in the chapter, and is therefore redundant.

SOOOOOOO, what is the record? S&N cannot prove exegetically that a single one of these passages is to lost people. Furthermore, Matt. 8:19 & 22, 16:24 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke), John 10:27, John 12:26 and at least the later passages about Peter are definitely to disciples, who are believers.

S&N did not prove his point with this casually thrown together list. On the contrary, he proved that Jesus often told those who were already disciples to follow Him!!

 

Yes there is argument - regarding your understanding of judgment. Now I imagine that it is true that those whom Jesus called to follow Him may have been both unbelievers and later believers. Jesus challenged people to follow Him more than once. But I do not see how that relates to this duscission on Lordship salvation since the Bible does not say that we become Christians by following Him. A disciple follows Christ. You're mixing concepts of discipleship and new birth.

Now I do not agree that everyone who has ever lived will be at the judgment. I earlier posted several verses regarding judgment, and you did not respond to it, so I'll repeat it, in case you didn't read it, because it addresses your point regarding judgment:

Here are some descriptions of the BEMA seat of Christ, where all believers will stand before Christ and give an account of their faithfulness:

As you can see, Paul was referring to not doing something which might cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble. Why not? Because we (all Christians here) will all stand before our Lord to give an account for our actions at the BEMA seat of Christ. We will never be "condemned" for our sins - that penalty was paid for by Christ "once for all." (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; Romans 6:10; 1 Peter 3:18)

Paul said that they were confident that when they would be "absent from the body" that they would be "home with the Lord." He "knew" that, it wasn't just something that He hoped would happen, if he didn't blow it. Then Paul said that it was his aim to "be pleasing to Him" because he knew that we (again, all believers - "we" refers to himself, his co-laborers and his readers - all Christians) will all appear before the BEMA seat of Christ - to be repaid for what he has done in the body - at the BEMA seat. Believers will never stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20...

Finally, here is another description of the BEMA seat of Christ:

Then Paul adds...

We are holy. It is "imputed" to us - not earned. Now because Christ's blood covers all of our sin, past, present and future, we have already been "declared to berighteous." That is literally what "justified" means - "declared righteous." It is similar to our own declaration "not guilty." Just as OJ Simpson was declared "not guilty" and hence cannot be retried for the same crimes, so we have been declared to be righteous by the righteous Judge, and there will be no "double jeopardy."

LS essentially makes light of the Judge's pronouncement of being righteous.

The reason that "Lordship salvation" is a misnomer is because it is the Lord who will save us - by faith alone. Those who require additional works - such as making Christ Lord of your life - are trying to save themselves, so perhaps it should be called, "Earned salvation," and perhaps free grace should refer to it as the "Lord's salvation." </font>[/QUOTE]

Let's look at the text in context:

The crowns spoken of in the NT are rewards for faithfulness in some manner. In this passage, it is a reward for "loving His [coming] appearance." This is not talking about the GWT judgment, but the "judgment" (BEMA) seat of Christ.


Now, I don't think that any of us need talk about someone else not addressing our points, as we all have, on both sides of this issue, been striving to support our position and giving scripture to do so.

FA

 

Thx S&N,

All of the articles of faith that I've seen are much too reformed for my taste. (Though Baptists, in general, are not reformed.) I like this one, though some things I do not agree with (italics above).

It depends what he understands "faith without works is dead) to mean. If by that - works follow faith - no problem. Also, he refers to all men standing before the judgment seat of Christ, yet those texts I listed before clearly only refer to believers standing before the BEMA seat.

I notice his view of predestination is that God predestined that all those who believe in Him will be saved. Though I am not Reformed, IMO it goes deeper than that. God did actually predestine who would trust in Him... that doesn't mean that we have no free agency to choose to see kHim and come to faith in Him.

He has a nice cross-reference there in Hosea.

Thx,

FA

 

I have after years of thinking that I could be saved without serving Jesus as Lord. Ignore this at your perile.

What did Jesus man when He said "Come and follow Me?"

He said in MA.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

 

I have after years of thinking that I could be saved without serving Jesus as Lord. Ignore this at your perile.

What did Jesus man when He said "Come and follow Me?"

He said in MA.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely wrong, S&N. There is no contextual or linguistic connection whatever between Matt. 24:13 and any of the verses you quoted on Jesus (oh, yes, and an angel, too) saying "Follow me." You are inventing your own rules of hermeneutics here. Ignore proper interpretation of God's Word at your peril.