Jesus is Lord....or not?

[J.D.]

Nevertheless, when a person sins, Jesus is not the Lord of their life at that moment. When Peter said "Not so, Lord", Jesus was not his Lord. Saying "Not so, Lord" to the Lord is the polar opposite of having Christ as Lord. Yes, Peter repented almost immediately and radically altered his lifestyle in response to the Lord's command. But even at that, later he compromised with the Jews on the issue of what to eat and was rebuked by Peter. In that situation, again, Peter did not have Christ as Lord at that moment of time.

This is the problem with the LS position as it is often presented. It is said that a person must forsake all their sin and take Jesus as Lord of everything without any reservation. While one may intend to do this, and while doing this would be noble, we know that no one actually does this. Every Christian sins and, at the practical level, rejects Christ as Lord the same way Peter did at some points in their life.

When I am disobedient to Jesus, I am disobedient to MY LORD. I don't see how my failure negates his position or my recognition of that position.

To say that Jesus was not Peter's Lord "at that moment" (of disobedience), is an artificial construct. The Lordship of Christ, and our recognition of it, is a relational phenomenon, not something that comes and goes based upon every action we take.

Notice that Peter did not say, "Not so, you who are not Lord". If Jesus were not Peter's Lord, then Peter's statement would not be self-contradictory as you so rightly imply.

The action does not change the relationship, but the relationship influences the action, as is seen in Peter's eventual repentence.

 

[HankD]

Um, to what, exactly are you referring? Did you happen to actually read the book, and see what they are being chided for by Paul?

#1 Fighting over which preacher is better: 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:3-4


#2 Toleration of someone living in sin (not judging them and kicking them out, so that "they might be saved") 1 Corinthians 5

#3 Taking a person to court to resolve a dispute (1 Corinthians 6)

#4 Abstinence from sexual relations (1 Corinthians 7)

#5 Not sharing food/ waiting on brothers to eat (1 Corinthians 11)

#6 Over exuberance with spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14)


Not exactly a laundry list of the most heinous of crimes. These people CLEARLY saw Christ as their Lord. In fact, the standards were so high, Paul commanded for the ONE guy who was sexually immoral, to be thrown out, because he needed to be saved.

Hi Havensdad,

Carnality is a state of being not a measurement of standards.
They were carnal, Paul was not. Their standards were miserable because they were carnal.

Paul under inspiration gives his assessment of their disobedience:

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?​

If Christ is their Lord they would obey Him and "love one another".

But, yes, of course Christ was still their Lord, they were not however in
line with His Lordship by the bickering.

Also

1 Corinthians 11

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.​

I think we can safely say that even in a liberal church (muchless an LS church) coming to church drunk would not be considered an act of typifying one who declares Jesus as His Lord.​

In addition they were glorying in the "ONE guy" that was practicing immorality which Paul in Romans 1:32 said in and of itself was worthy of death.​

The point is brother that we need to be sensitive to the needs of our weaker brethren who are still struggling with sin and/or those who stumble and that we do not judge to quickly lest we ourselves come under chastisement as warned by Scripture.​

When we must judge then it should be therapeutic and not punitive (with exception).​

Punitive (expulsion) is also defined in the Scripture but for the protection of the Body of Christ as well as in the hope that the serious offender will come to his/her senses.​

Yes, there is accountability and discipline in the church but there is also pharisaism and legalism to be avoided.​

HankD​

 

[donnA]

Right, which is my point, and beyond "why" a Christian would deny the Lordship of Christ, my question is, "can" a Christian deny the Lordship of Christ.

I say no. If they deny his Lordship, they are not Christians, it's that simple.

I'm confident that there is nobody on this board that would say "I am a Christian and Jesus is NOT my Lord". How could anyone born of the Spirit utter such blasphemy?

And yet some of us (them) insist that "Lordship Salvation" is some kind of works-based salvation. I don't get it.

I agree ....