Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

[Allan]

I think you two are talking on different levels of the same plane.

One does not have to fully grasp Christ Lordship in order to be saved.
However, to be saved one must be fully dependant upon Christ to save them and keep them, thus establishing the very basic principle of the Lordship issue, whether it is something they grasp AS Lordship or not.

What is being contended by John and others is that salvation in Christ is not defined by your understanding of the full meaning of Lordship but that it is dependant upon who Christ is and what He has done. To make the understanding of Lordship a priority in salvation is to encumber the Gospel to whether or not we fully grasp Lordship and not grace or both grace AND Lordship.

The fact is, we are to grasp grace and that He alone is able and desirous to save.


On the other hand Pastor Larry and other sare merely acknowledging the basic principle that comes with salvation even if the person doesn't fully grasp the principle yet. That being, when they repent and recieve salvation they ARE setting themselves under Christ's Lordship to both save and Keep them, even though they do not yet fully grasp the concept we understand in spiritual maturity.

I think both are missing each other because you are talking about two different spiritual levels of understanding but speaking to the same thing. Both are right.

It is only when you state that full understanding of Christs Lordship and our verbal declaration of our submittance to it as a prerequisit to salvation is unbiblical. We do not use the term Lord (in the sense of a ruler) as they did back then, but most will agree that they submit to the Godhood of Christ to save and keep them. Why? Because they understand that aspect better (Godhood vs Lordship) Both exemplify rulership and absolute authority over an individual but both are not understood in the same light today, with regard to subject being discussed involving salvation.

Just my opinion though.

 

[canadyjd]

The problem with this kind of proof is how do you measure it? It may be a useful yardstick on a personal level (do I really believe Jesus is my Lord?), but I don't know if you can measure accurately someone else's commitment that way.

Maybe if they out-and-out deny Jesus as Lord, that would be pretty obvious (though still not 100% reliable - they could be overreacting to something and not really stating what is in their heart). But we can't necessarily draw a conclusion just because they're not living as well as we think they should live as Christians.

You right. We should not be declaring anyone to be unsaved....or saved for that matter. Only God knows the heart.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

In John MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus both the original and revised version (pp. 218 & 252 respectively) this statement appears,

”Perhaps the most comprehensive invitation to salvation in (all) the epistles comes in James 4:7-10”

Here is the passage Dr. MacArthur refers to as an “invitation to salvation”

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up,” (James 4:7-10).

I will ask just two questions for honest debate:

1) Is the epistle of James, and this passage specifically, directed to the lost or to those who are saved already?

2) Where in James 4:7-10 do we find salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?


LM
__________________

 

[canadyjd]

One does not have to fully grasp Christ Lordship in order to be saved....However, to be saved one must be fully dependant upon Christ to save them and keep them, thus establishing the very basic principle of the Lordship issue, whether it is something they grasp AS Lordship or not.

What is being contended by John and others is that salvation in Christ is not defined by your understanding of the full meaning of Lordship but that it is dependant upon who Christ is and what He has done. To make the understanding of Lordship a priority in salvation is to encumber the Gospel to whether or not we fully grasp Lordship and not grace or both grace AND Lordship.

The fact is, we are to grasp grace and that He alone is able and desirous to save.

On the other hand Pastor Larry and other sare merely acknowledging the basic principle that comes with salvation even if the person doesn't fully grasp the principle yet. That being, when they repent and recieve salvation they ARE setting themselves under Christ's Lordship to both save and Keep them, even though they do not yet fully grasp the concept we understand in spiritual maturity.

Well said, Allan. We must allow for spiritual maturity of the believer.

That said, is it not true that scripture indicates we are expected to make progress in our spiritual maturity? At what point is a lack of progress in spiritual maturity within a professing believer a sign of a lack of genuine coversion?

peace to youraying:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”.

When the gospel is presented clearly and properly, the persons considering salvation will have had made clear them to that Jesus is God (Lord), that the Jesus of the Bible is the only Jesus that saves (and not another) and that He is the Christ.(the anointed one, the Messiah, the only means of salvation).

When the gospel is presented the Bible does not say, “You must make Him Jesus”. He IS Jesus. When the gospel is presented the Bible does not say, “You must make Him Christ or Messiah or The Annointed One”. He IS Christ. Nor does it say, “You must make Him Lord”. He IS Lord.

Instead, The Lord Jesus Christ is to be presented as IN FACT, The Lord, Jesus and The Christ. It is not an offer for you to make Him any of these but an offer for you to receive salvation from and by means of The Lord Jesus Christ.

Hence, what occurs is that instead of focusing on presenting the gospel plainly and clearly regarding who the Lord Jesus Christ is, a preoccupation with what is going on in the minds of the person hearing the gospel is attempted. This is not anyone’s job, that is the Lord’s responsibility.

And this is a critical problem with “Lordship” salvation.

Believers are only commissioned to make the gospel clear, not control or manipulate the responses of others or micromanage their thought process.

If you have been faithful to clearly communicate “The Lord Jesus Christ” then with the person who says “I believe”, you can know with certainty they believe on “The Lord Jesus Christ”.

You cannot and do not have to power to “make Him Lord” any more than you have the power to “make Him Christ” or “make Him Jesus”. The Bible does not treat these as potentials but as certain facts that you are to believe or not to believe.

If you do not believe Jesus is God then you are not a candidate for salvation. If you do not believe Jesus was or is Jesus, you are not a candidate for salvation. If you do not believe He is The Christ, you are not a candidate for salvation. They are the inseparable realities of the gospel.

*Also posted in another thread I created.

 

[webdog]

“You must make Jim Jesus”.

Alex, who's Jim? :laugh:

Sorry, I thought that was funny. Back to the discussion...

 

[webdog]

I haven't gotten into this thread because I believe the title of the OP was insinuting that the other conversation in regards to LS was not an honest one. That offended me. Just because a few people want to blow hot air and accuse non LS'ers of dishonest means and taking JM's quotes out of context does not make it so. John of Japan's posts on this thread are excellent, and clearly show the problems with LS...the same problems pointed out in the other thread.

Allan also has clearly demonstrated what LS SHOULD be...a call to full discipleship AFTER salvation, not as a prerequisite FOR salvation.

 

[Allan]

That said, is it not true that scripture indicates we are expected to make progress in our spiritual maturity?

We are expected to grow in maturity and God commands such. But must remember that we are all individually responsible for our spiritual growth in the Christ. We can remain babes, as Paul references to some believers who have not grown as they aught, so to did Peter. They lamented that they must continue giving them the milk of the word. So yes, we can stay in a babe like state.

At what point is a lack of progress in spiritual maturity within a professing believer a sign of a lack of genuine coversion?

Since when is a 'lack of progress in spiritual maturity' a defining aspect of conversion. No believer can maintain their old life with no conviction of sin. So there is a distinction between the saved (though still a babe) and those who are not born again to new life in Christ. But that distinction isn't about how much or fast they grow but a definate changed life.

When we start saying "ok, a changed life is the definer. Now how much of a changed life proves salvation" we are wandering to far from what God has asked of us. That being to share the Gospel, baptize, and make disciples. If they are truly saved, God will bring them around or they will leave of their own accord or because of church disciple. If they return after a time, then praise God. If they do not return to God then they 'most likely' were not one of us.

But that begs the next question - how much time must pass till we make that declaration? Easy - till they come back (so don't stop praying for their repentence), or they make themselves an enemy of Christ and gospel.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Alex, who's Jim? :laugh:

Sorry, I thought that was funny. Back to the discussion...

:laugh: :laugh: Now that was hilarious. I was tempted to leave it there because it really read hilariously, but since we have so many who are too easily distracted, well you know. Funny.

 

[Allan]

Alex, who's Jim? :laugh:

Sorry, I thought that was funny. Back to the discussion...

I saw that to. I read it like 4 times cause I though it was intentional but couldn't figure out what he was saying :laugh: :laugh:

 

[webdog]

:laugh: :laugh: Now that was hilarious. I was tempted to leave it there because it really read hilariously, but since we have so many who are too easily distracted, well you know. Funny.

Just wanted to make sure not to take your quotes out of context (like John Mac)...and see if you were promoting "another gospel" :laugh:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Just wanted to make sure not to take your quotes out of context (like John Mac)...and see if you were promoting "another gospel" :laugh:

The new doctrine of Jim Jesus...:laugh:

 

[webdog]

The new doctrine of Jim Jesus...:laugh:

I hope you don't have any Kool-Aid stocked in your kitchen

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I hope you don't have any Kool-Aid stocked in your kitchen

Remember, I am a FORMER CALVINIST...oops. :laugh:

 

[canadyjd]

I will ask just two questions for honest debate:

1) Is the epistle of James, and this passage specifically, directed to the lost or to those who are saved already?

The letter of James is concerned with the relationship of faith and works. James, like other writers, identifies the intended recepients as "brethren" (v.1) That does not mean he considers everyone who reads it to be genuinely saved, but, perhaps, hopefully saved. He certainly allows for the possibility that some who hear/read the letter are not saved.

For example, he urges them in chap.1 v.21 to "recieve the word implanted which is able to save your souls." That seems to me to indicate James believes some of the recepients had not recieved the word and where not yet saved.

(1 v. 22) "Prove yourselves doers of the word and not merely hearers who delude themselves." This indicates James believes some of the recepients have deluded themselves concerning salvation.

(1 v.26) "If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless"
Again, James speaks of someone who has deceived themselves and has a worthless religion. If it is worthless, I don't believe it can be called salvific.

In chp. 2 he goes on to make comparisons between those who have genuine faith, and those who do not.

In v. 14 "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? The expected answer is NO, that faith cannot save him. He goes on to say that "faith without works is dead."(v.26)

Concerning the specific passage you have quoted (4:7-10), James begins chap. 4 by scolding the recepients concerning their behavior. He calls them "adultresses" and warns them that if they are friends with the world, then they are enemies of God. (I don't believe an ememy of God is a saved person, since Jesus reconciled believers to God).

So, to answer your first question directly; Even though James initially addresses the recepients of his letter as "brethren" it is clear from the mentioned verses that he allows for the possibility/probability that some are not saved.

2) Where in James 4:7-10 do we find salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?

To answer your second question directly, it is not plainly stated in those verses.

However, Chap. 4 v.5 speaks of "the Spirit He has made to dwell in us.." being jealously desired by God. And v. 6 says "But He gives a greater grace." and "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble." So an understanding of salvific grace is not absent from the context.

Given the overall theme of James; the relationship between faith and works; and v.5 and 6 of chp. 4 speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit and of "grace" being given by God, I can understand that J. Mac sees verses 7-10 as describing what a response to God's grace with saving faith should look like.

I agree he overstates his case here, but I wouldn't label him as a false teacher for doing so. There is some merit to what he is saying, even though you really have to take the whole book in context to get there.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I haven't gotten into this thread because I believe the title of the OP was insinuting that the other conversation in regards to LS was not an honest one. That offended me. Just because a few people want to blow hot air and accuse non LS'ers of dishonest means and taking JM's quotes out of context does not make it so. John of Japan's posts on this thread are excellent, and clearly show the problems with LS...the same problems pointed out in the other thread.

Allan also has clearly demonstrated what LS SHOULD be...a call to full discipleship AFTER salvation, not as a prerequisite FOR salvation.

My apologies. I was not intending to offend anyone, though I probably did name the thread out of a little frustration.

That said, I have enjoyed reading the posts so far. They have been well-reasoned and mostly absent of the sniping and personal attacks that accompanied the other.

I agree that John of Japan made some excellent points, as well as others.

I still do not agree, however, with your assertion that J. Mac. calls for pre-salvation commitment to discipleship. I have linked to his website on another thread (I think Amy linked first) to demonstrate that.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I will ask just two questions for honest debate:

Lou, since I answered your two questions directly, will you answer just one question for me?

You have posted the following quote from MacArthur:

MacArthur wrote, “That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom. Seen through the eyes of this world, it is as high a price as anyone can pay. But from a kingdom perspective, it is really no sacrifice at all.”

Will you please tell me, according to MacArthur and in context, what is the person responding to?

I am going to guess (and I really do not know), that, in context, MacArthur is saying a person is responding to the grace God has poured out upon him through regeneration by Holy Spirit, that has resulted in conviction, faith and salvation. That person responds with "wholehearted commitment" immediately after conversion and in conjunction with saving faith.

I will go out on a limb here. Show me from MacArthur's book the context of this passage and identify what the person is responding to. If it is anything other than the grace of God which has resulted in salvation, I will apologize for saying you have misrepresented what J. Mac. believes and teaches.

I eagerly await your answer.

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

I have had an unusually busy time at work, and still am.

I am going to come back to JM’s take on James You are not the first and won’t be the last to dismiss an obvious doctrinal error by calling it an “overstatement.” There are many so-called “overstatements,” in his books. and they run like a thread through his four apologetics on LS, and they all point in one direction: LS is a man-centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).

I am also going to deal with MacArthur, “full surrender” quote.

There is, however, an important point I need to raise with you and base it in part from this note you posted

“I am going to guess (and I really do not know), that, in context, MacArthur is saying a person is responding to the grace God has poured out upon him through regeneration by Holy Spirit, that has resulted in conviction, faith and salvation. That person responds with "wholehearted commitment" immediately after conversion and in conjunction with saving faith.”

1) Your statement above is based on the Calvinistic extra-biblical presupposition that regeneration must precede faith. Therefore, the theology is flawed from the outset and will flow from the extra-biblical presupposition will be flawed.

See Lordship’s Out of Order Salvation

See The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith

2) It seems from some statements you made that you have not read his LS books. Have you, at least read, cover-to-cover, The Gospel According to Jesus and his revised and expanded edition of the same? Please advise.

Off to work.


LM

 

[skypair]

If when a person, is in the process of falling many times, at that point would he pass the LS test?

I know what you are saying. You are saying that Moses on the mountain top was a difference Moses than the one who could take his veil off, right? That is, we (and I, more specifically) can give our whole lives to God at the point of salvation, the 'mountain top," but gradually, we 1) didn't realize what the whole life we gave God consisted of and/or 2) the world that we have to go back to live in wears on us.

Are we saved? Absolutely!! But here's the proviso -- we are saved spiritually in eternity but, unless we can and do practive LS in this life, we may not feel or look saved to others.

And you can see the obvious dangers -- we start having "witch hunts" after those who don't appear to be saved according to our standards. We start declaring heretics and anethemas and excommunications upon those who are struggling with the world. Just look at this board for confirmation. :tear:

The teaching of LS is just as dangerous as if JM were a Pharisee. It emphasizes a pattern of behavior in place of genuine, self-initiated repentance toward God, what we call "conversion."

skypair

 

[skypair]

You are pontificating here. You say, "In order to be saved, you have to recognize who Christ is and what he did. That means you accept him as Lord."

I'm with you on this one, John. The most I get out of the confession is that Jesus is "Lord of all," the larger, general sense. The confession would be He IS God!

I recall I gave Him my life with the knowledge that He could work any way He wanted to to accomplish His plan for my life. But I didn't take that to be "Lord" rather than "Father."

Likewise with Jesus. I didn't see Him as "friend" anymore but "brother" and "bridegroom." That is, we would work together -- "yokefellows" -- to "straignten the crooked path." He gives me the power of the Holy Spirit whereby I can have His strength and direction as a son and brother would.

skypair