Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

Really! I hope you had a great trip.

The verb occurs 21 times in the NT. In many cases it very clearly is talking about verbal confession, and in not one single case can it be proven that it is not verbal confession. But you can ignore that. What you cannot ignore is that it says very clearly in Rom. 10:9 & 10 "with the mouth." So to claim this passage for LS means that the confession must be made verbally.

And again I say, it is confession with the mouth. Is that what you believe, that one must verbally confess Christ in order to be saved?

I'll ask you plainly. Do you have to consciously acknowledge Christ as Lord at salvation? If so, it should be a part of the Gospel, right? It is not. I have proven that from both 1 Cor. 15 and the book of Galatians.

He is also Creator, Light, Bread, Living Water and many other names and titles. Must all of these be confessed in order to be saved?

Oh, come on. I did NOT say that "the synoptic Gospels were not written for people to be saved." That is bogus and offensive. You obviously did not even read my argument enough to understand it.

 

Hi John,

1. I understand your question, but I think we need to understand why Paul was writing, and I believe you have done a good job in identifying that.

2. However, we need to be careful of looking for answers to questions that Paul was not addressing---I do not believe Paul was addressing the LS debate. I know you would agree with that.

3. We must then ask, Is his oft δια πιστεως χριστου ιησου, "through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 2:16), a shorthand for recognizing and receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior?

4. How often must a word or phrase occur for us to recognize the truth about a matter? I really don't think this is good exegesis at all.

5. I do hold to some semblance of what is called LS, but not the extreme version of it

6. In turning from sin to Christ for salvation, the very idea of giving up a formal lifestyle of sin and rebellion against God is recognition of His Lordship. Now, that is the extent to which I would go in expressing my views on the matter.

 

Looking back, what I actually said at one point was that "The only book in the NT with a goal of having people believe in Christ...." I can see how that can be misconstrued. I should have said "a stated goal...."

But my argument on John still remains. John was written to bring people to Christ. Yet LS cannot be taught from John.

 

Hi, TC.

True. But he was describing the Gospel. If LS is correct, it should be part of the Gospel, right? And if it is part of the Gospel, then it logically follows that Paul would have discussed it in Galatians, otherwise he would be presenting an incomplete Gospel to the Galatians. But he did not discuss it.

Please explain. I don't see the connection.

Surely you don't think that every mention of Christ as Lord is a proof of LS, do you? If the word Lord occurs only 7 times in Galatians, and one of those is not even about Christ, that leaves 6. Do all 6 mentions prove that LS is correct? Surely not! So please tell me, which of these 6 mentions in Galatians proves the LS position? I say none of them do!

I didn't do any exegesis! I simply mentioned some salient facts. I'd be happy to exegete any passages in Galatians you want me to for the purposes of this discussion.

For me the whole thing turns on this. LS as I was originally taught it in 1972 by Arend ten Pas (and I believe as MacArthur teaches it) requires conscious acceptance of Christ as Lord in order for one to be saved. Other versions of LS are not near so problematic to me.

 

canadyjd:

I am also suggesting you read John MacArthur's Discipleship Gospel


LM

 

John:

I my discussions with LS advocates several make this very claim. It is one of their arguments.

One told me that since "Lord" appears hundreds of times in the NT then that proves lost man must receive and submit to Him as Lord for the reception of eternal life.


LM

 

Splain that, pls.

skypair

 

Really!? And they expect to be taken seriously when they claim this? (No offense intended to TCGreek here. I assume he was tired from preaching or something.)

 

Wrong post.

 

“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 Jim 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.

 

John:

No joke! It was not TC, it was in other personal conversations I have had in one of these boards.

I appreciate your notes in this thread on the subject.


Lou

 

Alex:

Well said. The problem with the LS interpretation of the Gospel is that they see discipleship and salvation as one in the same. That is why they call for commitments to those things which belong to the born again child of God as though the upfront commitment to these things is required for the reception of eternal life.


LM

 

Alex:

This is excellent as a response to the "Crossless" Gospel of Hodges, Wilkin, Myers and da Rosa. I'd like to invite you to consider joining a group that is addressing that issue at a few other blogs. Send me an e-mail.


LM

 

Thank you for your invitation. I will send yu an email.

 

1. At one level he was describing the true gospel, but at another level Paul didn't give us a detail mention of what this gospel involves. For example, I see nothing of the sort he set forth clearly in 1 Cor 15:1-5.

2. I consider, a long with many others, dia pisteos christou Iesou, to be a shorthand for what a person needs to do in conversion.

3. In Acts 20:21 Paul said that he went around preaching that both Jews and Gentiles must repent and believe in Jesus as Lord, but here in Gal 2:16 we only have faith in Jesus--What of repentance?

4. How can Galatians prove the LS position if it is not design to do such? What are we asking of Paul in Galatians?

5. Not altogether salient facts, since you are asking questions of Galatians that Paul never intended to address.

6. Again, in coming to Christ for salvation, a person is demonstrating a recognition of His Lordship over their lives, whether they express it in words or not.

 

John:

In LS theology another way you will hear them condition the reception of eternal life is telling the lost man he must affirm he wants Christ to be Lord over every area of his life.

The gift of eternal life was conditioned by this preacher on an upfront commitment to let the Lord rule and to reign in his life. No upfront commitment, then no salvation. That is verbatim!

I have heard this from a pulpit and in on line discussions with LS advocates.

Now, canadyjd: Would you categorically reject and admonish whoever teaches this LS interpretation of the Gospel? Please advise


LM

 

This particular phrase reveals a certain conceptualization regarding "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" that may be pivotally the fundamental error in the case for LS theology.

The LS position treats the "Lordship" of Christ as a potential and not a reality.

When the gospel is offered to the unbeliever the offer is for one to "believe" on what is true, that which is already a reality; that He IS Lord (God Himself), He is Jesus (God became flesh) and He IS Christ (The Messiah, the anointed [chosen] one as the only means of salvation).

There is no offer to make HIM anything. The offer is that HE will make YOU something, specifically justified before God. You HAVE NOTHING to offer God, nothing. He does not call you to make Him Lord, Jesus or Christ. HE IS LORD JESUS CHRIST and that is the gospel message. That God Himself through the second person of the Trinity provides REDEMPTION.

The legitimate argument that MacArthur does make from time to time, but over compensates when addressing it, is the miscommunication of the Gospel by others who treat the title, "Lord Jesus Christ" as some form of incantation.

As was pointed out, "Lord Jesus Christ" is the shortest form of the gospel. Each title or name represents an essential element of the gospel that must be communicated for a person's mind to fully be illuminated. This is that to which we are called.

The problem with MacArthur (I say this with respect to his tremendous body of great work outside of this) and other forms of LS salvation is just what Lou and others have repeatedly pointed out, that the post-salvational order or protocol of discipleship and the acquiescence of our lives to the principles and leadership of God are being prescribed to the person who is not saved as a dispositional prerequisite to "really being saved or wanting to be saved".

That is NOT the call of redemption. Forgiveness is the call of redemption. After salvation the call is discipleship.

 

Hi Q,

1. I wish everyone could read what you just stated and let it sink in. You said all of the right things, IMO, without leaning to the left or the right.

2. I too have a problem with some of what MacArthur has written, calling for that upfront commitment to discipleship.

3. But as I said, when a person turns from rebellion in sin to Jesus for salvation, that movement is a recognition of the Lordship of Christ, which would then express itself in discipleship.

Thanks, Q for putting things into proper perspective. :thumbs: