Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Now, I can go back and read the rest of the thread to see if this is a duplicate response! </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I don't believe anyone has answered this sally yet, Calvibaptist, so I will.

It is really very simple. It says, confess the Lord Jesus. It doesn't say, "Confess Jesus as Lord!" Problem solved! </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the problem is not solved that easily. Both the word "Lord" and the word "Jesus" are in the accusative case in Greek. The accusative is the form of the direct object. That means that the sentence could be translated "Confess Jesus as Lord" or "Confess the Lord as Jesus." Since the proper noun is Jesus and the common noun is Lord, it is more properly translated as "Confess Jesus is (as) Lord."

The translation, "Confess the Lord Jesus" improperly puts the word "Lord" in an adjectival form. An accusative is not an adjective, but a noun, so the translation chosen by the KJV and the NKJV is incorrect. That is why the NIV, the RSV, and the NASB have translated it "Confess Jesus as (is) Lord."

This verse is a demand for the recognition of Jesus' Lordship, not just a title given to Him.

 

Actually, CalviBaptist, it's not that simple either. This is what is referred to as the "double-accusative." Daniel Wallace in his grammar says that it can be the double accusative of the person and thing or the double accusative of object-complement.

Now since both nouns refer to a person, this is likely the DA of object-complement. Some texts are "debatable." Wallace list Romans 10:9 as one of those - the jury's out. Hard to be adament. (pp. 181-184 in my ver.)

So if this the DA of the object-complement then this could be what's referred to as an apositive kind of treatment something like,

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord, and..."

That is the most likely meaning. In English, both "Jesus" and "the Lord" are the direct object. "The Lord" complements "Jesus." That means essentially something very similar to "...the Lord Jesus." It is not likely "...Jesus as Lord," though we cannot rule that possibility out, according to Wallace, though.

But I do not see a problem with viewing this as "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and..." though IMO that is not what it's saying there. It does not change the validity of J-J's position.

Paul is not saying that we must confess Jesus as Lord and also believe in our heart IOT gain eternal life. But before we head down that path, we need to first realize what Paul meant if he said here, "confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord." Note that in the 1st century the most common way of saying that Jesus is God was to say, "Jesus is Lord." That was a common greeting. So when Paul refers to (possibly) confessing "jesus as Lord" he does not mean that the person is saying that Jesus is Lord of his life. It means that the person is acknowledging that Jesus IS Lord... of the entire universe. And notice that it is not "confess with your mouth Jesus as YOUR Lord." "Your" is not there. To confess is to acknowledge to be true. So to confess Him as "Lord" is to acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, not to make Him Lord. That is something it does not say.

Now if someone acknowledges that Jesus is Lord, it could be assumed that he sees it applying to his own life. But if so it is one thing to acknowledge that Jesus is your Lord and quite another to "make" Him Lord in practice. BTW, you never see such an expression in the NT - "make" Him Lord. So IMO the focus here is on acknowledging who Jesus is and not talking about "making Him Lord."

OK, let's look at something that often gets neglected here - that this is generally acknowledged as a chiasm - a form of Hebraic poetry. Such chiasms are quite common in the NT.

And regarding an earlier comment, it's not that J-J is eliminating Romans. But when Paul speaks of "salvation" in Romans he is not talking about "how to get saved." He is talking about the whole ball of wax, including growing in Christ - the focus. When Paul wants to speak about gaining eternal life he used "justification." Paul makes it clear in Romans that we are declared to be righteous by faith and not by works. But John makes the gospel clear... that it is by faith. People tend to see "salvation"/"saved" in Romans and think that Paul is speaking about gaining eternal life ("justification). He never uses "salvation" in Romans in such a limited manner.

But both books do emphasize faith. John's point is that LS adherrants derive their theology from Romans 10:9, 10 - where the Lord Jesus is probably a title, as was said, or else a description. But it does not tell us how to become a Christian or how a person gains eternal life, but how to live in Christ - discipleship.

Anyway, Romans 10:9, 10 is commonly accepted to be a chiasm - or "sandwich parallelism" as I like to refer to it. In such poetic literature the outer lines line up and you work your way in to the center. Sometimes there is a singular un-paired line. When that happens, the author usually is emphasizing that line.

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness/justification, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.

Now, let's look at this Romans' passage again -&gt;
If you
....confess with your mouth Jesus, the Lord (or "Jesus as Lord")
and
........believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead

--&gt; You will be"saved" (NOT eternal life salvation, but the whole package.)

........for with the heart one believes to justification
and
....with the mouth confession is made to salvation


OK now, line up the italicized and bold sections.

If you believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead... you are justified.

AND if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus (or "Jesus as Lord")... you are saved.

IOW, we are justified - we gain eternal life, by believing in our hearts ("for with the heart one believes to justification"), and we are "saved" (Don't limit this to eternal life salvation, or you'll completely miss what Paul is saying here.) by confessing with our mouths the Lord Jesus.

But I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here... I'm interested in what J-J has to say about John's gospel.

FA

 

Thank you for such a detailed response. I'm going to have to re-read Wallace's Grammar on this (and your entire post!).

But this one comment jumped out at me. This comment does not fit the context of Romans 9-11, nor of Romans 10 specifically. Paul was dealing with the fact that Israel is not saved (justified). This is clear from the opening part of the chapter and the immediate context of the verse.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

His "be saved" here is very much talking about justification. He is not ignoring everything that follows it, but he is desiring the initial step of faith through which Israel would be justified.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The word "for" is very important because it indicates that this is the ground for his statement in verse 9. Notice he doesn't talk about any lifestyle change here that would be brought about by sanctification (which, technically cannot be separated from justification). He talks about believing and confessing. That is faith. That is the initial step (on our part) of salvation. This is the context of the passage.

I am one that will consistently agree with you that the biblical picture of salvation involves much more than justification. I have argued in other threads that it involves a process begun by God in eternity past with election and predestination, and continues on with calling, regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification, and culminates in the future with glorification. BUT, there are times when the word "salvation" is talking specifically about justification. I believe, from the context of Paul's discussion, that this is one of those times.

 

One question...If both John and Paul were telling people that they had to recognize that Jesus is God, what effect would this have on their obedience to Him?

Jesus said, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I say?" We can argue all we want over whether Lord is a title of Jesus or whether it just meant He was God or whether they were supposed to "yield" to His lordship for salvation all we want. But if Jesus is God, doesn't that mean He is in charge? And if we are supposed to recognize this, doesn't that impact our lifestyle?

 

Thank you for such a detailed response. I'm going to have to re-read Wallace's Grammar on this (and your entire post!).

But this one comment jumped out at me. This comment does not fit the context of Romans 9-11, nor of Romans 10 specifically. Paul was dealing with the fact that Israel is not saved (justified). This is clear from the opening part of the chapter and the immediate context of the verse.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

His "be saved" here is very much talking about justification. He is not ignoring everything that follows it, but he is desiring the initial step of faith through which Israel would be justified.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The word "for" is very important because it indicates that this is the ground for his statement in verse 9. Notice he doesn't talk about any lifestyle change here that would be brought about by sanctification (which, technically cannot be separated from justification). He talks about believing and confessing. That is faith. That is the initial step (on our part) of salvation. This is the context of the passage.

I am one that will consistently agree with you that the biblical picture of salvation involves much more than justification. I have argued in other threads that it involves a process begun by God in eternity past with election and predestination, and continues on with calling, regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification, and culminates in the future with glorification. BUT, there are times when the word "salvation" is talking specifically about justification. I believe, from the context of Paul's discussion, that this is one of those times. </font>[/QUOTE]Thx Calvibaptist. FYI, I do not disagree with this, too much, though I woud express it a bit differently.

But I do contend that when Paul wants focus on gaining eternal life - the point-in-time at which someone has become a child of God - he always uses "justify" in Romans. IMO he focuses on deliverance from wrath more than anything else in Romans.

But Paul is writing to Christians. J-J's point was that John made it clear in his gospel that he was writing to unbelievers - for the purpose of them getting "saved." Not so in Romans. Anotehr letetr to consdier would be Galatians, of course. Its focus is the gospel as well, and justification by grace through faith.

I do agree that "salvation," at least as used in chapters 9ff includes justification. I didn't mean to imply differently. But when most Christians say "saved" they're referring to that time when someone walked the aisle... That is not how Paul uses it in Romans... I don't think he uses it to refer to just gaining eternal life even once in Romans. It's always more holistic there, IMO.

When Paul said that his one desire was that his countrymen would be saved, it surely had to include their justification. You're right about the context. They had "disregarded the righteousness from God and attempted to establish their own righteousness." That certainly is referring to justification. But if we read Romans 10:9ff we see that Paul was speaking of more than just justification. And it remains that whenever Paul uses SOTERIA or SOZW he is always speaking of more than just coming to Christ - to justification.

"Now the Scripture says, No one who believes on Him will be put to shame" - showing that the focus of vss. 9, 10 is on faith. It does not say that no one who believes in Him and confesses &lt;whatever&gt; will be put to shame. But the part about being put to shame is referring to the BEMA seat of Christ - which deals with rewards for our faithfulness and our actions.

In vs. 13 Paul says, "For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Again, he is referring to more than just being justified. He is not saying that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be justified. (Though that is true.) He's speaking of more than that.

And in the vss. that follow Paul asks how they can vall on Him if they have not beleived, and how can they believe without hearing..." Now notice that it is those who have believed in Christ - who have gained eternal life - who are told to call upon Him. So this calling upon Christ is not referring to gaining eternal life, but to living for Him - to discipleship, IMO. IOW, Paul is speaking of something that Christians do. And I believe that's J-J's point: that we tend to blur the lines of separation. It is important to recognize when the Bible is speaking about being justified and when it is talking about being saved (discipleship truth). Otherwise we take things which a Christian is told to do and say that is how we become a Christian. And then justification itself becomes a process, and we've gone back to things before the reformation. The reformation was all about justification by faith alone.

BTW, Daniel is reformed, though his theology is not as strong as most, I don't think. It does affect some of his decisions in his grammar and the NET notes.

CYL,

FA

 

Good question. If one trusts in Christ he becomes a new creature. God does it. He changes us. Now we at that point begin to follow Him. Some do a more faithful job there than the rest of us. So if we recognize who Jesus is, then "yes," that does impact how we live - how can it not? And we must not forget, which tends to happen insuch debates as this one, that when we trust in Christ, at that very moment, He changes us. I am changed! We're not talking about someone stepping into a voting booth to make his vote. Uhhh, I vote for Jesus. X-here. And we also have Satan tempting us and we often really struggle as a result. How can we ignore the spiritual battle as well?

But the point remains that "Lordship" in the sense of submitting to it - is something that a Christian should do, not how he becomes a child of God. He becomes a child of God by faith alone. LS couches it as something that must be understood and agreed upon and done at the very moment of faith, and more than that, if we do not faithfully follow through to the end... That has turned the requirements of the gospel into "trust and obey." That is how we grow. We are saved by simply trusting in His work in our behalf.

J-J made a good point in an earlier post. (Just saw this thread.) In it he said that the very concept of "the perseverance of the saints" focuses our eternal security on ourselves rather than on the Lord and what He has and is doing.

That's why I refer to it as the "preservation of the saints" because as the TULIP expresses it, our security is based on our works. True, it says that those who are in Christ will persevere in good works. But where is the biblical basis for that? To say that they will do good works because they are changed is one thing. To say that they will persevere unto death removes any chance of ever having real assurance of salvation. Who could ever know for sure? And John in his 1st letter made it clear that we should have confidence that we are saved. (5:11-13)

CYL,

FA

 

Hi everyone! Sorry for jumping in to the discussion so late, but I feel compelled to address Helen's question, "And who is going to trust their salvation to someone who ISN'T God?"

We have had extensive dealings with the LS doctrine in our church. The problem is not that they want you to believe that Jesus is God. The problem is that they want you to make Him Lord of you life--every area of your life--in order to be saved.

I have watched this philosophy cause havoc in Ladies Bible Classes, Sunday School classes, etc., because of this stipulation. I have seen and counselled people because they were near suicide because of this philosophy.

There is a cycle that takes place: Accept Jesus as Savior and Lord. Find area of your life where you have sinned and found out you are not completely yielded to Him in this area. Decide your salvation experience was not real, so accept Jesus as Savior and Lord again. Repeat many times. Eventually, you realize that He is not Lord of ALL areas of your life, since you keep sinning. Decide you must not/cannot be saved.

I counselled a young wife and mother who literally prayed every hour to be saved, because she was so frightened by the thought that maybe He wasn't Lord of every area of her life.

That is, in my experience, the jist of what happens when someone believes in LS. It robs the Christian of any hope of assurance that they are saved.

Hope this helps, Helen, in understanding what LS teaches, and why I find it to be a problem.

 

Wow, Gwen, great information. Thank you. I said earlier that when one truly gets saved Jesus becomes owner, Master. Afterall, we have been "bought" with a price, have we not? Doesn't this pretty much trump all the bantering about concerning LS? If we are His, He is Lord! Whether or not we are profitable or unprofitable servants is entirely another matter.

 

Thank you, Gwen. I didn't know that is what was being taught. What ought to be done to correct these folk who are so worried is to simply say that the Holy Spirit will be revealing bits and pieces of their lives and minds to them which are 'under construction' by Him at the moment. The fact that they are 'under construction' means that they are indeed saved, or He wouldn't be working on them!

What I had understood about LS is that some would have Jesus save them but not govern their lives as God. And that is not a possibility from what the Bible says! But for all of us there are going to be more and more improvements all the while we are alive here. If there weren't, it would mean either that we were perfect (hardly!) or that God didn't care -- in which case we would not be saved at all.

So the very fact of being aware of different areas of our lives that need to be yielded is proof that the person is saved, no?

 

What does Christ's description of the Judgement in MA 25 mean to you? How can you possibly get around the fact that true believers will follow Him, not sit around saying that salvation is Grace + nothing. It makes for a nice free ride but it isn't Biblical. </font>[/QUOTE]Mt. 25 speaks of Jesus speaking to live people here on Earth after His second coming. It's not a description of the Great White Throne Judgement of Rev. 20 like Catholics and religionists insist.

They are judged on how they treated Jews (His brethren) and Christians during the Tribulation to see if they get to go on into the Millenniun.

No one gets to heaven based on their works. Surely you must know that. Or do you?

 

That's what I think, too! But with this philosophy, there is no place to stop. It is ever encroaching on your security.

 

Helen, Jesus as God and Jesus as Lord, while related, but different doctrinces.

 

Kudos to Glen for a great, informative post!

Gotta go to breakfast.

 

I agree. A lot of people are not aware of the effects of this heresy. And it is a heresy since it is "another gospel".

 

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans:

Romans 8:5-9
5. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

We see in this passage that “true believers”, those who have been born again, are indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul also tells us in:

2 Corinthians 5:17.[NKJV]
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Paul tells us that these “true believers” are a new creation in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ tells us the purpose of the indwelling Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John:

John 14:16, 17, 23-26
16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
23. Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
25. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:13, 14
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

In the above Scripture we see that both Paul and Jesus Christ tell us that “true believers” are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ in the above passages tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us, as a new creation in Jesus Christ, into all truth and will testify of Jesus Christ. If the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth He will teach us to love Jesus Christ and will also teach us that Jesus Christ is Lord. If the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ that will also include the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Anyone who professes to be saved and yet denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ is either seriously deluded or is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

Why is it that dispensational nonsense gets woven into nearly every thread on this Forum? By the way why are there Christians on earth during the GRrreat Tribulation? I thought they all got "snatched" away.

 

Helen

Many thanks [though belated] for your excellent post of February 28, 2006 04:17 AM.

 

Bad news. The Biblical answer is 100%. Basically, what you'rer saying is you want to be saved but you want to go on living as you did before. I'm afraid God won't accept your deal with Him. It's not the gospel.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

I believe you are missing the point, OldRegular. I agree with what you have written here, but LS is not about after salvation but the means of salvation.

 

I agree. A lot of people are not aware of the effects of this heresy. And it is a heresy since it is "another gospel". </font>[/QUOTE]JackRUS makes a very important point here. According to the usual theological definition of LS, we are not talking about what a believer does after salvation, but at the moment of salvation.

Here is the key question. Does the Gospel include making Jesus Lord of your life, or does it not? If it does not, we have no right to put it in. In fact, we do great harm by adding ANYTHING to the Gospel.

Note what Paul said the Gospel was in 1 Cor. 15:1-8. In the Greek, vv. 1-2 are one sentence. Paul essentially says there that he is going to define the Gospel. Then, all the way from v. 3 to v. 5 are one of Paul's long involved Greek constructions, but only one more sentence. This is the core of the Gospel. Vv. 6-8 add more witnesses of the resurrection.

John Stott defines the "gospel events" this way: "Yet it is clear that the emphasis is on two, namely that Christ died (and was buried in order to prove it) and that Christ arose *and was seen in order to prove it). The appearance attested the reality of his resurrection, as the burial attested the rality of his death" (Christian Mission in the Modern World, 44).

What is left beyond the two Gospel events? Only that His death was "for our sins" and that the events happened "according to the Scriptures." So, the Gospel consists of the two Gospel events plus the knowledge of the substitutionary atonement.

This is all of it. We are to trust in the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross, who was afterward raised from the dead. Romans says, "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification" (Rom. 4:25) There is nothing about adding any work, such as being baptized, nothing about praying, nothing about making Christ the Lord of your life.

As for me, I preach this Gospel here in Japan. Then as soon as they are saved I begin to talk about how Christ is Lord and how we ought to obey Him. That is what the Great Commission in Matthew has: we are to make disciples (win them to Christ), baptize them, and THEN teach them what Christ said so that they can obey it.