Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

Thanks, canady. I guess I got the notion from llstening to him on radio once, too. Whenever he talks about responding, I hope against hope that it is regarding receiving Christ while unregenerate. Oh well. :tear:

skypair

 

I skipped most of this thread and came right to the end.

Speaking for myself, while I acknowledge Jesus Christ as my God, my Lord and my Savior, I did not get there overnight.

The Corinthian Christians were carnal, the Word of God says so yet they were believers. Some of them however were sick and some even "slept".

Here is my point.

What does it matter what one says?
The tares among the wheat can claim Jesus as Lord, no?

Matthew 7

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In other words its not what we say post-salvation but what we do

Just before this statement in Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said this:

Matthew 7
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

HankD
​

 

Out of more than 700 uses of the word Kurios only 6 occasions did it mean sir. and 667 cases it meant Lord.

And again you cannot call on the Lord if you do not recognize who the Lord is.

 

Recognizing who the Lord is, and understanding the full meaning behind that is the crux of the matter. Recognizing Christ as Lord and calling out to Him for mercy for salvation is one thing, understanding the full implications of Him being the Lord of your life in exchange for salvation is totally separate. The latter is LS, the former is not.

 

Excellent point. I would like to here the LS'ers response to this...

The same argument from the LS'ers would have us accepting Christ as the jewish Messiah as well as Lord, and without the full understanding of what that entailed, could not be saved. LS is truly another gospel.

 

I do not know of anyone who exchanges Christ being Lord for salvation. that is a semantical confusion that is not necessary. I do not believe you can in reality kneel before the cross and not call Christ Lord. The act of humilty takes a willingness for Christ to be Lord.

 

...in this you are correct, but as has been countinuously pointed out, the doctrine we are discussing called Lordship Salvation teaches EXACTLY THAT. You are arguing for a doctrine you do not even believe in by your post here.

 

Are you kidding? Unreal! "Exposing" Lou when you have admitted to NOT reading Macarthur's work your self, besiedes a prepared statement on his website? THEN you find the nerve to yet again call Lou out on his intentions? Let's be a little more eithical, can we?

Me thinks instead of wiping the egg off your face you are deliberately trying to demean Lou.

 

How many of MacArthur's books have you read?

 

It does not teach that and it is not JM's position. I have his book right here in my biscut grabbers. No one teaches an exchange.

 

In case no one has posted the link to JM's web site stating what he believes on LS.

http://www.gty.org/media/pdf/Lordship_Salvation.pdf

I would ask that those who are misrepresenting JM read what JM states on his web site. Maybe then you will not continue to misrepresent JM.

 

Hey, look at the bright side...... at least he didn't call you a liar. :laugh:

 

...then you don't see it, but it doesnt' mean it's not true. Lordship Salvation precedes Macarthur, and the theology is pretty straight forward.

 

Besides his study Bible? None. One can read his sermons, though, and see the same things, I imagine as is written in his books (he has a 4 part lordship salvation series). I see the quotes supplied from his books squaring with what I read in his sermon series, and about LS in general.

One doesn't need to read Macarthur to understand the LS position, either. There are others not as highly profiled as JM.

 

You've been defending Lou M. and his assertion the John MacArthur teaches a works salvation yet you haven't read the material in question?

It doesn't matter who else teaches LS. The point of this thread is whether or not John M. teaches a works based salvation. That has not been proven.
Two of us have posted quotes from JM's website that definitely show that he does not teach a works based salvation. Yet you keep on saying that he does based on Lou's quotes from books that you yourself have never read.

 

Did I not say I read his own 4 part sermon on Lordship Salvation? If you do a search, I'm sure you can find it.

FTR, I've only defended the accusation against Lou doing what he does for money. This is dishonest, unethical and totally uncalled for. I'm surprised you don't see this (or maybe the TULIP blinders are on).

What books or sermons have you read? I have not said that my view of JM's position is based on Lou's books....you did. I haven't read his book, either.

 

Thanks, for the kind words in return.

I'm in agreement on John 4.

 

1. Yes, the human perspective over against the divine as reflected in the gospel offer, but I still see no need for Paul to mention receiving Christ as Lord to substantiate his argument.

2. Rather, it is faith in Christ plus nothing--not works of the Law, which at its heart, at least in Galatians, included Circumcision. But what does Paul mean by "faith in Jesus Christ" becomes the issue.

3. At Ephesus Paul says that he preached both repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21)---as I've maintained, in coming to the Lord for salvation is a renouncing of a life of rebellion in sin (repentance) and the embracing of Christ from salvation (faith)---this very process, implies a recognition of the Lordship of Christ in salvation over all other alternatives to be right with the Father.

4. Neither can I at the moment, but I must delve into it.

5. Frankly speaking, I am disillusioned by the particular hard-nose LS formula---I do not see it in Scripture---at least, the way it is presently defined in the LS debate.

6. I do agree that there is a subtle difference in "Accepting Jesus as Lord" and the "Recognition of the Lordship of Christ."

7. I believe you and Lou are correct in maintaining that not an upfront commitment to discipleship, but I would still maintain that salvation is Jesus for the sinner is really because of the Lordship of Christ, whether the sinner acknowledges it or not.

8. What then do you make of Rom 10:9,10?