ANY here hold to/teach 'Lordship salvation?"

[mandym]

Then correct me. Tell me where I am wrong.

I already have. But more importantly I am done with your mean spirited posts.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Yes. How dare Washer tell them the truth.

There are gracefull, edifying, proper ways to get that point across in a strong way

Then there is Paul Washers clod-ish and inapropropiate way.

To start his message with that statement Would make Fred Phelps and his Kansas looneys very happy.

 

[DHK]

I already have. But more importantly I am done with your mean spirited posts.

I was only going by the information posted. Washer believes in Lordship Salvation.
It was posted that 5,000 Christians were present eager to be stirred to spread the gospel. (my paraphrase).
Washer said that most of them would be in hell (a cruel statement to make).
1. If they were Christians then they were Christians. I don't believe in this easy believism, ticket out of heaven business that you accuse me of. If a person is a Christian he is born from above, on his way to heaven with his sins forgiven. According to the information posted there were 5,000 Christians present. Is that right or wrong?

2. They were there to be motivated by Paul Washer to carry out the Great Commission. They wanted to evangelize. Am I right or wrong?

3. Instead of giving a message of revival, a message on evangelism, he told them they were going to hell--yes or no? No doubt he preached a fairly good message. I wasn't there. I can't tell you what he preached. I can only assess what was posted on this board.

 

[preacher4truth]

You will have to clarify which church you are talking about. Your own? 80% of your own membership are probably lost? You have lots of work to do.

I don't own a church, nor are they my membership, they're His members.

Nor are they my sheep. They're his.

But I agree that most of those within the churches are lost most likely.

But hey, at least I'm not preaching your easy-believism.

I'd say those that preach EB raise the % quite high and well above 80%.

 

[preacher4truth]

I was only going by the information posted. Washer believes in Lordship Salvation.
It was posted that 5,000 Christians were present eager to be stirred to spread the gospel. (my paraphrase).
Washer said that most of them would be in hell (a cruel statement to make).
1. If they were Christians then they were Christians. I don't believe in this easy believism, ticket out of heaven business that you accuse me of. If a person is a Christian he is born from above, on his way to heaven with his sins forgiven. According to the information posted there were 5,000 Christians present. Is that right or wrong?

2. They were there to be motivated by Paul Washer to carry out the Great Commission. They wanted to evangelize. Am I right or wrong?

3. Instead of giving a message of revival, a message on evangelism, he told them they were going to hell--yes or no? No doubt he preached a fairly good message. I wasn't there. I can't tell you what he preached. I can only assess what was posted on this board.

Look who's talking about cruel statements to make.

You tell me what, "shut up", "don't post", and imply "my church is 80% lost due to me" and talk of cruel talk when a man like Washer tells the truth? Really?

Wake up. I won't be bullied by you or anyone else on here.

Pot? Kettle?

Washer tells the truth. Those of the pusillanimous persuasion, as yourself, have trouble handling it.

Jesus also told others they were going to hell. Good thing you weren't there to correct that, right? I mean, how dare true preachers tell the truth in the face of opponents such as yourself.

 

[quantumfaith]

Whether you agree with DHK or not he is anything but "pusillanimous". He demonstrates this time and time again. Such an assertion does not even come close to accuracy.

 

[DHK]

Look who's talking about cruel statements to make.

No need to be so rude.

You tell me what, "shut up", "don't post", and imply "my church is 80% lost due to me" and talk of cruel talk when a man like Washer tells the truth? Really?

I post the facts. Often you don't respond or beat around the bush.
Concerning the 80%, you didn't specify which church. I don't believe in any such thing as a universal church. (You probably already know that). So be specific. Which church has 80% of their members lost? People shouldn't make statements they can't verify.

Wake up. I won't be bullied by you or anyone else on here.

Asking people to verify their information is not being a bully.

Washer tells the truth. Those of the pusillanimous persuasion, as yourself, have trouble handling it.

Then demonstrate it through the Scriptures.

Jesus also told others they were going to hell. Good thing you weren't there to correct that, right? I mean, how dare true preachers tell the truth in the face of opponents such as yourself.

Jesus, never, never told his disciples that they were going to hell.

Now take a look at the original post that I responded to:

My introduction to Paul Washer was watching a sermon he preached to a youth evangelism conference. Here is an auditorium packed with 5,000 young Christians eager to get fired up for going out into the world and preach the Gospel and his opening remark is, "A hundred years from now the great majority of people in this building will be in hell."

1. I take statements literally and meanings of words seriously. I don't believe in easy believism. I have no need to doubt the veracity of the poster who used the word "Christians" that he meant what he said.
Therefore:

2. There were 5,000 Christians (born again believers) present.
3. They were there eager to get fired up to go and preach the gospel.
4. Washer told them they would be going to hell.

What conclusions would one draw from this?
1. Washer doesn't believe in the eternal security of the believer since his audience were Christians?
2. He believes in Lordship Salvation, therefore he believes a works-based salvation, and thus these believers can lose their salvation through their works.
3. They will not persevere to the end, an important Calvinist belief.

What else should I conclude from the post?
What would you conclude given the information in the post?
Remember: I wasn't there. I don't know what he preached. I am going solely on what this poster posted in this thread.

 

[quantumfaith]

Modern dispute
The controversy moved to the forefront of the evangelical world in the late 1980s when Calvinist John F. MacArthur argued against the doctrine of carnal Christianity in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. In response, in 1989, Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation and Zane C. Hodges published Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. As both MacArthur's and Hodges's books were published by Zondervan, some bookstores displayed them together under the banner, "Which One is Right?". MacArthur later published Faith Works (1993) and Hodges released a second edition of his earlier title, The Gospel Under Siege in 1989. Two ministries, The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, arose with the purpose of advancing free grace soteriological views which opposed the concepts introduced through "lordship salvation". Each group contributed numerous books, journal articles and pamphlets detailing the problems of lordship salvation.
While the concept of "free grace" dates to the 17th century, "Free Grace" was adopted as the term for the opposing camp in the lordship controversy by such authors as Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright.[citation needed] While free grace is nominally undisputed in Protestantism, the "Free Grace view" in this sense postulates that "Lordship salvation" is in opposition to this principle by demanding submission or surrender as an additional step required beyond faith alone. The "Free Grace" view nevertheless affirms regeneration and the "inevitability" of good works by believers. "Free Grace" thus postulates that good works are inevitable but should not be taken as evidence of one's salvation or righteous standing before God. Proponents of lordship salvation, on the other hand, criticize opponents as advocating "carnal Christianity" by leaving open the possibility of indulging in sinful behaviour and still sharing equal assurance as one who is in some degree subduing sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy

 

[preacher4truth]

No need to be so rude.

This from the mod who tells me to shut up, don't post, and condescends time and again?

Practice what you preach and what I preach. You'll begin to grow by leaps and bounds.

I post the facts. Often you don't respond or beat around the bush.
Concerning the 80%, you didn't specify which church. I don't believe in any such thing as a universal church. (You probably already know that). So be specific. Which church has 80% of their members lost? People shouldn't make statements they can't verify.

You're full of baloney here. You don't post facts. You think you do. I always respond to your drivel with truth. Then come your threats of banishment when you're proven, time and again, to be in error.

Asking people to verify their information is not being a bully.

You're always schooled and owned in answers from others and myself. Then come the portentous threats. "Shut up" "don't post" & C are your typical responses when shown your many errors. That's how you bully.

Jesus, never, never told his disciples that they were going to hell.

He (Christ) told false disciples they were such. So do I. So does Washer. So do the Scriptures. So did Paul. So did Peter. So did Jude. You? Not so much. You're preaching easy-believism candy-coated nonsense.

Now take a look at the original post that I responded to:

1. I take statements literally and meanings of words seriously. I don't believe in easy believism. I have no need to doubt the veracity of the poster who used the word "Christians" that he meant what he said.
Therefore:

2. There were 5,000 Christians (born again believers) present.
3. They were there eager to get fired up to go and preach the gospel.
4. Washer told them they would be going to hell.

What conclusions would one draw from this?
1. Washer doesn't believe in the eternal security of the believer since his audience were Christians?
2. He believes in Lordship Salvation, therefore he believes a works-based salvation, and thus these believers can lose their salvation through their works.
3. They will not persevere to the end, an important Calvinist belief.

What else should I conclude from the post?
What would you conclude given the information in the post?
Remember: I wasn't there. I don't know what he preached. I am going solely on what this poster posted in this thread.

I already read your original prattle.

Yep, you commented and concluded on something you've never heard with half of the info or less.

Unwise and imprudent. But that's your way.

Spend some time in Proverbs and grow.

Washer is a preacher akin to Jesus. They also didn't like Jesus' hard preaching in much the same way you disdain Washers. You're a fulfillment of not wanting to endure sound doctrine, but instead you want to heap preachers akin to yourself to scratch your itching ears with superficial nonsense and easy-believisms.


Washers not naive. Neither was Christ. You? Well.

 

[DHK]

Modern dispute
The controversy moved to the forefront of the evangelical world in the late 1980s when Calvinist John F. MacArthur argued against the doctrine of carnal Christianity in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. In response, in 1989, Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation and Zane C. Hodges published Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. As both MacArthur's and Hodges's books were published by Zondervan, some bookstores displayed them together under the banner, "Which One is Right?". MacArthur later published Faith Works (1993) and Hodges released a second edition of his earlier title, The Gospel Under Siege in 1989. Two ministries, The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, arose with the purpose of advancing free grace soteriological views which opposed the concepts introduced through "lordship salvation". Each group contributed numerous books, journal articles and pamphlets detailing the problems of lordship salvation.
While the concept of "free grace" dates to the 17th century, "Free Grace" was adopted as the term for the opposing camp in the lordship controversy by such authors as Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright.[citation needed] While free grace is nominally undisputed in Protestantism, the "Free Grace view" in this sense postulates that "Lordship salvation" is in opposition to this principle by demanding submission or surrender as an additional step required beyond faith alone. The "Free Grace" view nevertheless affirms regeneration and the "inevitability" of good works by believers. "Free Grace" thus postulates that good works are inevitable but should not be taken as evidence of one's salvation or righteous standing before God. Proponents of lordship salvation, on the other hand, criticize opponents as advocating "carnal Christianity" by leaving open the possibility of indulging in sinful behaviour and still sharing equal assurance as one who is in some degree subduing sin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordship_salvation_controversy

Thank you. Good post.