Lordship necessary for salvation

[Luke2427]

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.

 

[Greektim]

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.

Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

A favorite passage of mine that speaks much about the details of Lordship.

Might I ask, what good is the confession of Lordship if a requirement to see it through is not present? That then is to say that one must simply make a mental note of the Lordship of Christ. But faith is more than a mental feat. It is accepting the fact in such a way where faith is lived out. Otherwise, you have a dead faith - a faith that does not save.

I'm in conflicted over the Lordship controversy. I recently read Ryrie's book and MacArthur's (not in that order). I must admit, MacArthur did a much better job at convincing me. And I was against the view going in. Ryrie raised more questions than prove or refute anything.

 

[RAdam]

On the subject of Romans 9, allow me to ask this question.

Paul said, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." That is normally taken by many Christians to mean that whosoever calls on the Lord are born again, and thus saved from eternal hell. However, the next verse says, "how shall they call on him who they have not believed?" In other words, a person must believe before they can call on Jesus. That's absolutely logical. The problem is most people will say it is belief that is the basis for the new birth. Here Paul clearly distinguishes between the two. The person believes first, and then calls. There were some that John talked about in John 12 that believed and didn't call. Were they saved? After all, again, many present belief as that which is the basis of salvation. Jesus said the believer is born again, has everlasting life, and shall not come unto condemnation. He didn't specify whether they had called on Him, just that they were believers.

 

[psalms109:31]

Lordship

I see many things with Lordship. It don't have to happen in order, but should happen. First to be meek and humble who trust in the Lord for these are the people God will keeps, for those who are wise and learned God hides the truth from. Then to trust in the Lord over their own understanding. Then to believe in Him, which God will teach us what to believe through His word through Jesus. Where are faith comes from. Which brings us to this point to listen and learn from the Father. Through this we will see Christ as our Lord and our God and say it. If this is happening to us we will be salt and light to the world, Christ in us will be evident and people see a difference in us without even really having to tell any one. You will not even have to Bible thump anyone or force your faith from God on anyone.

Without all this we will not mature and remain an infant or worse satan might snatch the seed before it takes root or trials and tribulation will chock it out

 

[convicted1]

Lordship

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 agree that one must completely surrender themselves under the Mighty Hand of God in order to be saved, and have preached that many times. However, Romans 10:9,10 are the most abused two verses in the Bible.

When I was a sinner, if you asked me if I believed that Jesus is the Son of God, I would have said "yes" in a second. Then, if you asked me if I believed that Jesus died for my sins, I would have said "yes" again. Some would then say, "Just confess Jesus Christ is Lord, and you will be saved"!! I have had this said to me at least twice while I was a sinner. Even in my wildest days, I knew better than to listen to that "GARBAGE". In verse 10, it states "unto salvation", not "into". IOW, we have to be saved prior to being able to say that we "know" we have passed from death into life. Lordship happens prior to being saved, and not after. Man has to lose his pride and say "I want you Jesus as my LORD and SAVIOUR, will You please save me!". When this comes from the heart, He will save that person. You can't make that plee/plea without first surrenderring (Lordship) your life to Him.

James 4: 7Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

8Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.

9Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.

10Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

This passage of scripture(which is one of my favorite texts to use when preaching) shows that one must surrender(Lordship) to Jesus first, and then He will take over and do His part. So, just merely saying, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God" isn't good enough for salvation. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth, confession is made unto(not into) salvation. We confess Jesus because we belong to Him, and not to "get" Him. I hope this sheds some light!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Winman]

I disagree. Lordship Salvation can be compared to a lame man walking before Jesus could heal him.

Jesus does not ask us to turn over a new leaf to be saved. He simply calls us to come to him just as we are, sinners. It is just like the blind, lame, lepers and all others who came to Jesus. They were incapable of healing themselves. It is only when we realize we are lost sinners that we will come to Jesus and rely completely on him to heal us of our sin disease. It is only after we are healed that we are able to obey him, just as the blind could not see, and the lame could not walk until he healed them.

All that was required of these sick persons was faith, to come to Jesus believeing he could heal them.

Now, once a person trusts Christ, they receive the Holy Spirit and have a new nature. They are born of God and this new nature naturally obeys God, in fact, it can do nothing but obey God.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This verse is very straightforward. If you are born of God you cannot sin. It does not say "will not", it says "cannot". So if you are truly born of God it is impossible to sin. It is not necessary to make a commitment not to sin as you are no longer capable of commiting sin.

But of course we all sin. This is because we are not fully rid of our old sin nature that dwells in our flesh.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

When we get saved we receive a new nature which cannot sin, therefore there is no need to make a commitment not to sin. At the same time, we still have the old man, the old nature in our flesh. The flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit wars against the flesh.

So while we still have the sinful flesh, if a person is truly born again they should also have the new nature, the new man which cannot sin. Depending on who we yield to will determine our actions.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Lordship advocates need to exegete this passage properly. When they do they will stop using it as a proof text. It does not say, "Confess with thy mouth Jesus is Lord...." That would be in Greek, IhsouV esti KurioV. What it says is kurion ihsoun, "the Lord Jesus." Lord in this case is clearly a title. So, if we say that we must acknowledge Christ as Lord, must we acknowledge all titles He has in order to be saved?

 

[Luke2427]

Lordship advocates need to exegete this passage properly. When they do they will stop using it as a proof text. It does not say, "Confess with thy mouth Jesus is Lord...." That would be in Greek, IhsouV esti KurioV. What it says is kurion ihsoun, "the Lord Jesus." Lord in this case is clearly a title. So, if we say that we must acknowledge Christ as Lord, must we acknowledge all titles He has in order to be saved?

But the title means something John. If I confess you as King of the World John, then if I live in your world I am confessing you are the king of me.

 

[Luke2427]

I disagree. Lordship Salvation can be compared to a lame man walking before Jesus could heal him.

Jesus does not ask us to turn over a new leaf to be saved. He simply calls us to come to him just as we are, sinners. It is just like the blind, lame, lepers and all others who came to Jesus. They were incapable of healing themselves. It is only when we realize we are lost sinners that we will come to Jesus and rely completely on him to heal us of our sin disease. It is only after we are healed that we are able to obey him, just as the blind could not see, and the lame could not walk until he healed them.

All that was required of these sick persons was faith, to come to Jesus believeing he could heal them.

Now, once a person trusts Christ, they receive the Holy Spirit and have a new nature. They are born of God and this new nature naturally obeys God, in fact, it can do nothing but obey God.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

This verse is very straightforward. If you are born of God you cannot sin. It does not say "will not", it says "cannot". So if you are truly born of God it is impossible to sin. It is not necessary to make a commitment not to sin as you are no longer capable of commiting sin.

But of course we all sin. This is because we are not fully rid of our old sin nature that dwells in our flesh.

Rom 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

When we get saved we receive a new nature which cannot sin, therefore there is no need to make a commitment not to sin. At the same time, we still have the old man, the old nature in our flesh. The flesh wars against the spirit and the spirit wars against the flesh.

So while we still have the sinful flesh, if a person is truly born again they should also have the new nature, the new man which cannot sin. Depending on who we yield to will determine our actions.

It appears there are some aspects of faith that you don't understand. Faith is not mental assent. It is surrender. Let me illustrate. You are in the fifth story window of a burning building being compelled to jump into the firemen's safety net or perish in the flames. You can say it until you are consumed that you "believe" the firemen will catch you- but that is not faith. Faith is the jump. Faith is that moment when you stop relying on the window seal for safety and you surrender your life into the care of the firemen.

A man can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died on the cross and rose on the third day and go to hell. Until he trusts Christ alone for his salvation, he is lost. To trust is to remove all hope in anything but Christ for salvation and surrender your life into his hands.

You do this by being fully convinced and yielding to the fact that he is LORD. You can even "believe" that he is Lord but so long as you cling to the window seal you are doomed.

Faith is surrender.

 

[Luke2427]

Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

A favorite passage of mine that speaks much about the details of Lordship.

Might I ask, what good is the confession of Lordship if a requirement to see it through is not present? That then is to say that one must simply make a mental note of the Lordship of Christ. But faith is more than a mental feat. It is accepting the fact in such a way where faith is lived out. Otherwise, you have a dead faith - a faith that does not save.

I'm in conflicted over the Lordship controversy. I recently read Ryrie's book and MacArthur's (not in that order). I must admit, MacArthur did a much better job at convincing me. And I was against the view going in. Ryrie raised more questions than prove or refute anything.

I agree. I am simply saying that Lordship does not demand perfection. It demands surrender. Japan has surrendered to the US. It has not done performed the will of the US perfectly but it has recognized the superior might of the US and with fear and trembling bowed to her demands.

That is what men must do to be saved. They must recognize that Jesus Christ is Lord and surrender to him. They will not be perfect. But they will be guided by this reverence for Him.

 

[John of Japan]

But the title means something John. If I confess you as King of the World John, then if I live in your world I am confessing you are the king of me.

Well of course the title means something. (You do realize that kurios, Greek for "lord," has various meanings in the NT including just "sir," don't you?) But in this case, there is nothing in the verse that says I must confess Jesus as Lord to be saved, and that is what LS believes. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to confess Jesus as Lord without being saved (Matt. 7:22).

Now let me ask you something that no LS advocate has ever answered clearly for me, going back to a classroom at BJU in 1972, and Arend Ten Pas as the teacher (an early LS advocate). If we must accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved, then how can a child be saved? Little children don't understand the concept of lordship, yet we are commanded to become like a little child in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven. What say ye?

 

[John of Japan]

It appears there are some aspects of faith that you don't understand. Faith is not mental assent. It is surrender. Let me illustrate. You are in the fifth story window of a burning building being compelled to jump into the firemen's safety net or perish in the flames. You can say it until you are consumed that you "believe" the firemen will catch you- but that is not faith. Faith is the jump. Faith is that moment when you stop relying on the window seal for safety and you surrender your life into the care of the firemen.

....

Faith is surrender.

Sorry, this is an illustration of trust, not surrender to someone's lordship. If the meaning of your illustration were surrender, then the fireman would then be the boss of the jumper, rather than just the rescuer. After the jumper is safe, they have no obligation to obey the fireman (though they will do so if they are wise).

 

[Greektim]

Lordship advocates need to exegete this passage properly. When they do they will stop using it as a proof text. It does not say, "Confess with thy mouth Jesus is Lord...." That would be in Greek, IhsouV esti KurioV. What it says is kurion ihsoun, "the Lord Jesus." Lord in this case is clearly a title. So, if we say that we must acknowledge Christ as Lord, must we acknowledge all titles He has in order to be saved?

That use to be my quick response to handling this verse (while I was claiming to be in the free grace camp that is; not sure where I am now). Then I delved into Greek syntax a little more. Low and behold, there is a good discussion on object complement double accusatives (the kind of construction we have in Rom. 10:9). Wallace argues that this is a case where Jesus is the object and the complement is Lord. Thus it should be rendered "Jesus as Lord." Word order does not indicate this. Check out his article or his grammar on this issue (pgs. 182-189).

 

[John of Japan]

That use to be my quick response to handling this verse (while I was claiming to be in the free grace camp that is; not sure where I am now). Then I delved into Greek syntax a little more. Low and behold, there is a good discussion on object complement double accusatives (the kind of construction we have in Rom. 10:9). Wallace argues that this is a case where Jesus is the object and the complement is Lord. Thus it should be rendered "Jesus as Lord." Word order does not indicate this. Check out his article or his grammar on this issue (pgs. 182-189).

Well now, this study looks like fun. Thanks for pointing it out. :thumbs: I'll read more when I get a chance (it's late in Japan), but a quick look reveals one thing. On p. 185 Wallace mentions Matt. 22:43 where David definitely confesses Jesus as Lord. However, the word order there is kurion auton different from Romans 10:9 which has kurion first. Now, a quick gram search with my trusty Bibloi reveals that the Romans order occurs 56 times in the NT. In order to prove that kurioV in Romans 10 is more than a title, you'd have to find a parallel among those 56 times. However, the phrase kurion auton is only used with omologew in Rom. 10:9. So, back to square one. :type:

 

[Darrenss1]

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.

The bible also teaches that salvation is by faith alone and the salvation is the gift to those whom have believed.

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.

Don't drop the significance of the heart from the context -

10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

This passage does not overwrite faith in the slightest. The fact is the ONE whom to "believe in" for salvation is the LORD OF ALL. Simple as that.

Obedience to God is the natural product of one whom has been saved by faith yet obedience/surrender (use whatever term you want) is not a prerequisite condition to qualify for salvation but a natural part of one whom is already believing. If there is a chronological order, faith first, then obedience.

Darren

 

[Greektim]

Well now, this study looks like fun. Thanks for pointing it out. :thumbs: I'll read more when I get a chance (it's late in Japan), but a quick look reveals one thing. On p. 185 Wallace mentions Matt. 22:43 where David definitely confesses Jesus as Lord. However, the word order there is kurion auton different from Romans 10:9 which has kurion first. Now, a quick gram search with my trusty Bibloi reveals that the Romans order occurs 56 times in the NT. In order to prove that kurioV in Romans 10 is more than a title, you'd have to find a parallel among those 56 times. However, the phrase kurion auton is only used with omologew in Rom. 10:9. So, back to square one. :type:

The emphasis of Wallace is that in the double accusative object-complement is not on kurion but iaysoun. His major point is that it very closely follows the structure of the subject/predicate nominative construction (and even the rules for identifying which is which) along with Colwell construction semantically being applied to the double accusative as well. Also, Since Jesus is a proper name, it must be the object and Lord be the complement (even if Lord is a title or not). The point is, the construction used by Paul syntactically functions in a way that the confession is Jesus as something. The debate then should become what emphasis does "Lord" have in the text? My contention is that it is a reference to deity. But even that implies Lordship because God is Lord of all. It is implied in the reference to deity.

 

[John of Japan]

The emphasis of Wallace is that in the double accusative object-complement is not on kurion but iaysoun. His major point is that it very closely follows the structure of the subject/predicate nominative construction (and even the rules for identifying which is which) along with Colwell construction semantically being applied to the double accusative as well. Also, Since Jesus is a proper name, it must be the object and Lord be the complement (even if Lord is a title or not). The point is, the construction used by Paul syntactically functions in a way that the confession is Jesus as something. The debate then should become what emphasis does "Lord" have in the text? My contention is that it is a reference to deity. But even that implies Lordship because God is Lord of all. It is implied in the reference to deity.

I've read Wallace's grammar now and skimmed the article you pointed out, and you have given a good explanation. While recognizing Wallace as a far, far better grammarian than I, I'm left with serious doubts. Maybe I missed something. What do you think?

(1) You say "even if Lord is a title or not," but I don't find any discussion of Greek titles in Wallace's grammar or article. So where do you get that it doesn't matter if the complement is a title? There are many other usages of the two words where it is clear that "Lord" is a title, and there are 7 others where both words are accusative. Some (Philemon 1:5 for example) clearly mean the title.

(2) In a similar sentence, if I did want to say in Greek, "Lord Jesus" (the title) instead of "Jesus as Lord" then how would I say it? (This is a little test I use on myself when translating a difficult passage.) I don't find any discussion of this in Wallace.

(3) If the order of the object and complement don't matter, then how do I know if it is "Jesus as Lord" or "the Lord as Jesus"? It seems to me that Greek is a more precise language than to leave such an important meaning ambiguous. Wallace deals with this some but not enough, I think. I'm still kind of up in the air. He wrote about 10:9, "he proper noun, Ihsoun, must be the object and
kurion its complement" (article p. 9). But why? They're both nouns, and "the Lord as Jesus" makes good sense to me considering the incarnation if you consider Kurios as a proper name of God (Yahweh).

 

[Greektim]

i've read wallace's grammar now and skimmed the article you pointed out, and you have given a good explanation. While recognizing wallace as a far, far better grammarian than i, i'm left with serious doubts. Maybe i missed something. What do you think?

i would really recommend reading the entire article. It explains everything much clearer than i can do.

(1) you say "even if lord is a title or not," but i don't find any discussion of greek titles in wallace's grammar or article. So where do you get that it doesn't matter if the complement is a title? There are many other usages of the two words where it is clear that "lord" is a title, and there are 7 others where both words are accusative. Some (philemon 1:5 for example) clearly mean the title.

my point was, whether lord is a title or a reference to positional superiority (deity or mastery to be determined), it does not change the fact that it is the complement in the object-complement construction. I guess you could say that since it is the complement, it would be strange to see it as a title.

(2) in a similar sentence, if i did want to say in greek, "lord jesus" (the title) instead of "jesus as lord" then how would i say it? (this is a little test i use on myself when translating a difficult passage.) i don't find any discussion of this in wallace.

Wallace even points out that grammar is not the exclusive determining factor in recognizing this construction. But he offers 3 tests to see if it is the double accusative object-complement. It fits all three. But it could be "lord jesus" just as easily. That's what makes greek exegesis fun.

(3) if the order of the object and complement don't matter, then how do i know if it is "jesus as lord" or "the lord as jesus"? It seems to me that greek is a more precise language than to leave such an important meaning ambiguous. Wallace deals with this some but not enough, i think. I'm still kind of up in the air. He wrote about 10:9, "he proper noun, ihsoun, must be the object and
kurion its complement" (article p. 9). But why? They're both nouns, and "the lord as jesus" makes good sense to me considering the incarnation if you consider kurios as a proper name of god (yahweh).

wallace emphasized this in the article. In fact, it was pretty much an essential point to his article. So you must have missed it. Pretty much the same rules apply to identifying the object & complement as they do in identifying the subject and predicate nominative. In this case, jesus is a proper name and is therefore the object. Interestingly, vaticanus has a variant making it οτι κυριος ιησους (this came from wallace's article; vaticanus using the subject-predicate nominative construction). So ancient scribes began the similarities that we are now recognizing between the subject-predicate nominative and the object-complement double accusative.

great discussion!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

On the subject of Romans 9, allow me to ask this question.

Paul said, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." That is normally taken by many Christians to mean that whosoever calls on the Lord are born again, and thus saved from eternal hell. However, the next verse says, "how shall they call on him who they have not believed?" In other words, a person must believe before they can call on Jesus. That's absolutely logical. The problem is most people will say it is belief that is the basis for the new birth. Here Paul clearly distinguishes between the two. The person believes first, and then calls. There were some that John talked about in John 12 that believed and didn't call. Were they saved? After all, again, many present belief as that which is the basis of salvation. Jesus said the believer is born again, has everlasting life, and shall not come unto condemnation. He didn't specify whether they had called on Him, just that they were believers.

I see and understand your point, but the following statements by Paul:

"How, then can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those that bring good news!"

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Paul here is reaffirming here our obligation to fulfull the Great Commision. Our obligation is to bring to others the intellectual awareness of God's plan of redemption and our need for it. God. To be sure, in order to "call upon Lord" seems to assume some fundamental knowledge as to "why" one even needs to do this.

 

[quantumfaith]

It appears there are some aspects of faith that you don't understand. Faith is not mental assent. It is surrender. Let me illustrate. You are in the fifth story window of a burning building being compelled to jump into the firemen's safety net or perish in the flames. You can say it until you are consumed that you "believe" the firemen will catch you- but that is not faith. Faith is the jump. Faith is that moment when you stop relying on the window seal for safety and you surrender your life into the care of the firemen.

A man can believe that Jesus is the Son of God, died on the cross and rose on the third day and go to hell. Until he trusts Christ alone for his salvation, he is lost. To trust is to remove all hope in anything but Christ for salvation and surrender your life into his hands.

You do this by being fully convinced and yielding to the fact that he is LORD. You can even "believe" that he is Lord but so long as you cling to the window seal you are doomed.

Faith is surrender.

Agreed, faith in Christ is much more than mental assent, however "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." (Lao-tzu) Our relationship (journey) must begin with a single step. The remainder (the most arduous and challenging) portion of that journey is to grow in our faith and knowledge of Him.