Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

[whatever]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
And once again, we see that the emperor has yet another new royal tailor! And he is wearing yet another set of new clothes. Once again the tailor has been changed, perhaps to keep up with the latest style. But the latest, along with the many before, have bought the cloth from the same roll of fabric.

Why the need to 'expose' those we assume to be hypocrites? ...

Nice rant. Unfortunately for you, I said nothing about discerning whether someone else really believes. The question is mine to answer for myself.

If you want to actually address what I actually said then go for it. I am always ready to learn. But if you want to keep addressing what I did not say then there is no point.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
Tom, you are 100% right. If a man was not a believer that changes the question doesn't it? A true believer can not lose his salvation. In fact God chooses to remember his sin no more! That is forever.

Mike, with all due respect, don't fall for this. There is no such term in Scripture as "true believer", "truly believe", or the worst of this sorry lot (not to be confused with 'my hero'), "REALLY and truly believe". The Bible knows of and speaks only of "believe (in Jesus)" and "believe not", in the area we are discussing. The 'qualifier', although usually well intentioned, IMO, is not Biblical. It is seeking to do exactly what I just wrote the long post about, weed out 'the tares' from the 'wheat field' before the harvest. It is based on an idea that 'demands' fruit, to 'prove' root, although I am not trying to sound poetic. And that is the seed germ of LS, in a nutshell.
In His grace,
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]Please clarify something for me. What James wrote about those whay say they have faith, but the kind of faith they have cannot save them - in your opinion, was James "well intentioned but not Biblical"? Martin Luther would have agreed, I guess, but I am not sure who else would.

 

[On the side of truth]

We SHOULD produce 'fruit' but that is not assured from Scripture. And that is a 'roundabout' claim of the LS crowd. 'NO FRUIT' equals 'NO ROOT'. Sounds catchy, but it's just not Biblical.


ED,
Can you explain in a succint manner why this is not biblical. We are currently attending a church that teaches this and it is totally new to us. Passages of Scripture used to back this up(at this church) would be "If you love me then keep my commandments"( my version as I do not have my Bible handy)and then the passage of Scripture in Matthew that deals with cutting down the fruit trees that do not bear fruit and throwing them into the fire. In the first passage mentioned wouldn't the contra positive be true? If you do not keep God's commandments then you do not love God and are probably not saved? To you what does the verse in Scripture mean when it talks about examining yourselves to make sure you are in the faith? I do not know for sure but would these verses or passages indicate the possibility of no fruit no root?
I have some serious reservations about Lord ship salvation so I am not someone in disguise trying to pick an argument. I am just wanting to know what the scriptures saith what the Scriptures " saith" and from what I see on this thread you and JOJ seem to have a pretty good understanding of it all.
Have a great day!!

 

[On the side of truth]

What would be the answer to those who believe in softcore LS? What I mean is, they do not believe that anyone can surrender 100% of themselves to the Lord for salvation for no one can do that BUT THEY NEED TO BE WILLING. To them it is a matter of the HEART or the attitude of the heart. How does this fly in the face of what has already been said?

 

[On the side of truth]

Gwen,

Your experience is not unique. This getting "re-saved" over and over again has to be from this kind of teaching. It breeds so much doubt and confusion in others people's lives. Questions like"Well if that person who has lived such a godly life has just gotten saved,and I am not living the way I should then perhaps I am not saved either"? To me it breeds such self introspection that it is dangerous. If the Devil can get us looking at ourselves and off the Lord then he is happy. So all that to say this ..you are right!!! LS does encroach on the assurance of the believer and we all need to be built up in the faith not brought down.
In reading about this doctrine I came across and excellent article called The Evil Fruits of Lordship Salvation by Jon Mark Charlton. It is a huge read (144 pages) but I just printed it off and put into a binder and read it through in one sitting. Though I found one red flag the whole article and the experience that this man of God went through with his own church was just amazing. YOu might find it interesting. If you google the Key words of the title listed you will go to it. If not then go to Bible For Today website and it is listed there too. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[On the side of truth]

A question that I have to ask in light of the LS issue is this: Is it possible for a person who professed salvation in their younger years to be deceived into thinking they are NOT saved when they truly were to begin with? The person I have in mind is someone who was in church leadership,led souls to Christ and loved the things of God and would be considered by most folks in the church as a spiritual pillar in the church. This person professed salvation for over 38 years before testifying that Christ had recently saved them. Can an unsaved person truly do that for 38 years? How could they have discerned the things of God for so many years and not be saved? What are your thoughts?

P.S.
The person I refer to above is in a LS church and has struggled with their salvation and whether or not it was real. After listening to teaching on being 100% submission to the Lord for salvation this person came to the conclusion that he must not have been saved at their profession because he did not recall having that understanding. I added this because I realized that my above question really had nothing to do about LS issue per se and I did not want someone to think that I high jacked this thread with a salvation issue. Enough posts for today!! Have a great weekend. I will be poking around in here again a little later.

[ March 03, 2006, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: On the side of truth ]

 

[whatever]

Yes, it is possible to do that for 38 years and not be saved. Many have "works" without faith, and many have "faith" without works, and neither is a good condition to be in. Whether or not that is the case with the person you mentioned is beyond anyone's ability to discern so we ought not even try.

I suppose it is also possible to be deceived into thinking that one is not saved when one really is, as long as one ends up believing, but I wouldn't argue about it.

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by On the side of truth:
A question that I have to ask in light of the LS issue is this: Is it possible for a person who professed salvation in their younger years to be deceived into thinking they are NOT saved when they truly were to begin with? The person I have in mind is someone who was in church leadership,led souls to Christ and loved the things of God and would be considered by most folks in the church as a spiritual pillar in the church. This person professed salvation for over 38 years before testifying that Christ had recently saved them. Can an unsaved person truly do that for 38 years? How could they have discerned the things of God for so many years and not be saved? What are your thoughts?

P.S.
The person I refer to above is in a LS church and has struggled with their salvation and whether or not it was real. After listening to teaching on being 100% submission to the Lord for salvation this person came to the conclusion that he must not have been saved at their profession because he did not recall having that understanding. I added this because I realized that my above question really had nothing to do about LS issue per se and I did not want someone to think that I high jacked this thread with a salvation issue. Enough posts for today!! Have a great weekend. I will be poking around in here again a little later.

Hi, On the side of truth.

Yes it is possible. Note 2 Peter 1:9--"But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." If it is possible to actually forget you are saved as this verse teaches, then it is possible to be deceived into thinking you are not saved.

Gotta hit the sack. It's night here in Japan.

 

[shannonL]

ED Sutton,

I know how to spell I was just in a hurry.

BTW, to whoever was concerned about the comment I made concerning first class or second class christians. That was just an analogy okay?
There are believers who are "worldly" carnal etc.. even though they are they are still going to heaven.
You can enjoy your christian walk by living a Spirit filled life or you can keep the Lord at arms length living a defeated, drudgeful type of christian life.
I think Ed Sutton brought up a good point by using the example of Lot. That man was really messed up. But yet he is considered righteous.
That one always makes me think. I don't think that should give us an excuse to take advantage of the grace of God etc... Yet it sure reminds us that God is long suffering, and merciful. It also reminds that even though we may not understand it ourselves evidently there can be some rather worldly, carnal self centered believers out there yet they are still saved. They're standing is justified before God in heaven because of what Jesus did. Now they may have a rather weak fellowship with the Lord but they are still His.

Again for you Calvinist out there. I do believe God is sovereign. I do believe He initiates salvation etc.... So if God does it then He does it right.
Are you telling me concerning LS that there are NO worldly calvinistic believers out there? Do calvinists have to go around proving to themselves that they are elect by persevering through the evidence of their good works?
It is thoughts like this that reveal to me that when some of the reformers left the RCC they didn't get far enough away.
I was just reading last night on the website Pyromaniacs (a reformed, calvinsistic site) that there is a new doctrine or theology going around amongst some calvinists called NPP. (New Perspective on Paul) From what I gather there is a little tension growing amongst some calvinists concerning this teaching because it tends to lend itself to a "works" type of thing.
To me some of calvinism is coming to the same crossroads as Arminians except they came down a different road to get there.

 

[Gwen]

On the side of truth,

Thank you so much for your imput. I will definately read the article.

Also, you mentioned the passage in Matthew 7:15-19 that talks about not bearing fruit. If you look at verse 15, from the context it is clear that Jesus was talking about false teachers, not salvation. The LS teachers frequently use this verse to try and prove their point. Context makes all the difference in rightly dividing the Word!

Gwen

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EdSutton:
Ah yes! My 'favorite' Houston Colonel! "Thieme... was a big time heretic back in the 1970's.", is probably going a little far, but I'll agree that he (well into his 80's and in the latter stages of Alzheimer's) is a 'legend in his own mind', and could give new meaning to obnoxious. I'd say he is one of a very few who could make Jack Chick look like Dale Carnegie!

Ed

Okay, okay, Old Timer, small time heretic! </font>[/QUOTE]I want you to know I highly resemble that remark!
And since I cannot get any more of the graemlins in this post. Heh! Heh! Heh!
Ed

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Originally posted by EdSutton: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

OK, S&N, which one of these two things are you claiming-

That you are perfect, and you have given all (you did make the claim for 100%, you remember) and are beyond sin? Since, obviously, if and when one does sin, he or she ain't hit that 100% thing, yet.

Or are you claiming to be usaved at worst, and unsure at best? I don't get it, so I can use a little help, here! YOu know, inquiring minds, and all that.

In His grace,
Ed

In no way am I claiming to be perfect. As Paul Said in Romans 7:15-19, Christians will digress to their previous nature of sin. I believe that the important thing is for us to recognize our sin and repent. An important scripture in this area is the one I quoted before. I'll repeat it here.

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.

This says nothing about living a perfect life, as you claim, but rather emphasizes that a person can only serve one master, Christ or the flesh. Those who call after Jesus but are living in the flesh are not Christians.

Luk 6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

As Paul said in Romans 6:

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

True Christians will live lives that are pleasing to Him. It is clear from the scripture I've posted and a lot of other scriptural references that the master of a Christian's life is Christ and they continually strive to follow His commandments. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but that still doesn't sound like 100% lordship.

LS argues for an up front agreement for total control before mercy and grace are given resulting in salvation. I say that is God playing Let's Make a Deal.

I do agree with you that some fruit and a new-found distaste for sin is a direct result of the saving grace of God. 2 Cor. 5:17.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
I'm sorry but that still doesn't sound like 100% lordship.

LS argues for an up front agreement for total control before mercy and grace are given resulting in salvation. I say that is God playing Let's Make a Deal.

I do agree with you that some fruit and a new-found distaste for sin is a direct result of the saving grace of God. 2 Cor. 5:17.

I wasn't going for 100% of whatever the new "heracy" is as one person here called it. I was describing Biblical salvation. All of this made me think about growing up in a SBC church in KY. If someone had preached that someone could be saved without making Jesus the Lord of their life it might have caused a riot.

The Church has definitely slipped into easy-believerism and cheap grace. It's definitely sad to see but it's up to every true Christian to fight this false gospel at every opportunity. Contrary to what most want to believe, being a Christian is not easy and requires perseverence. No I'm not perfect but I'm getting better every day because my role model is perfect.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

double post

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by EdSutton:
And once again, we see that the emperor has yet another new royal tailor! And he is wearing yet another set of new clothes. Once again the tailor has been changed, perhaps to keep up with the latest style. But the latest, along with the many before, have bought the cloth from the same roll of fabric.

Why the need to 'expose' those we assume to be hypocrites? ...

Nice rant. Unfortunately for you, I said nothing about discerning whether someone else really believes. The question is mine to answer for myself.

If you want to actually address what I actually said then go for it. I am always ready to learn. But if you want to keep addressing what I did not say then there is no point. </font>[/QUOTE]If you want to consider what I wrote as a "rant", feel free. That is your privilege, I guess.

However you also say:
"Unfortunately for you, I said nothing about discerning whether someone else really believes. The question is mine to answer for myself. "

I will not question nor did I comment on answering the question for yourself. Now you post this. Fine, no problem.

However you wrote, when apparently making some sort of conclusion about me, these words, after I picked Lot as an example of a righteous saint, and after you agreed that I should pick someone the Bible called righteous, no less.

"Well, I suppose you could aspire to reach the level of tormenting your soul with the lawless deeds that you see and hear;
OR
You could pick a better example."

And then writing:

"On the other hand, Lot got by with his disobedience so maybe you will too. This does bring up a question though, one that is important for the assurance of our salvation. How much disobedience can we get away with and still be a believer?"

This implied that you had concluded I was being disobedient, somehow, although I suspect we've never even met. Then you proceded with the use of 'our' and 'we' ,and implied that the disobedience of Lot and I, brought up another question which is a broader question than one for you alone, IMO.
I am fully aware that you are annoyed with the fact that I chose Lot. Most people I run into are. I wonder why. Whatever the reason, it's not because of what the Bible says, for that is exactly where I got it.

I did answer this question by agreeing fully with Mike's post, BTW. AS well as answering your question too. (And asked who You would suggest, as well.)

You proceeded to rephrase the question thus:

"How far can we go in disobedience before it becomes clear that we really do not believe?"
You still stuck with the "we" thing twice, here, and again I answered.

I am well aware that my answer there was not the one you were looking for. But you merely rearranged some words, as I see it, and asked the same question all over again. Hence my response re- 'the emperor's new clothes'.

You did in fact add one thing that I did answer, as well. For you asked about when it becomes clear that "WE" do not really believe. I answered that specifically, I believe, but I'll check.

Yep! Here it is:
"We can't see this that clearly, at all. The best we can do is observe fruit. You might notice I did not say be a "fruit inspector"." And for illustration of this, I proceesed with the wheat and the tares.

So I do claim to have answered your questions. I just do not accept your implied presuppositions. Could that be what is bothering you? Just askin'.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by Gwen:
On the side of truth,

Thank you so much for your imput. I will definately read the article.

Also, you mentioned the passage in Matthew 7:15-19 that talks about not bearing fruit. If you look at verse 15, from the context it is clear that Jesus was talking about false teachers, not salvation. The LS teachers frequently use this verse to try and prove their point. Context makes all the difference in rightly dividing the Word!

Gwen

Well said, Gwen. That passage may be taken out of context more than any other in the NT!!

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
All of this made me think about growing up in a SBC church in KY. If someone had preached that someone could be saved without making Jesus the Lord of their life it might have caused a riot.

So a question, StraightAndNarrow, if you wouldn't mind answering candidly. In the church you grew up in, when they did personal evangelism did they make a point of telling the prospect, "Remember, you must accept Christ as Lord as well as Savior to be saved." And nowadays, when you witness for Christ, do you tell them they must accept Christ as Lord to be saved?

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:

Hi, ituttut. Now your name, I'm puzzled by. Do you tut tut at people or are you descended from King Tut? But no doubt there is a deeper meaning!

Much deeper. Some here, and on other boards by private message have asked. It is an acronym for spreading the Word of God, by the “grace commission”. I Tell U Truth Then U Tell. </font>

Neat! Thanks for the explanation.

Thanks for reading and have noticed we are not too far apart in some things.

Makes me wonder if there is something you have disagreed with me in.

I heard your question and tried to answer, but am not doing too well. I’ll try another route via the Gospel of John, and the Epistles to the Gentile of Paul. Lordship worship cannot be proved error by using Acts 2 salvation for the Jew.

Why not?

Usually the first gospel children can understand is in the gospel of John. I notice you understood at the early age of 4. I was 5 years behind you being saved at the age of 9. John 3:16 is worded for the young to come. Can we read John and not believe the gospel of Paul? This wording should be “Can we read Paul and not believe the gospel of John.”

Amen!

Back to your question of “Is there really such thing as Lordship Salvation?”

This was actually the OP, not by me.

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Amen and amen!

 

[Tom Butler]

On the Side of Truth asked:
[/QUOTE] A question that I have to ask in light of the LS issue is this: Is it possible for a person who professed salvation in their younger years to be deceived into thinking they are NOT saved when they truly were to begin with? [/QUOTE]

The answer, of course, is yes. And sad to say, sometimes our witnessing method contributes to that deception. When we lead someone in a prayer and boldly declare them saved because they said the magic words (and really, really meant them), they are going to point to that prayer when asked if they are saved.

We need to be careful in our witnessing. It is not our place to convince someone that he is saved. That is the job of the Holy Spirit.

Tom B.

 

[On the side of truth]

In regards to the salvation question though, is it really possible for someone to understand the leading of the Holy Spirit,preach the word faithfully,winning souls to Christ..essentially doing the will of the Father for 38 years and then realize they are not saved? I guess my thinking is can someone do that in their own strength for so many years?(if they truly were not saved. I think doing and going to church and being involved in the things of God would grow old pretty quick if I was not really born again. Just seems pretty odd to me. Do not get me wrong if he really truly did get saved then I am thankful but I do wonder at the influence of LS has over this getting"re-saved" over and over again. I think that it is a dangerous to cause people to doubt.