Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

[On the side of truth]

Originally posted by Tom Butler:


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. [/QB]

Tom,
What would be the magic words in your opinion? Would you instruct them that they would have to say I accept you as Lord and Saviour of my life? I agree assurance comes only through the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Not us.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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!! </font>[/QUOTE]You both are dead on, here!

Unfortuantely, I haven't had a chance o post nay more, nor will I likely for the rest of the day.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[On the side of truth]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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!! </font>[/QUOTE]Fill me in on this then. OK the Lord is speaking to false teachers who were really expecting to get into heaven so is He not talking about their salvation? And then could not this apply to salvation professions? Thanks for your insight. This would be a typical question that LS's would come back with if you told them exactly what you told me.

 

[MikeinGhana]

Ed, just because the terms really believe or truly believe are not in the Bible, does not mean that they are not legitimate terms to use in our discussion. You seem to be an intelligent man and can think clearly. When I say a man truly believes I mean that he is a believer truly! As you know there are men that profess to be believers but are not, Judas professed to be a believer and turned out to be an unbeliever. The disciples were fooled. The rest of the world was fooled too. He was not a believer. That is the truth. How many ways do I need to say it so that you accept my statement as being valid?

 

[Gwen]

On the side of truth,

I read the article by John Mark Charlton. Thank you so much for telling me about it. It sounds remarkably similiar to what happened in my home church, and various others that I know of in the Atlanta area. Charlton made some excellent points about the error of LS.

As to the Matthew 7:15-19 passage, Jesus is the one speaking in the Sermon on the Mount. He is warning the people about false teachers:

Vs. 15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Vs. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Vs. 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Vs. 18 A good tree connot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Vs. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.

Vs. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

As you can see, the context is false teachers, not salvation. Jesus is warning us to be on the lookout for false teachers, and how to spot them. Ask yourself about the fruit of the LS teaching. If you read the website of Charlton, you will see that the fruit is confusion, loss of assurance of salvation, focus on ourselves and not the finished work of Christ. And as I posted earlier about my friend, mental anguish and torment. There is no peace, no trust, no rest.

I will go ahead and warn you about another passage the LS teachers take out of context. 2 Tim. 2:21 says "If a man purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." The context is false teaching, not sin in your life. Paul is warning Timothy to be on guard against error in the Church. Paul warns in (I think) Corinthians that false teaching will shipwreck our faith if allowed to go unchecked. That is why this doctrine is so troubling to me. I've seen the damage it can do firsthand!

Gwen

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you actually believe that it is possible to be saved if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Of course I think that's necessary. Do you believe a Christian can accept Christ as his Savior but keep power or making money as lord of his life? That isn't what Christ told the rich young ruler. Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

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]EdSutten,

It seems as if you can't find anything wrong with my scriptural reply to your question. Believing things that are not consistent with the Bible is a problem, isn't it?

 

[Me4Him]

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Tom Butler]

On the Side of Truth:

What would be the magic words in your opinion? Would you instruct them that they would have to say I accept you as Lord and Saviour of my life?

I'm talking about the words normally included in the sinner's prayer. I have no problem with someone asking God for mercy and declaring his faith in Jesus. The problem is the corruption of such a prayer by mis-guided soul winners, who are so distrustful of the Holy Spirit's ability to illuminate, convict and draw, that they must tell the lost person what to say--as in, "repeat after me" or, "pray a prayer like this."

Further, we cannot escape the fact that Peter told the people on the Day of Pentecost to repent, not to pray. Paul, in his Damascas road converson, did not pray. He simply asked "Who are you, Lord ?" If he said anything else, it is not recorded by Luke. Paul, in Acts 16, told the Phillipian jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ..." Paul, in Act 17, ended his Mars Hill sermon by calling on his hearers to repent. Not pray.

Paul, in Romans 10:9 said "Confess Jesus as Lord , and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you'll be saved." Not pray.

In Romans 10:13, Paul said "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Not pray.

I don't think we ought to tell anybody what to say. After putting him under condemnation for rebellion against God, giving him the Scriptures regarding repentance, confession and faith, we should ask, "Do you believe this?" If not, we're done. If yes, just ask them if they're ready to publicly confess Christ as Lord by being baptized.

Tom B.

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by MikeinGhana:
Ed, just because the terms really believe or truly believe are not in the Bible, does not mean that they are not legitimate terms to use in our discussion. You seem to be an intelligent man and can think clearly. When I say a man truly believes I mean that he is a believer truly! As you know there are men that profess to be believers but are not, Judas professed to be a believer and turned out to be an unbeliever. The disciples were fooled. The rest of the world was fooled too. He was not a believer. That is the truth. How many ways do I need to say it so that you accept my statement as being valid?

Follow me on this one. The problem is not with what you are saying, here. I do understand that. The prolem comes when the advocates of LS use this as a construct to oppose a straw man, that 'they' have made. Your post showed this succinctly, BTW, where you answered 'whatever' when he asked the question of:

"How much disobedience can we get away with and still be a believer?"

You replied with:

"All of it! But watch out for the chastening hand of God. You will not be glad you disobeyed! We are kept by the power of God, not our obedience. A believer that continues in sin and disobedience does not lose his or her salvation, period."

You may recall I gave a strong "AMEN" to your post. I'm not completely sure, everyone here agrees with you, John and me, to name some, here on this.

The problem arises when those who are advocating 'Lordship Salvation' - gang, the issue is not the 'Lordship' of Christ, for "He is Lord!", but that one has to do something more than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Or in other words, it's not enough to "just believe". In fact, James tells us that it is not enough to even "believe in one God". And Scripture is clear and specific on this. I might suggest that one read Genesis 15:6 and Rom. 4:3 with James 2:23. The Bible does NOT say that Abraham believed in God, here.
Read these verses carefully to see exactly what it DOES say.

In fact, Abraham had already called on the name of Yahweh many years before this. He has even already recognized Him as 'El Elyon', or Most High God. Not good enough, yet. He even addresses him as Lord GOD, 'Adonai Yahweh', with the force of Master in Gen. 15:2. In other words, he has even attempted to "make Him Lord", already. But he is not yet a believer, he has not yet achieved righteousness, even though he has tried to achieve that level. (For the record, my hero, Lot was 'righteous' BEFORE Abraham!) This only happens when he believes, and that will be seen to happen shortly. He becomes a believer in Gen. 15:6. Here and only here is when he was 'saved', in the sense of receiving everlasting life. And this is when God imputed to him for righteousness. This is when he was justified before God.

Some thirty years later, he will be said and shown to be justified before men. And thus James tells us that the Scripture was here 'fulfilled', not that here it occurred. This is consistent with "God looks, not as man looks...".

The 'error' of Arminianism is in actuality, no different from the 'error' of Calvinism, and both are no different in actuality from that of 'Lordship Salvation', as to observation. All atempt to decide, for themselves, on whether or not one is saved according to 'how I see it'. And all 'demand' that they be allowed to "define the terms" with their own meanings.

One is saved according to 'how God sees it'. And He gets to 'define the terms' of this, as well as "define the terms" as to the meanings.

That is why I suggested what I did, as well as how I suggested this.

God bless you; Grow in grace!
In His grace,
Ed

 

[EdSutton]

S&N! With all due respect, you are jumping the gun, and I will reply to you when I get the chance. Be patient!
And BTW, my name is Ed Sutton, not Ed Sutten.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
S&N! With all due respect, you are jumping the gun, and I will reply to you when I get the chance. Be patient!
And BTW, my name is Ed Sutton, not Ed Sutten.
In His grace,
Ed

whatever

 

[John of Japan]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you actually believe that it is possible to be saved if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Of course I think that's necessary. Do you believe a Christian can accept Christ as his Savior but keep power or making money as lord of his life? That isn't what Christ told the rich young ruler. Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? </font>[/QUOTE]Sir: either you didn't understand my question or you chose to ignore it, since what you are answering is not what I asked. Either way, that's fine. I'll make my point another way.

Nothing I have written on the Baptist Board (or elsewhere, or preached, or taught, etc.) should have elicted your answer. I have no idea why you wrote, "Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?" I am a missionary who gave up all (counting it but trash) to follow Jesus and come to Japan.

I believe that faith saves a person, the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, and the Holy Spirit, indwelling from the time of salvation, makes it possible to offer up one's self as it teaches in Romans 12:1-2.

Lordship Salvation, as propagated by John MacArthur and defined by the theologians, teaches that one must make Christ the Lord of 100% of his life in order to be saved. I believe that is impossible for an unregenerate person, and therefore cannot be a part of salvation. That is why I asked you my question based on personal evangelism, which deals with the moment of salvation. If you grew up in a church that did not practice personal evangelism and/or you do not, then of course you could not answer my question.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the point I was trying to make with my question about personal evangelism to StraightAndNarrow. I once talked to a man who had been to John MacArthur's church. He verified that MacArthur in his messages tells people that they must accept Christ as 100% Lord of their life to be saved. Then, his personal workers deal with people the same way.

This approach, the real crux of LS, is not used by any soul-winning plan that I know of. I checked my shelves and looked at three representative books on personal evangelism to be sure. James Kennedy's (reformed) Evangelism Explosion does not present the Gospel like LS. Bob Sumner's (IFB) Biblical Evangelism in Action does not present the Gospel like LS (although Sumner does say the Lordship of Christ can be brought up to make a point). How to Have a Soul-Winning Church by Gene Edwards (SBC) does not present the Gospel like LS.

Furthermore, none of the greatly-used tracts of the past that I know about present the Gospel like LS: "God's Simple Plan of Salvation," "Four Spiritual Laws," "What Must I Do to be Saved?" etc.

What does this mean? Simply put, MacArthur and LS are thus outside the mainstream of evangelical Christianity.

 

[Faith alone]

I think we should perhaps agree on a definition of Lordship Salvation. Once that is done, the question about whether or not it essentially is salvation which depends on works (I know that those who hold to LS would never say so) and how LS salvation treats "grace."

Lordship salvation - defined:

It would be helpful to define Lordship salvation and explain why it is a distortion of Grace. Then we can know what we might be debating about on this site! In Evangelical Christianity today, it is a commonly seen teaching which perverts the grace of God BEFORE salvation:

Lordship or “contract” Salvation

FUNDAMENTAL AXIOM:
At law, a bilateral contract is defined as “a promise for a promise.” In “Lordship” salvation, a lost sinner gains eternal life by making a contract with God. The sinner offers a promise of future obedience in exchange for God’s promise of eternal life. . . “a promise for a promise.” In less extreme forms, the sinner need only promise future obedience in the area of sin. In more radical forms, a lost sinner must promise complete and total dedication to the cause of Christ. Either way, simple faith in Jesus is not sufficient for salvation. God offers eternal life in exchange for the lost sinner’s promise of future works. Salvation is not the gift of God, it is a contract at law.

COMMON FORMS:
1.Repent of your sins in order to be saved.
2.Make Christ the “Lord of your life” in order to be saved.
3.Make a “Personal commitment to Christ” in order to be saved.

Lordship salvation redefines the word “grace.” In the Bible, grace is the disposition of God to offer eternal life freely. In lordship salvation, grace is redefined as a divine substance infused into the sinner to strengthen or enable him to “repent of his sins” and follow Christ. This infusion of “grace” (redefined as an empowering substance) is said to be a sovereign act of God, and not dependent on human works. “Grace” is therefore free, but salvation requires good works! This is theological doublespeak.

(written by Ron Shea, graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary.)

What say ye? First, do those of you which hold to LS agree with the 3 expressions common to LS that Ron stated above? After coming to an agreement about that, then we can discuss what that may or may not do to "grace."

Thx,

FA

 

[mima]

Lordship salvation is adding to and therefore belittling the grace of God. Lordship salvation attempts to glorify man. It gives man something to boast of something to brag about; I yes wonderful I, have made Jesus Lord of my life. Now this sounds good at first glance put under close examination all men fall short of making Jesus Lord of their lifes.

 

[JackRUS]

John of Japan wrote:

Lordship Salvation, as propagated by John MacArthur and defined by the theologians, teaches that one must make Christ the Lord of 100% of his life in order to be saved. I believe that is impossible for an unregenerate person, and therefore cannot be a part of salvation. That is why I asked you my question based on personal evangelism, which deals with the moment of salvation. If you grew up in a church that did not practice personal evangelism and/or you do not, then of course you could not answer my question.

I find it funny (not really in light of biblical error) that Calvinists like MacArthur who insist that the un-regenerate are dead corpses with no ability to either reason or have a will, are actually required to make a deal with God in order to get saved.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Do you actually believe that it is possible to be saved if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? Of course I think that's necessary. Do you believe a Christian can accept Christ as his Savior but keep power or making money as lord of his life? That isn't what Christ told the rich young ruler. Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? </font>[/QUOTE]Sir: either you didn't understand my question or you chose to ignore it, since what you are answering is not what I asked. Either way, that's fine. I'll make my point another way.

Nothing I have written on the Baptist Board (or elsewhere, or preached, or taught, etc.) should have elicted your answer. I have no idea why you wrote, "Why do you think it doesn't apply to you?" I am a missionary who gave up all (counting it but trash) to follow Jesus and come to Japan.

I believe that faith saves a person, the Holy Spirit regenerates a person, and the Holy Spirit, indwelling from the time of salvation, makes it possible to offer up one's self as it teaches in Romans 12:1-2.

Lordship Salvation, as propagated by John MacArthur and defined by the theologians, teaches that one must make Christ the Lord of 100% of his life in order to be saved. I believe that is impossible for an unregenerate person, and therefore cannot be a part of salvation. That is why I asked you my question based on personal evangelism, which deals with the moment of salvation. If you grew up in a church that did not practice personal evangelism and/or you do not, then of course you could not answer my question. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you accept this Biblical statement?

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.

You're either serving God or serving the flesh. Why do you not find this an acceptable interpretation?

Are you saying at the moment of salvation you have to pledge to be perfect in order to be saved? Of course I don't believe that. But you do have to repent and having been born again of the Spirit you will change your life.

The answer to you original question is YES. Someone must accept Jesus as Lord in order to be saved. This follows from MA 6:24.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
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.

OK, I see where you went wrong. You picked a guy who the Bible says was disobedient as one who you would like to follow. Why would you expect me to assume that you would not be disobedient? You are correct that I know nothing about you, except for this one thing - you told me that you want to follow Lot's example. The Bible relays righteous Lot's foolish choices, so how would I know that you do not intend to follow that aspect of Lot's character unless you tell me?

As for 'our' and 'we', I only meant that each of us needs to concern ourselves with ourselves only. Sorry for not being clearer.

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'm not sure why you think I am annoyed. Dumbfounded might be a better adjective. Why you would choose Lot, whom the Bible does not tell us to emulate, when you could choose from so many others who the Bible does tell us to emulate, is beyond me. But believe me, there isn't anything you can post on here that can annoy me. We are just anonymous people talking on the internet. If I cannot handle that then I ought to be doing something useful.

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.)

And I gave you some suggestions.

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

OK, let me try again. How far can I go in disobedience before it becomes clear that I really do not believe? Does it really come down to observing my own fruit? Is that all the assurance that I can have?

You do realise that this makes you sound like an LS advocate, don't you?

 

[JackRUS]

Whatever.
I don't understand this statement of yours in light of Scripture:

I'm not sure why you think I am annoyed. Dumbfounded might be a better adjective. Why you would choose Lot, whom the Bible does not tell us to emulate, when you could choose from so many others who the Bible does tell us to emulate, is beyond me.

That was certainly not Peter's take on Lot.

"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their
unlawful deeds
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:" 2 Pet. 2:7-9

And why do you suppose that God sent Jesus and two angels in Genesis 18-19 to deliver Lot out of Sodom if he was so bad as you suppose?