I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

[webdog]

And you make my point. Thanks:thumbsup:

I must have missed it. When did "no its not" become a point?

 

[Herald]

..........

 

[webdog]

Many "non-Lordship types" have a disconnect between their orthodoxy (what they believe) and orthopraxy (what the practice). They will state that repentance is not necessary for salvation. In practice, however, many of them will readily agree that a person who does not display evidence of a changed life may not be converted. Some are true-blue and will not equivocate. They believe that a person who prays the sinners prayer is saved and there is no requirement for them to display evidence of such. Happily the latter group is a distinct minority within evangelicalism; even among those who would distance themselves from Lordship Salvation.

Can you give us an example of just one person who believes this...or are you also on the hayride?

 

[Herald]

..........

 

[Herald]

.................

 

[DHK]

John, I disagree with you. I would assert that historically the Lordship Salvation view IS the classic evangelical position. Those teaching are clearly seen, not only in 18th century evangelicals, but in the earlier teachings of men like Francke.

Now if you are speaking of evangelicalism in its 20th century terms (after the advent of fundamentalism), then I would tell you that evangelicalism was a very broad field, and included both Lordship, and Non-Lordship proponents.

The Lordship view is most certainly NOT recent in history.

John is correct. It is very recent in its origin.
Here are some things to think about.

First, that great missionary, Hudson Taylor, was saved by reading a tract. He was alone in his parents house, a little bored, and looked for something to read. He found a tract on the blood of Christ that looked interesting to him, picked it up and started reading it. At the same time that he was reading his mother was some distance away visiting another, but also in a bedroom praying for the salvation of her son. The Holy Spirit used that tract to convict him. He prayed and trusted Christ as his Savior. The tract was instrumental in leading Taylor to Christ.

Historically, and biblically what is "Lordship Salvation"? First, who are you, and who am I to think that we can do anything to knock the Lord of glory off of his throne?? Christ is Lord whether we like it or not. For anyone to be arrogant enough to think that they can take him off of his throne is quite unbelievable! There is absolutely nothing you can do, no amount of rebellion or disobedience, that will dethrone Christ. He is Lord! And there is nothing you can do to change that. Please understand that!! Recognize that Christ is Lord, and will remain Lord even if you don't recognize him as Lord.

It is similar to living in England at the time of King James when the KJV was published. Whether you were a good citizen of the King, or a rebellious citizen, the King was Lord of the nation. Your rebellion, if bad enough could land you in the brig. But it wouldn't take King James off of his throne. Nothing you would do would dethrone the King. He would still be your king, and you couldn't do anything about it!

So it is with salvation. When we trust Christ as Lord, he is our Lord. We have become a citizen of his nation. Whether obedient or disobedient we are his children, his citizens, and there is nothing we can do that will take Christ off of his throne. It is arrogant to think that anything we do can dethrone Christ. We cant'. He is Lord--Lord of lords and King of kings. You can't change that. What makes you think you can?

The scripture dealing with "Lordship" is not dealing with salvation. It is dealing with discipleship. "unless....you cannot be my disciple." A believer needs time to grow. He is not ready for the mission field the day after he is saved--something the modern day "Lordship-salvation" adherents teach.

"Take up your cross, sell what you have, give to the poor, and follow me."
If you don't do this the day that your saved, then you are not really saved. That is the modern Lordship salvation teaching, and it is a tragic, dreadful unbiblical teaching with terrible consequences. No new believer is ready to give up all and go to the foreign mission field, as that command implies. What tragic consequences lay ahead for the promoters of this unbiblical theology.

 

[freeatlast]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Yesterday in my challenge/mini sermon somewhere I challenged my audience to accept the calling and make Christ Lord of their lives. I said that those that read a tract, say a prayer, but have no fruit throughout their lives probably are not saved. So is it true that Charles Ryrie and other non Lordship types teach intellectual knowledge only? if so I think they are dead wrong.

There is no question that the idea of "Lordship salvation" as stated is relative new, but the understanding of it is not as that is what the church of old taught even without using the phrase.
More then then that and most important it is what the bible teaches. There is not even a hint that a person can become saved by simply receiving Jesus as Savior. Every account dealing with salvation deals with Him being Lord.
Romans 10 is probably the most read.
Many people want a Savior, but reject the idea of Him being their Master/Lord. They do not get saved.
So in regards to Charles Ryrie or any person who teaches salvation without accepting Jesus for What He is, Lord, they are selling nothing but another gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with you that Charles Ryrie is "dead wrong." The call to "pick up our cross" is a call to salvation.

However, there are two grains of "no Lordship" theology. Ryrie represents the more moderate grain. Grace Evangelical Society represents the whackadoo grain, which affirms that salvation is nothing more than a one-time intellectual "belief" in Christ (for more info, see here: http://www.faithalone.org/about/board.html).

Both, however, affirm easy believ-ism, and deny the biblical Gospel call. Salvation is through faith (submissive trust...ENTRUSTING oneself to Christ), not mental assent.

Think that Charles Ryrie would affirm as I do that being saved by God is an immediate act, that is on basis of the Cross and received by faith in Christ, once saved by God, now would show evidence going forward...

Think problems are in being "extreme" either view, as one could say saved by faith alone, and JUST that alter call secured me, regardless how I lived, but other could say unless showing life of nearly 'sinless perfection" not really ever saved!

 

[Yeshua1]

John, I disagree with you. I would assert that historically the Lordship Salvation view IS the classic evangelical position. Those teaching are clearly seen, not only in 18th century evangelicals, but in the earlier teachings of men like Francke.

Now if you are speaking of evangelicalism in its 20th century terms (after the advent of fundamentalism), then I would tell you that evangelicalism was a very broad field, and included both Lordship, and Non-Lordship proponents.

The Lordship view is most certainly NOT recent in history.

But it DOES seem to crop up in reformed circles more so than Baptist!

 

[Yeshua1]

NO!

He teaches that we are saved and justified by faith alone/grace alone. period...

that is the Gospel of how we are saved, and than we go onward into conforming to image of Christ...

Lordship theology tends to blur those distinctions, and has us almost getting saved before getting saved!

 

[freeatlast]

NO!

He teaches that we are saved and justified by faith alone/grace alone. period...

that is the Gospel of how we are saved, and than we go onward into conforming to image of Christ...

Lordship theology tends to blur those distinctions, and has us almost getting saved before getting saved!

Then you do not understand "Lordship salvation" if you believe that. Lordship salvation has nothing to do with what we do in regards to living to get saved, but how we receive Christ. Lordship salvation embraces the repentance side of faith which if left out as in “Savior salvation only” where there is no salvation.

 

[Herald]

Can you give us an example of just one person who believes this...or are you also on the hayride?

I'll give two examples: Jerry Falwell and Jack Wyrtzen. Both men passed away during the last decade, but during the time of their ministries they were held in high regard by fundamentalist Baptists. I once attended a conference at Word of Life in Schroon Lake, NY where both men were conducting a joint Q&A. This was during the time when John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" was making waves across evangelicalism. Both men held to the theological position that repentance, the fulcrum on which Lordship Salvation pivots, was not necessary for salvation. They believed repentance was beneficial to Christian growth but not necessary. That is why both men, and the fundamentalist movement in particular, often put great stock in re-dedication ceremonies. In a sense these ceremonies are seen as progressive grace. The theory goes that a person can be saved today, live carnally for a period of time, and then finally surrender their life to God at a later date.

I don't want to single out these two men for criticism and ignore the larger problem within fundamentalism. If repentance is a work of man than Falwell, Wyrtzen, Ryrie, Geisler, Hunt, and Caner are on the right side of the debate. If, however, repentance is part of the ordo salutis (order of salvation), then it is a work of God and Lordship Salvation accurately represents it as such.

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."​

 

[Iconoclast]

I'll give two examples: Jerry Falwell and Jack Wyrtzen. Both men passed away during the last decade, but during the time of their ministries they were held in high regard by fundamentalist Baptists. I once attended a conference at Word of Life in Schroon Lake, NY where both men were conducting a joint Q&A. This was during the time when John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" was making waves across evangelicalism. Both men held to the theological position that repentance, the fulcrum on which Lordship Salvation pivots, was not necessary for salvation. They believed repentance was beneficial to Christian growth but not necessary. That is why both men, and the fundamentalist movement in particular, often put great stock in re-dedication ceremonies. In a sense these ceremonies are seen as progressive grace. The theory goes that a person can be saved today, live carnally for a period of time, and then finally surrender their life to God at a later date.

I don't want to single out these two men for criticism and ignore the larger problem within fundamentalism. If repentance is a work of man than Falwell, Wyrtzen, Ryrie, Geisler, Hunt, and Caner are on the right side of the debate. If, however, repentance is part of the ordo salutis (order of salvation), then it is a work of God and Lordship Salvation accurately represents it as such.

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."​

This is of course correct and anything less is a denial of Jesus as Lord.

We do not make Him...anything....He is Lord of ALL....

 

[mandym]

John is correct. It is very recent in its origin.

Actually the author of Romans taught this:

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


So no, it is not recent.

 

[Havensdad]

Actually the author of Romans taught this:

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.


So no, it is not recent.

Not to mention the early church fathers and the reformers. The defining of the position "Lordship salvation" was a response to a false teaching that denied the necessity of repentance. But the position itself is seen throughout history in MANY, MANY writings. :tonofbricks:

 

[Havensdad]

From the 1689 London Baptist Confession (nearly four hundred years ago...not exactly "recent")...

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life.
( Titus 3:2-5 )

Who is saved? Only those granted repentance....

2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation.
( Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31, 32 )

3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things.
( Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:128 )

4. As repentance is to be continued through the whole course of our lives, upon the account of the body of death, and the motions thereof, so it is every man's duty to repent of his particular known sins particularly.
( Luke 19:8; 1 Timothy 1:13, 15 )

5. Such is the provision which God hath made through Christ in the covenant of grace for the preservation of believers unto salvation; that although there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; yet there is no sin so great that it shall bring damnation on them that repent; which makes the constant preaching of repentance necessary.
( Romans 6:23; Isaiah 1:16-18 Isaiah 55:7 )

 

[webdog]

I'll give two examples: Jerry Falwell and Jack Wyrtzen. Both men passed away during the last decade, but during the time of their ministries they were held in high regard by fundamentalist Baptists. I once attended a conference at Word of Life in Schroon Lake, NY where both men were conducting a joint Q&A. This was during the time when John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" was making waves across evangelicalism. Both men held to the theological position that repentance, the fulcrum on which Lordship Salvation pivots, was not necessary for salvation. They believed repentance was beneficial to Christian growth but not necessary. That is why both men, and the fundamentalist movement in particular, often put great stock in re-dedication ceremonies. In a sense these ceremonies are seen as progressive grace. The theory goes that a person can be saved today, live carnally for a period of time, and then finally surrender their life to God at a later date.

I don't want to single out these two men for criticism and ignore the larger problem within fundamentalism. If repentance is a work of man than Falwell, Wyrtzen, Ryrie, Geisler, Hunt, and Caner are on the right side of the debate. If, however, repentance is part of the ordo salutis (order of salvation), then it is a work of God and Lordship Salvation accurately represents it as such.

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."​

They were both right in regards to repentance the way MacArthur puts it. We don't have to make upfront commitments to be saved, we cry out for saving! I think you are confusing salvific repentance of turning to Christ for salvation from the Lordship repentance of turning from sins for salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

They were both right in regards to repentance the way MacArthur puts it. We don't have to make upfront commitments to be saved, we cry out for saving! I think you are confusing salvific repentance of turning to Christ for salvation from the Lordship repentance of turning from sins for salvation.

Metanoia is a turning from, as much as a turning to. Repentance is not an "upfront commitment." It is a turning from the thing that is killing you, to the thing that will save you. The man who yells for the fireman to save him, and then willfully jumps into the flames, shows that despite his words he does not really desire saving..

 

[John of Japan]

Not to mention the early church fathers and the reformers. The defining of the position "Lordship salvation" was a response to a false teaching that denied the necessity of repentance. But the position itself is seen throughout history in MANY, MANY writings. :tonofbricks:

Please give me a relevant quote from a church father on Lordship salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

Please give me a relevant quote from a church father on Lordship salvation.

Tertullian?

"where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity vain, for it lacks the fruit for which God sowed it; that is, man's salvation." (emphasis mine)

The Homilies...

"let us surrender ourselves into the hands of our divine physician and give him his recompense, the recompense of true sorrow for our sins. Since he who knows all things sees what is in our hearts, let us praise him with our hearts as well as our lips. He will then receive us as his sons. The Lord himself has said: "My brothers are those who do my Father’s will."

CERTAINLY the idea that repentance is separate from salvation, and that mere mental assent confers salvation, absent truly submitting to Christ, is COMPLETELY absent from Church history, until very, very recent times.