Lordship Salvation Controversy

[percho]

I've had many free grace pastors, and not one made obeying Christ "optional."

Rather, they admitted the downright difficulty of it, admitted many folks fail at it, and urged us to continually commit to obedience. God would empower us to better obey if we did.

Never heard a free gracer tell anyone they could come to Christ for salvation, holding onto their sins.

Rather, they teach you can come to Christ for salvation while sin still has a hold on you.

Here is a thought. Do we come to Christ and or God for salvation or did God come to us through Christ born a man child, died a man child and was resurrected a man child, with salvation?

Let God be God.

 

[evangelist6589]

If I had to guess, I would say David Jeremiah is somewhere in the middle on this. I'm pretty sure Charles Stanely would be the opposite extreem, since he has gone so far as to say that a person who once prayed accepted Christ, who now DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HIM, is still saved.

That said, they both have written some good things, but all teachers must be read with carefulosity. :laugh:

Does Stanley say that on a regular basis? I have not heard him so.

 

[evangelist6589]

Has anybody ever noticed that IFB churches are accused of both making salvation too easy, and also accused of being legalistic?

Folks will complain that IFBs believe you can simply ask Jesus to save you and he will. They say this leads to false repentance and licentiousness, you simply say a prayer and then live like the devil.

Then in the next breath they complain how legalistic IFB churches are. Oh, they want you to quit drinking and smoking, no gambling, want men to dress like men and women to dress like women, etc...

So, "easy believeism" does not lead to licentiousness at all. Most folks dislike IFB churches because of their strong stand against sin and insistence on godly living.

While the folks that preach so much against easy-believeism are fast and loose. They can drink, gamble, whatever...

I did not say that I did not like IFB. I said that they may be easy believism.

 

[evangelist6589]

I would certainly not lump Charles Stanley and David Jeremiah together!

Yes, in regards to Stanley, I consider him a heretic. He preaches another gospel; that contains no call to "Pick up your cross," no denial of self, no repentance, no definite and continuing sanctification, etc.

I heard him tell a mother one time that her son, who had once confessed faith in Christ, but now openly denied Him, and was engaged in a lascivious lifestyle, would be fine, and she should not worry about evangelizing him, because he had "prayed the prayer" one time.

That is flat out heresy, I don't care how you paint it.

"By there fruits you WILL know them"... and:

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

As far as the sinner's prayer, yes; I believe it is destructive, and unbiblical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jQsGlS0sQ4

Have you listened to his The Only Door to Heaven podcast on 12/9/11? In it does he say that Christ is the only way to Heaven. He also says that believing and obedience are in the same category. He does not say that one can confess Christ and then live like the devil.

14:00- He says you cant be saved and live like the devil. If you do, then you are not saved.

14:30- The judgment of God will come. If you have been born again you have Gods spirit that if you sin you will be convicted. If you sin and are not convicted then you will go to Hell. Going to church does not save you.

16:00- He rebukes Fundamentalist churches because they are all about getting saved, and not about sanctification and living the Godly life.

 

[Winman]

I did not say that I did not like IFB. I said that they may be easy believism.

I did not say you do not like IFB churches, but the discussion is contrasting LS churches versus easy believeism churches, and I simply pointed out that easy believeism churches are often accused of making salvation too easy AND of being legalistic. Easy believeism churches are also known for their strong stand against sin.

Lordship Salvation churches make a big deal over sincere repentance, but often the folks who are so quick to criticize easy believeism live a very loose lifestyle.

And I quoted John MacArthur himself who agrees with my observation. He noted how many young Reformed love to drink, smoke, wear tattoos, listen to heavy metal, curse, and many other "vices" (his words, not mine).

Most folks call this HYPOCRISY.

 

[evangelist6589]

No, legalism= works salvation. IFBs who believe in "easy believeism" do not teach you have to follow any rules to be saved, but simply trust Jesus Christ to save you from your sins.

It is those churches that promote Lordship Salvation who are always casting doubt on people's salvation. If a person is not living to their ideal of godliness, they are proclaimed to be a false believer and lost. Salvation is determined by a person's works.

But go through any of the threads concerning drinking or playing the lottery here. You will find that most IFBs do not drink or gamble, while those who preach against easy-believeism do.

So, folks constantly tear down IFBs because they make salvation too easy, and then complain because they are too godly, uhh... I mean "legalistic".

Eph 2:8-10 says that works do not make our salvation. Why did you say that?

 

[Winman]

Eph 2:8-10 says that works do not make our salvation. Why did you say that?

Salvation is a free gift, you cannot earn salvation through works.

I am saying that LS churches tend to judge folks by their works. We have a fellow here who is a strong LS believer, and he is always criticizing folks for sinning. He goes many days without sinning (according to his own words). He believes if you are sinning, you are not saved.

And I am pointing out the hypocrisy of many who hold to LS. They criticize easy believeism, and in the next breath criticize these same churches for having so many "rules".

Yet, as John MacArthur himself pointed out, many of these folks who criticize easy believeism live a very loose Christianity.

Maybe some of you LS guys should join an easy believeism church. We seem to be getting better results.

 

[Tom Butler]

I sense from this discussion that those who favor LS have a different definition from those who oppose it. So, it would be helpful if there could be some agreement on just what it is.

Same thing with "easy believeism." What's the definition?

 

[mandym]

I sense from this discussion that those who favor LS have a different definition from those who oppose it. So, it would be helpful if there could be some agreement on just what it is.

Same thing with "easy believeism." What's the definition?

What happens is definitions arise based on characterizations of the others view. Kind of like in the cal, non cal debates.

 

[Tom Butler]

What happens is definitions arise based on characterizations of the others view. Kind of like in the cal, non cal debates.

Okay, I'll take a crack at it.

LS is the view that one cannot take Jesus as Savior at one point and Lord sometime later. The scriptures say believe on the LORD Jesus Christ and be saved. (Acts 16:31)

They also say one must confess with his mouth that Jesus is LORD (and believe that he rose from the dead)... Romans 10:9

To me, LS is simply confessing Jesus as Lord as well as Savior.

Easy believism, in my view is best expressed in walking the aisle, saying the prayer, or one-two-three, repeat after me, raise your hand. The appeal is to believe with little emphasis on obedience.

mandy, you're probably right, we'll have some differing definitions. So let's lay them out here, so at least we'll have some frame of reference for each other's view.