Lordship necessary for salvation

[Luke2427]

Please, stick to the Scripture. I gave you Scripture. Please deal with it. So I'll ask you again. What does the Bible itself say the Gospel is?

I'll tackle that one.

The first time we find the word is Matthew 4:23 and it is the subject of Christ's very first sermon. It consisted of, according to verse 17, this: Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

He was saying, "Change your mind or your way of thinking because the King has come." Change your mind about who rules in this world and this universe- this is the idea.

Verse 23 says it is the "Gospel of the Kingdom", namely that the King (ruler) is nigh. This is lordship of course.

According to Matthew 24:14 This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all nations before the end can come.

The Gospel is tied to the Kingdom and King Jesus. It is the good news that Jesus is King of Kings and Lords of Lords.

Now, I know what passage you are referring to: I Corinthians 15. These things illustrate that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord even over the grave. This must be confessed to enter heaven.

 

[Darrenss1]

Please, stick to the Scripture. I gave you Scripture. Please deal with it. So I'll ask you again. What does the Bible itself say the Gospel is?

The fact is if you are going to preach the whole counsel of God and compare scripture with scripture you know the bible teaches fundamental truths about Christ. Just because one passage doesn't say something does not justify a complete omission. Just the same, we know Jesus is High Priest, our Advocate and sitting at the right hand of God. Should one highlight one fundamental truth about Christ to the exclusion of the rest? Peter and Paul both preached that Jesus is Lord of all, its fundamental and ought to be just as important as the preaching of Him being Savior.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Darren

 

[Luke2427]

The fact is if you are going to preach the whole counsel of God and compare scripture with scripture you know the bible teaches fundamental truths about Christ. Just because one passage doesn't say something does not justify a complete omission. Just the same, we know Jesus is High Priest, our Advocate and sitting at the right hand of God. Should one highlight one fundamental truth about Christ to the exclusion of the rest? Peter and Paul both preached that Jesus is Lord of all, its fundamental and ought to be just as important as the preaching of Him being Savior.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Darren

You're absolutely right Darren. But even more than that this idea of "accepting a Savior" is foreign to the Scripture he accuses you of wrongly dividing.

Yet, the need to confess that he is Lord for salvation is explicitly clear.

And remember that when it's all said and done- all beings will not be shouting he is Savior- but every one of them, including Satan, will be forced to acknowledge he is Lord.

God is love. There is no denying that. But the primary message of the Bible is not that Jesus is love- but rather that Jesus is Lord.

 

[freeatlast]

It seems the debate on this hinges upon a misunderstanding of biblical Lordship. This does not mean that one must be in perfect submission. It does not mean as the tired old unbiblical phrase indicates: Jesus is Lord of all or not Lord at all.

But the Bible does clearly teach that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to be saved. He must recognize Christ's right to rule him and confess that. He must humble himself to the Lordship of Jesus.

Romans 10:9 among numerous other Scriptures teaches this. That IF thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus... thou shalt be saved."

You must confess that he is Lord- supreme ruler. This is the essence of repentance and faith.

I think your understanding of confess is askew. The biblical meaning is not like our English meaning which you have used. To confess biblically one has to be in agreement with God on the issue. To confess Jesus as Lord biblically one has to accept Him as their Lord (One who rule over them completely). It is not simply accepting the fact that He holds the position within God's realm and the individual does not surrender to that authority. It is the absolute surrender to that authority or there is no salvation.
This is not to suggest that the person suddenly becomes without sin. That is a working process seeking to overcome. However the person is surrendered to the Person of Christ as their Lord and Master. It boils down to repentance.
So the saying that if He is not Lord of all He is not Lord at all applies. One cannot be in partial repentance any more then one can be almost pregnant. Repentance is not 50% or 75% or 99%. Repentance is a state in which we surrender to God as God and which is place on Christ which brings faith unto salvation and never turned from.

 

[Luke2427]

I think your understanding of confess is askew. The biblical meaning is not like our English meaning which you have used. To confess biblically one has to be in agreement with God on the issue. To confess Jesus as Lord biblically one has to accept Him as their Lord (One who rule over them completely). It is not simply accepting the fact that He holds the position within God's realm and the individual does not surrender to that authority. It is the absolute surrender to that authority or there is no salvation.
This is not to suggest that the person suddenly becomes without sin. That is a working process seeking to overcome. However the person is surrendered to the Person of Christ as their Lord and Master. It boils down to repentance.
So the saying that if He is not Lord of all He is not Lord at all applies. One cannot be in partial repentance any more then one can be almost pregnant. Repentance is not 50% or 75% or 99%. Repentance is a state in which we surrender to God as God and which is place on Christ which brings faith unto salvation and never turned from.

Repentance is a change of mind. It is limited to what we know. We can know that Jesus is Lord of all. What we cannot know this side of eternity is all the ramifications of that truth. Therefore, we can yield to the fact that he is Lord of all but it is not possible to make him Lord of all because we do not even know how to do that nor what all that entails.

 

[freeatlast]

Repentance is a change of mind. It is limited to what we know. We can know that Jesus is Lord of all. What we cannot know this side of eternity is all the ramifications of that truth. Therefore, we can yield to the fact that he is Lord of all but it is not possible to make him Lord of all because we do not even know how to do that nor what all that entails.

We are not told to make Him Lord, He is Lord. Until we surrender to His Lordship for our lives (by the way that is the change of mind we must accept) he does not become our Savior since no repentance has taken place. :thumbs:.

 

[Luke2427]

We are not told to make Him Lord, He is Lord. Until we surrender to His Lordship for our lives (by the way that is the change of mind we must accept) he does not become our Savior since no repentance has taken place. :thumbs:.

Agreed. You and I are probably of the same mind on this issue. But you brought up the "Lord of all" comment. He absolutely is Lord of All. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that and confess that to be saved. It is impossible to perform it because of a limited knowledge that we possess.:thumbs:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Mark 1
1The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

1 Corinthians 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The Gospel seems to me to be both the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus, as well as His whole life.

 

[Darrenss1]

You're absolutely right Darren. But even more than that this idea of "accepting a Savior" is foreign to the Scripture he accuses you of wrongly dividing.

Sometimes its a problem to paint a picture that "accepting Christ" is presented as an "acceptable Christ". This is probably a topic changer so I'll leave it there but only to say that its easier to "believe" for a Savior and drop the Lord part completely, creating some obvious implications.

Darren

 

[freeatlast]

Agreed. You and I are probably of the same mind on this issue. But you brought up the "Lord of all" comment. He absolutely is Lord of All. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that and confess that to be saved. It is impossible to perform it because of a limited knowledge that we possess.:thumbs:

We are not held responsible for what we cannot know.

James 4:17
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

 

[freeatlast]

Sometimes its a problem to paint a picture that "accepting Christ" is presented as an "acceptable Christ". This is probably a topic changer so I'll leave it there but only to say that its easier to "believe" for a Savior and drop the Lord part completely, creating some obvious implications.

Darren

Yes it is easier for now, but it also leaves the person in their sin.

 

[Darrenss1]

Yes it is easier for now, but it also leaves the person in their sin.

Yes, it is sad. Some churches do that just to boost their "numbers" to inflate their conversion sheets. The biggest danger of course is that they are actually not converted.

Darren

 

[John of Japan]

I am certainly not meaning that you are guilty by association. If non-Lordship salvation is not antinomianism, please educate me to what it is and how it differs from Lordship salvation (in your view). This is an honest question looking for an honest answer.

You yourself tacitly admitted that non-Lordship salvation is not per se antinomianism when you said "most" of non-Lordship people are antinomian. That means that a large percentage are not. Personally, I believe that antinomianism nowadays is limited to certain groups such as R. B. Thieme's people. Would you care to prove your assertion that "most" non-Lordship people are antinomian? Because I think your accusation is patently false. How about giving quotes from non-Lordship theologians (of which there are many)?

Now as to how a non-Lordship position leads to antinomianism, you ask me to prove that it does not. That's like saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" We are thus guilty without proof--of which you've given none. Personally, I think the two issues are completely unconnected. My non-Lordship father (my pastor all my youth) had as his life's verse Gal. 2:20, a sure antidote for antinomianism. He often preached on Rom. 12:1, another sure antidote. I dedicated my life to the Lord at age 16 through that verse, and remember no time when I was taught an antinomian position through all my years of non-Lordship training in college and seminary. So, "Where's the beef?"

Matthew 16 is an admonition to the disciples, especially Peter, who rebuked the Lord Himself. It is an admonition to have the things of God forefront in your mind, not the things of man.

Sounds like Lordship to me!

Romans 12:1 doesn't stop there! There is a Romans 12:2 and following. The imperatives "don't be conformed" and "be transformed" are highly instructive.

Sounds like Lordship to me!

In either case, these passages show us and encourage us to constantly check our lives to make sure we are taking up our crosses and being transformed.

Sounds like Lordship to me--and to people who were already saved. If you "make Christ Lord" at salvation, would not God then preserve that just as He preserves our salvation? But if you don't have to "make Him" specifically "Lord" at salvation, then continued admonitions to acknowledge Him as Lord make sense.

I agree we should obey out of thanksgiving. However, I think your argument (which may be based in your theology) is lacking a very important part--our rebellious nature. Before we come to Christ, we are rebels against the King and we are rebels by nature (Eph 2--by nature children of wrath). But when we come to Christ, this act, by definition, signifies that we are turning from our self-kingship (which is idolatry) to Christ's Kingship.

I'm not sure your particular theology; I'm fairly certain it isn't reformed. But the kingship issue (or lordship issue) shows how there is a divide between reformed and non-reformed and it is based on the nature of man before coming to Christ.

Now, I don't intend this to be a reformed-non-reformed discussion and I certainly don't intend to say that your theology is lacking (since I don't know exactly what your theology is). I am merely attempting to point out that certain theological differences can (and probably do) contribute to the divide between the LS and the nLS types.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This is where I've always been puzzled. Why in the world do many Calvinists believe in LS? Someone tried to explain it to me, but it still doesn't make sense. If God is the one Who saves us (and He is, we can't save ourselves), and it is only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit that we become able to respond to God (and it is), then how in the world does some action by the sinner in "making Christ Lord" become necessary for salvation? I thought Calvinists believed that it was all of Christ and none of Man!

 

[John of Japan]

Absolutely. For the time that he was falling he made the fireman lord of his life and obeyed his command to jump trusting the fireman would catch him.
The illustration says nothing about what happens after the event. It just sufficiently illustrates that trust and surrender are two sides of the same coin.

The one who had full charge of the man's life while falling was the fireman. He was lord of this man's life. It was completely in his hands whether or not the man's life would continue. The falling man just relinquished control of his life into the fireman's hands surrendering it fully to him.

Desperation did drive him to surrender as the flames of God's wrath hurl many into a state of desperation and drive them to leap into the arms of Christ for salvation. The leap is the surrender and the trust. One cannot exist without the other.


You keep taking the illustrations further than they go. During the time the money is in the bank it is fully surrendered to the care of the bank. The depositor is trusting the bank with his money and therefore surrendering it to his care.

This is what the sinner does with his life and soul. But he does it forever. There is no withdrawal. And the man needing rescuing remains in the care of the Fireman forever. The ACT of trust and surrender is all I am illustrating. And it is a very good illustration of what happens in the moment of conversion.

Well, stick to your illustrations then. But they make me think you don't understand the real implications of acknowledging Christ as Lord of one's life. If He is not Lord of all then He is not Lord at all, as someone says. I see no way that the fireman is lord of the rescued and the bank is lord of the depositor. Your illustrations make no sense to me, but I'll cease discussing them.

 

[John of Japan]

The title is- King of the World John. If one confesses- "that man is King of the World John", if the confessor lives in the world, then he is confessing that John is king of him, ex officio (by virtue of the office he holds as a member of terrestrial beings).

Anything less is illogical. Consider the following:

"Are you, Sir, a citizen of Earth?"

"Why yes, I am"

"Do you confess that John is- King of the Earth John?"

"Unequivocally".

"Then as a member of earth, you believe him to be your King?"

"No."

That is illogical.

If Jesus is Lord of all, Supreme Ruler of all, and he is, and one confesses him as such by saying- "Jesus Christ is Lord"- then he is confessing that Jesus is HIS Lord by virtue of the fact that he is included in "all".

This is what all must do if they hope to be saved. They must confess that Jesus Christ is LORD which logically means they are confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord of them.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the- Lord (Supreme Ruler of all including you) Jesus... thou shalt be saved.

Okay, I understand now. There was a real disjunct to me between the LS position and a discussion about Christ as King.

Apparantly you believe that Lord and King are synonyms. As I linguist I have to say that is not true. A king may or may not be a lord, and a lord may or may not be a king. So your argument from kingship is a non-sequitur.

The "Emperor" of Japan is acknowledged by all Japanese to be their sovereign, but he has little or no political power. He is not a lord. This was also true sometimes in Bible times. King Herod had only limited power as a puppet king under the Roman empire. Again, in OT days, kings captured by say, Nebuchadnezzar (I love to say that name in Japanese!), were still kings, but ceased to be lords.

 

[John of Japan]

I'll tackle that one.

The first time we find the word is Matthew 4:23 and it is the subject of Christ's very first sermon. It consisted of, according to verse 17, this: Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

If you are using the principle in hermeneutics of "first mention," please know that it is considered invalid nowadays. It doesn't matter whether this is the first mention of the Gospel in the NT.

He was saying, "Change your mind or your way of thinking because the King has come." Change your mind about who rules in this world and this universe- this is the idea.

Verse 23 says it is the "Gospel of the Kingdom", namely that the King (ruler) is nigh. This is lordship of course.

Please see my previous discussion of "king" and "lord." The two words are not synonyms, and you can't force them to be so.

And I disagree with the simplistic definition of repentance as a change of mind. It means more than that. It is a change in fundamental thinking that results in a change in the life.

According to Matthew 24:14 This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all nations before the end can come.

The Gospel is tied to the Kingdom and King Jesus. It is the good news that Jesus is King of Kings and Lords of Lords.

So, is this the extent of your understanding of the Gospel? Is this what I am to proclaim to the Japanese, that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? What about sin? What about repentance? What about the atonement? What about the resurrection?

Now, I know what passage you are referring to: I Corinthians 15. These things illustrate that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord even over the grave. This must be confessed to enter heaven.

I'm sorry, but you are not dealing here at all with Paul's definition of the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15. Paul specifically states in v. 1 that he was declaring, defining if you will, the Gospel. And he specifically notes in v. 2 that it is this Gospel that saves. Then he defines the Gospel without mentioning Christ's Lordship. In fact, he does not even mention Christ as Lord until verse 31. He mentions it three more times in the chapter, but in none of those four times does he urge the reader to "make Him Lord."

So, according to Paul's definition of the Gospel, "making Christ Lord" is not a part of it.

 

[John of Japan]

The fact is if you are going to preach the whole counsel of God and compare scripture with scripture you know the bible teaches fundamental truths about Christ. Just because one passage doesn't say something does not justify a complete omission. Just the same, we know Jesus is High Priest, our Advocate and sitting at the right hand of God. Should one highlight one fundamental truth about Christ to the exclusion of the rest? Peter and Paul both preached that Jesus is Lord of all, its fundamental and ought to be just as important as the preaching of Him being Savior.

Once again you give me no Scripture to work with, and once again you fail to define the Gospel. You say to "compare scripture with scripture" but you do not do so yourself.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Darren

At last, finally, wonderful! You give me Scripture.

True, in this passage Paul mentions Christ as Lord. But he simply proclaims it as a fact. He tells no one to "accept Christ as Lord." So this passage does not prove LS. In fact, when Paul gives his "invitation" in v. 43, he simply says that believing results in remission of sins. He doesn't tell them to "accept Christ as Lord."

But as long as we are in Acts, let's think about that. Wouldn't it make sense that if accepting the Lordship of Christ were part of the Gospel then the apostles in Acts would proclaim that? But they don't. Please show me a sermon or Gospel presentation in Acts where an apostle urges people to accept Him as Lord as well as Christ and Savior.

 

[Darrenss1]

True, in this passage Paul mentions Christ as Lord. But he simply proclaims it as a fact. He tells no one to "accept Christ as Lord." So this passage does not prove LS. In fact, when Paul gives his "invitation" in v. 43, he simply says that believing results in remission of sins. He doesn't tell them to "accept Christ as Lord."

If you want to discuss specific terms, "accept Jesus as Savior" isn't in the bible either. Believe on the Lord Jesus is. Jesus said to believe in Him. Doesn't imply "Savior" without Lord at any time.

Darren

 

[John of Japan]

If you want to discuss specific terms, "accept Jesus as Savior" isn't in the bible either. Believe on the Lord Jesus is. Jesus said to believe in Him. Doesn't imply "Savior" without Lord at any time.

Darren

May I suggest that you really need to study the Bible more if you are going to debate it. If you don't have good Bible software, I suggest E-Sword, which you can download free at: http://www.e-sword.net/

The reason I say that is that a quick search with good software would have prevented you from making your last statement. Two places (and I haven't made a complete study) where Christ as Savior is discussed without discussing Him as Lord are: when Peter gives the Gospel in Acts 5:29-32, and Titus ch. 2 & 3 ("Lord" appears only one time in Titus--1:4).

Now, concerning receiving Christ as Savior, John 1:12 speaks clearly of receiving Christ. If you want to think that means receiving Him as God's Son but not as Savior, go ahead. I think it means as Savior too, so I'll keep inviting Japanese to receive Christ as their Savior. :type:

 

[Darrenss1]

May I suggest that you really need to study the Bible more if you are going to debate it. If you don't have good Bible software, I suggest E-Sword, which you can download free at: http://www.e-sword.net/

The reason I say that is that a quick search with good software would have prevented you from making your last statement. Two places (and I haven't made a complete study) where Christ as Savior is discussed without discussing Him as Lord are: when Peter gives the Gospel in Acts 5:29-32, and Titus ch. 2 & 3 ("Lord" appears only one time in Titus--1:4).

I very much disagree, the appeal to believe on the Lord Jesus is reason enough. Your claims to simply find a few examples that match your view is far outweighed by the greater evidence of scriptures that point to the person of Christ, whom HE is, what HE did, His authority, His deity, His resurrection - its the trust in Jesus the God man sitting today at the right hand of God whom is Lord of all. Take Acts 5 as your example -

Acts 5:29 - Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

How does this passage omit Christ as Lord? It doesn't, indeed Jesus is also referenced as Prince AND Savior. Should people be told to simply believe in what Jesus did BUT not believe ON Jesus (He is Lord)? Indeed its the other way around, by placing faith on Jesus, the sinner is provided with all that Jesus did do and what Jesus is doing and will do yesterday, today and into eternity.

Darren