I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

[evangelist6589]

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.

 

[Havensdad]

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.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

The choices are not "Lordship salvation" versus Ryrie and his ilk. There is the traditional evangelical position which is neither, but teaches solid repentance and faith. The modern "Lordship" view is comparatively recent in church history, with its recent popularity easily traced to John MacArthur and his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.

There have been quite a few threads on this issue on the BB. I suggest you do a search and educate yourself.

 

[Havensdad]

The choices are not "Lordship salvation" versus Ryrie and his ilk. There is the traditional evangelical position which is neither, but teaches solid repentance and faith. The modern "Lordship" view is comparatively recent in church history, with its recent popularity easily traced to John MacArthur and his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.

There have been quite a few threads on this issue on the BB. I suggest you do a search and educate yourself.

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.

 

[Berean]

I dealt with this issue 35 years ago when going through EE. In counseling new believers I was asked to use the phrase, "You must make him Lord in your life". I had a problem with this as I felt this was an act of works. I began to use the term, "You will be willing to make him Lord in your life".
IMHO this gives a different approach and is free from Lordship Salvation.

 

[Havensdad]

I dealt with this issue 35 years ago when going through EE. In counseling new believers I was asked to use the phrase, "You must make him Lord in your life". I had a problem with this as I felt this was an act of works. I began to use the term, "You will be willing to make him Lord in your life".
IMHO this gives a different approach and is free from Lordship Salvation.

How is that works? You are not doing anything. Saying, "Jesus I will follow you. I put myself in your hands" is not works. Nor is it promising perfection.

There is no Biblical precedent for a person going, "Jesus, I want salvation, but want nothing to do with YOU." That is foreign from the text.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

You missed that I said "modern Lordship view." :saint: IMO, MacArthur made explicit what many authors previously made implicit.

At any rate, my point to evangelist 6589 is still valid, that there is a very widely accepted middle position.

 

[webdog]

How is that works? You are not doing anything. Saying, "Jesus I will follow you. I put myself in your hands" is not works. Nor is it promising perfection.

An exchange is works.

There is no Biblical precedent for a person going, "Jesus, I want salvation, but want nothing to do with YOU." That is foreign from the text.

This is the strawman of non lordship.

 

[Greektim]

I think it is interesting that in Jesus' presentation of his gospel, he warned people before they started to follow him. He said that followers should "count the cost". I think that makes it obvious what is expected of discipleship to Jesus. And Jesus only "accepted" disciples, not "converts".

 

[webdog]

I think it is interesting that in Jesus' presentation of his gospel, he warned people before they started to follow him. He said that followers should "count the cost". I think that makes it obvious what is expected of discipleship to Jesus. And Jesus only "accepted" disciples, not "converts".

Hmmm...now you need to explain how someone who needs to be regenerated to "count the costs" can do so pre-regeneration.

 

[Havensdad]

An exchange is works.

There is no exchange. You are not giving anything. You are placing your life in the hands of the one who will save you. If you are in a burning house with a broken leg, and a fireman breaks in to get you, and you cling to the fireman when he picks you up, there is no exchange taking place. You are not "paying" the fireman. That is just ridiculous.

This is the strawman of non lordship.

There is no strawman. It is the inevitable conclusion. EITHER someone can say, "I don't want to follow you Jesus; I just want a ticket to heaven" or they cannot.

If it is a strawman, then SURELY you would not have a problem just going ahead and denying that a person can do that? Right? Why don't you just go ahead and do that now....

 

[mandym]

An exchange is works.

No its not.......

 

[webdog]

No its not.......

Yes it is...

 

[webdog]

There is no exchange. You are not giving anything. You are placing your life in the hands of the one who will save you. If you are in a burning house with a broken leg, and a fireman breaks in to get you, and you cling to the fireman when he picks you up, there is no exchange taking place. You are not "paying" the fireman. That is just ridiculous.

“This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience--unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Whatever you say...

There is no strawman. It is the inevitable conclusion. EITHER someone can say, "I don't want to follow you Jesus; I just want a ticket to heaven" or they cannot.

If it is a strawman, then SURELY you would not have a problem just going ahead and denying that a person can do that? Right? Why don't you just go ahead and do that now....

Now you can show us of just one non-lordshipper who fits your "inevitable conclusion" to refute my strawman claim. Should I be holding my breath?

 

[mandym]

Yes it is...

It is a shame how churches have lost sight of what works is and is not.

 

[webdog]

It is a shame how churches have lost sight of what works is and is not.

....or how they are becoming blinded to the fact that exchanging all that I am for all that Christ is (MacArthur's words) is nothing more than a front loaded works based salvation.

But hey....if it sounds spiritual enough!

 

[Havensdad]

“This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience--unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

Whatever you say...

So, according to your definition, the helpless person who is laying in the burning house is making an "exchange" when he gives up the wooden floor on which he lays, for the arms of the fireman...

Now you can show us of just one non-lordshipper who fits your "inevitable conclusion" to refute my strawman claim. Should I be holding my breath?

I am waiting for YOU to deny it...

 

[webdog]

So, according to your definition, the helpless person who is laying in the burning house is making an "exchange" when he gives up the wooden floor on which he lays, for the arms of the fireman...

No, to paint a more accurate picture using your analogy, I deny the view of the fireman coming into the burning house, seeing you lying there, and asking "are you willing to give up your old life in exchange for me rescuing you"? (Lordship Salvation)

I am waiting for YOU to deny it...

What is there for me to deny? You erected the asinine strawman, you need to put your money where you keyboard is.

 

[Havensdad]

No, to paint a more accurate picture using your analogy, I deny the view of the fireman coming into the burning house, seeing you lying there, and asking "are you willing to give up your old life in exchange for me rescuing you"? (Lordship Salvation)

That is an inaccurate picture. Sin is not some inconsequential part of the story. Sin is the fire that is bringing about your destruction.

What is there for me to deny? You erected the asinine strawman, you need to put your money where you keyboard is.

Why do you not simply deny it? Why can't you say, "Yes, I deny that a person can take Jesus' 'ticket to heaven' and yet say, 'I want nothing to do with you, Jesus...I just want to be saved.' "

If it is so ridiculous, why can't you just deny it? What is so difficult about that?

 

[mandym]

....or how they are becoming blinded to the fact that exchanging all that I am for all that Christ is (MacArthur's words) is nothing more than a front loaded works based salvation.

But hey....if it sounds spiritual enough!

And you make my point. Thanks:thumbsup: