Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

And it is exactly this, Major B, that mystifies me when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!!

Lordship salvation in it's theological meaning (that is, in the scholarly literature and theological journals) deals primarily with what is necessary for salvation (faith alone, as the Reformers believed, or faith plus dedication, as LS advocates believe), and only secondarily with what happens as a result of salvation. In Internet debating, on the other hand.... </font>[/QUOTE]But salvation doesn't just refer to a single point in time. Someone who is saved stays in that state and does recognize Jesus as Lord the rest of their life (100%). So why draw the distinction between a single instant of salvation and a saved life?

I know that I might technically be arguing the wrong point but I'm concerned about living the Christian life. After being saved, I don't accept the argument that a genuine Christian can continually reject the idea that Jesus is their Lord. And yes, I don't think such a person is saved at all.

 

And it is exactly this, Major B, that mystifies me when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!!

Lordship salvation in it's theological meaning (that is, in the scholarly literature and theological journals) deals primarily with what is necessary for salvation (faith alone, as the Reformers believed, or faith plus dedication, as LS advocates believe), and only secondarily with what happens as a result of salvation. In Internet debating, on the other hand.... </font>[/QUOTE]But salvation doesn't just refer to a single point in time. Someone who is saved stays in that state and does recognize Jesus as Lord the rest of their life (100%). So why draw the distinction between a single instant of salvation and a saved life?

I know that I might technically be arguing the wrong point but I'm concerned about living the Christian life. After being saved, I don't accept the argument that a genuine Christian can continually reject the idea that Jesus is their Lord. And yes, I don't think such a person is saved at all. </font>[/QUOTE]Why draw a distinction? WHY DRAW A DISTINCTION?

Because the Bible does, because it is the difference between Heaven and Hell, because salvation IS a moment of time and not an extended process unless you are a Catholic or Buddhist, because if you don't you mix up the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, because it affects how you present the Gospel (you do present the Gospel, don't you?)--how many reasons do you want?

If you guys want to argue sanctification or "perseverence," go somewhere else. This thread is about Lordship SALVATION (S-A-L-V-A-T-I-O-N).

(Hmm, am I too feisty? Maybe I should just keep off the BB on a Monday?? )

 

Actually, I believe a better synonym for the
TULIP tiptoers' would and is usually "Sovereign Grace". I am not familiar with the use of "Free Grace", per se, by any 'Fivers', although Deformed, 'er I mean Reformed, Theology likes to call its teachings "The Doctrines of Grace".

'Free Grace' might be a better characteristic description of Luther, Melanchthon, and slightly less that of Calvin, e.g., than it was of Beza` and the 'Dort' crowd, IMO. There was a subtle shift taking place on two fronts. And where Staupitz started, Luther, Melanchthon, Farel and Calvin continued, is not where Beza` wound up, and even Beza` did not go as far as 'Dort.' One individual, speaking of the Canons of Dort, offered words to the effect that "We made some needed corrections and clarifications to Calvin." Whether or not Calvin "needed" correcting or not, is irrelevant. The fact remains that, in the minds of some, he did and was.

I don't believe it is accurate to say that 'we' have somehow hijacked the phrase and "historical term", "Free Grace".

Also John, Why does it mystify you "when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!! []"

John, you have actually answered your own question without being aware of it. And you should not be confused about it. However there are two instances where distictions have to be made, IMO.

The frist is that "the Reformers" is an awfully broad umbrella. Your question does make no sense, if you see Dort and Calvin as one and the same. LS makes no 'Biblical' sense to a 'Luther' or Melanchthon, e.g.; it makes little sense to a 'Calvin'; it makes perfect sense to 'Dort', Knox, the Puritans, and those of that inclination. Why? Because Luther, like you, FA, me, and others of similar mind, believe and teach the "preservation" of the Saints, as you mentioned.

"Perseverance" of the Saints, is a "hoss of a different color". For driving this cart to its logical end IS Lordship salvation, albeit by a different name, 'perseverance'. And the 'perseverance' of 'Lordship salvation', is no difference from the 'perseverance' of 'Calvinism', is no different from the 'perseverance' of 'Arminianism', in the final analysis. They merely all arrived at the same destination by different routes. But each and all are drastically different from the 'preservation' of Free Grace.

Logic 101 starts with A = A = A. A does not equal B.


In His grace,
Ed

 

S&N! Have patience, my son!

Ed

 

Good explanation, Ed. Thank you! I get it now.

Actually, it's better that you explained it to me than one of our Calvinist friends. I'm sure some of them would fire a broadside from their Canons of Dort at me. The good Ship of Faith can take it, though!

 

John of Japan,

That's not what I believe. I still like Major B's definition, because it does describe what I believe.

I'm just too dense to figure out all the complicted subtleties of all this.

 

S&N,

I realize what you were saying. FYI, "FG" means "free grace." it's the positional soteriologically opposite LS.

Now if you go back to that post you'll see that I object to you making claims about how we believe that are not accurate. You're been assuming some things about FG theology which are not accurate and that have been repeatedly said to be inaccurate. Here's my last response again:

Not true. You need to understand what free grace teaches. And we most certainly do serve Him!

We believe that Christ is Lord and we should respond to Him with such an understanding. We also believe that we cannot earn our way into heaven/eternal life. We believe that we are saved by grace - a gift - not by works.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, as a gift, or not?


Hope this is more clear now. Now, do you believe this or not?

Thx,

FA

 

And it is exactly this, Major B, that mystifies me when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!!

Lordship salvation in it's theological meaning (that is, in the scholarly literature and theological journals) deals primarily with what is necessary for salvation (faith alone, as the Reformers believed, or faith plus dedication, as LS advocates believe), and only secondarily with what happens as a result of salvation. In Internet debating, on the other hand.... </font>[/QUOTE]But salvation doesn't just refer to a single point in time. Someone who is saved stays in that state and does recognize Jesus as Lord the rest of their life (100%). So why draw the distinction between a single instant of salvation and a saved life?

I know that I might technically be arguing the wrong point but I'm concerned about living the Christian life. After being saved, I don't accept the argument that a genuine Christian can continually reject the idea that Jesus is their Lord. And yes, I don't think such a person is saved at all. </font>[/QUOTE]:flower:What??? Salvation does not refer to one moment in a person's life but includes the whole span of a believer's life? Is this what you believe? You are blending salvation and sanctification and the Bible does not do this. That is our only standard and guidepost for living. 2 Corinthians 6:2 makes it very clear that there is a point of time in every believers life that she/he is born again. That was God's timing and that is the moment they were saved. "Behold NOW is the accepted time;behold NOW is the day of salvation." However in 2 Timothy 2:21 the Lord Jesus does say that sanctification is different then salvation. That these two experiences in a believers life are seperate. "If a man therefore purge himself from these (dead works and worldly deeds)he shall be a vessel unto honor,sanctified, and meet for the master's use,and prepared unto every good work." This is not talking about salvation but rather the Lord's ability to use any one of us for His glory. Sanctification IS an ongoing process for the believer but salvation is not. You will run into a number of doctrinal heresies if this be the case.
Regards
OTSOT

 

I realize what you were saying. FYI, "FG" means "free grace." it's the positional soteriologically opposite LS.

Now if you go back to that post you'll see that I object to you making claims about how we believe that are not accurate. You're been assuming some things about FG theology which are not accurate and that have been repeatedly said to be inaccurate. Here's my last response again:

Not true. You need to understand what free grace teaches. And we most certainly do serve Him!

We believe that Christ is Lord and we should respond to Him with such an understanding. We also believe that we cannot earn our way into heaven/eternal life. We believe that we are saved by grace - a gift - not by works.

Do you believe we are saved by grace, as a gift, or not?


Hope this is more clear now. Now, do you believe this or not?

Thx,

FA </font>[/QUOTE]You don't believe in making Jesus lord of your life but you call him the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?

This wasn't addressed to you, all FGers, or anybody else other than EdSutton. Understand?

 

And it is exactly this, Major B, that mystifies me when Calvinists fall for Lordship Salvation, as I have said before on this thread. In case you haven't read the whole thread, it is exactly my contention that you are unable as a lost person to accept Christ's Lordship, and that regeneration makes you able. I find it incredible that a Calvinist would not agree!!

Lordship salvation in it's theological meaning (that is, in the scholarly literature and theological journals) deals primarily with what is necessary for salvation (faith alone, as the Reformers believed, or faith plus dedication, as LS advocates believe), and only secondarily with what happens as a result of salvation. In Internet debating, on the other hand.... </font>[/QUOTE]
How do you explain Jesus' reply to the rich young ruler? Is this "Grace only?"

Luk 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luk 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none [is] good, save one, [that is], God.
Luk 18:20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

This is perhaps the best example in the Bible that you can serve only one master.

 

My theology has no problems whatsoever with this verse. Christ simply put His finger on exactly what was keeping this man from believing in Him--his riches. Simply speaking, the man loved material things more than he loved spiritual things and desired to know God. Materialism is a great hindrance to the Gospel. I see it all the time here in Japan. What is needed is repentance--a complete change of mind about the value of riches and the need of a Savior!

If it were normative for a person to sell all he had and follow Jesus in order to be saved, then Christ would have used this approach when He dealt with sinners in other examples in the Gospels, and He did not do so. For example, He did not take this approach in dealing with Nicodemus in John 4 and the Samaritan woman in John 5. And you STILL have not answered my question as to why Jesus did not speak of His Lordship when dealing with these two about salvation.

S&N, let me as YOU! Did you sell all you had when you trusted Christ as Savior? I think not.

 

The bottom line is simple: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

When a person is saved he is redeemed from his sin debt. He is no longer his own, he has been bought with a price. He becomes the "property" of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus becomes His Lord by virtue of this transaction. Now the one bought can either be a profitable servant and receive reward or an unprofitable servant and receive lashes (chastening). Whatever the case, Jesus is still Lord.

 

Well said, Mike. We don't make Jesus our Lord, He IS the Lord. What we can do is offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, as Rom. 12:1-2 teaches.

"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:20).

 

S&N, I was tempted to give the "thumbs down" message icon on this post, and perhaps should. However, I've decided the 'sad' icon is more appropriate. For I am saddened by the responses from you, as well as from some others, and I'm sure others are saddened as well. And not just from you, but others who either likewise proclaim 'another gospel' or are taken in by the same. This post will be rather lengthy, so I hope all bear with me. I will try to break it intop sections. Language Cop has already long since hit the hay, so I may have some uncorrected typing 'misteaks'. You wrote:

Okay, here it is:

This is the last paragraph of your post of March 03, 2006 - 10:19 PM.

I have responded to this once, including quoting your quote, but I guess you were just too busy to read it, what with helping God and all, so I'll repeat it hoping you can actually find the time to read what I write, as opposed to what you have already decided I'm saying. Here we go again, with my own quote:

 

"Lordship Salvation" as a 'teaching' is not to be confused with with "Jesus IS Lord" (Rom. 10:9) as to His Deity. He IS the object of (sic the- Ed) gospel. This is clearly taught in Scripture.

Nor is "Lordship Salvation" as a 'teaching' to be confused with His 'Lordship' in our Discipleship as "sons of God" when we have "received Him, ...who believed in His name", and were "born... of God." (John 1:11-14) As disciples, we are the subjects of the gospel.

But "Lordship Salvation" as a 'teaching' attempts to 'cross-breed' the two Biblical teachings of 'free salvation' and 'costly discipleship' into one amalgamated whole, as it attempts to 'solve' this perceived "shallow Christianity, decisionism, etc." Unfortunately, it's proposed 'solution' is "another gospel",. [Tear] [/QUOTE]

 

You (S&N) also wrote:

I really, really really hate to disappoint you several times, here, in only two sentences, but guess I'll just have to do it, anyhow. So, here we go again! To begin with, the questions ask two different things in their wording. "Sigh!" (JoJ will understand "Sigh!") But I'll try, anyway.

I call the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, because that is the most descriptive and complete identification of Him, found in Scripture. He is, was, and always will be the Lord Jesus Christ. This is who "I AM". In eternity past, I AM; in the begining, I AM; in the 'Garden of Eden', I AM; at 'The Flood', I AM; in Ur of the Chaldees, I AM; on Mt. Moriah with Abraham, I AM; at 'Jacob's ladder', I AM; in the 'burning bush' at Mt. Horeb, I AM; at Mt. Sinai, I AM; in the manger, I AM; in the upper room with his disciples, I AM; on the cross on Mt. Moriah, I AM; on the Damascus road, I AM; as I write this, I AM; at the 'rapture', I AM; as He reigns in Jerusalem, I AM; at the Great White Throne, I AM; in the New Jerusalem, I AM; in eternity future, I AM.

He is ever "I AM." He IS "My Lord and my God!" IMO, it takes a hundred times the arrogance and ego that would be needed to make Job look like Moses, to even suggest that you or I are capable of "making Jesus lord of your life", or for that matter, making Him Lord of anything. Nowhere are we even suggested, in Scripture, to "Make Him Lord".

""Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."" (Acts 2:36, NKJV)

 

You (S&N) wrote:

NOPE!

YEP!

The smart-aleck answer here would be, "What is that to thee??", but I will refrain from this. I mentioned before, and I will now expand, but first, I need to find out something. Which is it, S&N? Who is this Jesus to whom you are referring? Is it the one in the second question, or is it the one in the first question? For they are not the same.

The second is the one I refer to, the one who IS "the Lord". Jesus IS Lord. (Rom.10:9; 14:9 c.f. 14:8-12; Phl'p. 2:9-11; cp. Hebrews 2:6-9 cp. Eph. 1:17-23; Ex. 3:12-15; 20: 2-3; cp. Jo. 13:13) The omnipotent creator of all things; He with the name which is above every name; He that is Holy; He who lay down His life; He who rose from the grave; He that songs such as this one were written about: In the majestic style of the eighteenth century, Edward Perronet and John Rippon penned these words:

" All hail the power of Jesus' Name! - - Let angels prostrate fall;
Bring forth the royal diadem, - - And crown Him Lord of all.

" Let every kindred, every tribe, - - On this terrestrial ball,
To him all majesty ascribe, - - And crown Him Lord of all."

Or consider these words penned by Reginald Heber:

"Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! - - Early in the morning our song shall rise to thee.
Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty, - - God in three Persons, blessed Trinity."

That is the Jesus I'm talking about; He is the one who saved me; He is the one to whom all authority is given; He is the one that I serve.

By contrast, your song would say:

"I've done my best to help you, lord, - - I've even faced the knife,
Of those who claim 'Faith's all God asks.' I've made you lord of my life."

(Dashes indicate "line breaks" in stanzas.)

Maybe it's just me, but somehow "I've made you lord of my life." just doesn't seem to do for me what " And crown Him Lord of all. " does.

 

"Do you believe in serving the Lord or not?" The answer to you question is "Yes!" What does what I "believe " have to do with anything?, might be a more accurate response. The question is not what I believe; along the lines as I responded to "whatever" in 'speaking of the righteous' saints. What does Scripture say? Several of the group I listed from Heb. 11 and other locations are unlikely to be at the top of the list of those whom we look to as role models, for most of us, when it comes to how we see them. I noticed you had little problem basically dismissing the ten saints I listed as those I wanted to be associated with. Why is that? Do some of them not measure up to your standards? Do they not "show" enough evidence that they've made Jesus Lord? And I'll start once again with my favorite Biblical character- namely, Lot! Although I actually answered another with my "Biblical Saint of Saints comment" when I offered to find the best Scriptural example of one called righteous I could (and did, BTW), for Lot is called three times righteous or just, - that's three times as often than any other individual in Scripture. And he is spoken of as "godly" as well, and to my knowledge, the only individual who can be directly Scripturally named or implied as being 'godly'. Would he be at the top of your list? No? How about Paul- would you have him there? David? Rahab the Harlot? Who would you put there, at the top of the Biblical list?

You slid over the quotes from Scripture about righteousness based on faith alone, or apart from works from Romans. Why? Doesn't fit your 'belief system', maybe? You tell me.

 

JoJ, JackRUS, FA, as well as some others in addition to me have not questioned one thing you seem to think we have, in the collective. Especially, me. I happen to have posted the very first answer in this thread to Bro. Reubens OP. Maybe you did not have the time to read it. So I will requote it here, just for you.

Bro. Reuben asked, " Is there really such thing as Lordship Salvation?

What I know is that Lordship is different from Salvation; for how can a non-believer be under God's Lordship if he/she hasn't been saved in the first place?...

Here was my response:

"Here, at least, what you 'know' is, in fact, 100% Biblical. I believe that a great deal of damage is done and misunderstanding caused by not differentiating 'salvation' and 'Lordship' or 'discipleship'. There is all the difference in the world in "coming TO Christ" by faith FOR the "'Absolutely Free!(c)'" gift of salvation or eternal life vis`-a-vis` "following AFTER Christ" in faith for service. And there is simply no Biblical basis for the too often stated, confusing, and 'holier than thou' idea that ..."Either Christ is Lord of all; or He is not Lord, AT all". Another way this misnomer is said is "You have to "make Jesus Lord!" Got news for you- it can't be done! God done beat you to the punch, by 2000 years. As one individual I once heard say, "The Bible doesn't talk like that! It NEVER says, 'Make Him Lord!'; It says, 'He IS!'"
Well said!
Failing to get these two things in the Biblical order amounts to what I describe as "rope pushing". It is not too hard to pull a rope; it is almost impossible to push one."