Lordship Salvation Defended

[Iconoclast]

The question is not about "ability."
The question is about "nature."

We still have an old nature, the propensity to do evil, which Paul describes in the latter half of Romans 7. There are two natures struggling within him, which at the end of the chapter he cries out and says:
"Who shall deliver me from the body of this death." And the answer immediately comes:
Romans 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The choice was Paul's, whether to give into sin or not. Sometimes he did. Do you think he lost his salvation when he did? Was Paul perfect?

the question is really about a believer's changed relationship to sin.

You do not have a good handle on this although you are trying to be slick using the terminology of the Lordship guys .
I caught your slick move DHK......but it does not help you here...lol

of course all Christians struggle and are commanded to mortify sin .....that is not the issue at all.

 

[InTheLight]

Submission and radical surrender to Christ to walk like Him. Requirements for salvation and not optional as non lord ship types teach.

I don't see scripture calling for radical surrender to Christ as a prerequisite to salvation. I see "repent", I see "believe", I see "saved by grace through faith", I see submission and surrender as an ongoing process of Christian maturity, not things we must do to be saved.

DHK says it well:

The verses I posted are about discipleship as Jesus directed them to his disciples. "You cannot be my disciple." They do not say "You cannot be saved."
If they were about salvation, then salvation would be by works, and not by grace through faith. We don't believe in a works salvation. That is what LS teaches.

 

[The Biblicist]

I read the bible and believe it. But I will say those whom are more gifted than me have written books to defend LS.

MacArthur
Paul Washer
Ernest Reisinger

Have you read any of their books?

yes, I have read MacArthur and I disagree with him, just as much as I disagree with those he is responding to. - Both are wrong. The reasons they are wrong is what I spelled out for you.

If you can't defend your position, you shouldn't be debating the issue. Obviously, MacArthur, Washer or Reisinger are not on the forum.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't see scripture calling for radical surrender to Christ as a prerequisite to salvation.....

The rich young ruler was told to sell all that he had, give it to the poor, and follow Christ.

That's pretty radical, don't you think?

 

[Yeshua1]

which sins were you able to keep since professing your faith in Christ ?
which sins did you not have to repent of ?
what sins were you able to continue to practice
which sins are you able to continue in in order that grace can much more abound

Did the blood of Jesus cleanse me fully in the sight of the fatherm or was it merely all past sins, and only those that I repent of, and unless i walk in perfect obedience , then his shed blood refuses to cleanse me any more?

I should always try to stay in obedience, to follow Jesus, but have failed to always do that since salvation...

Are you claiming to have been able to do that?

 

[JamesL]

I do not think you can give a biblical definition of salvation. ...and sanctification
you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't know that sanctification is one aspect of [/]salvation, then you're already in way over your head

 

[The Biblicist]

Progressive sanctification is the outworking of the righteous and holy nature created by God in the regenerative act upon the spirit of man. Through spiritual union we partake of the moral nature of God in new birth. It is progressive by nature which means it is NEVER complete in this life. It various from one Christian to another in various degrees according to the measure of grace and faith given. Hence, we can find one extreme such as Abraham right next to the other extreme in Lot.

While self-death to all sin is inherent by INTENT in the act of conversion, but in the actual life that intent has no consistency or complete exhaustive reality and never will in this life.

 

[evangelist6589]

yes, I have read MacArthur and I disagree with him, just as much as I disagree with those he is responding to. - Both are wrong. The reasons they are wrong is what I spelled out for you.



If you can't defend your position, you shouldn't be debating the issue. Obviously, MacArthur, Washer or Reisinger are not on the forum.

I did defend my position with the many verses I posted. It was just not what you wanted to hear.

 

[evangelist6589]

the question is really about a believer's changed relationship to sin.



You do not have a good handle on this although you are trying to be slick using the terminology of the Lordship guys .

I caught your slick move DHK......but it does not help you here...lol



of course all Christians struggle and are commanded to mortify sin .....that is not the issue at all.

Agreed. When someone is a babe in Christ they are far from perfect and not submitted but overtime they work on this.

Easy believism teaches that surrender and submission are optional as anyone whom says the magical prayer and walks forward despite no change in lifestyle are saved.

 

[InTheLight]

Agreed. When someone is a babe in Christ they are far from perfect and not submitted but overtime they work on this.

Easy believism teaches that surrender and submission are optional as anyone whom (sic) says the magical prayer and walks forward despite no change in lifestyle are saved.

Supposing someone goes forward and says the "magic prayer", then falls under the preaching of Lordship Salvation and does the required good works, are they saved?

 

[evangelist6589]

An agreement with LS is not a requirement for salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

I did defend my position with the many verses I posted. It was just not what you wanted to hear.

Are you so naive to think that merely posting proof texts is defending anything? You would make an excellent convert to Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses if that is what think defending a position entails.

 

[evangelist6589]

Supposing someone goes forward and says the "magic prayer", then falls under the preaching of Lordship Salvation and does the required good works, are they saved?

LS is not works based as submission and surrender are works of the HS. Non Calvinist confuse works of the HS with human works.

 

[evangelist6589]

Are you so naive to think that merely posting proof texts is defending anything? You would make an excellent convert to Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses if that is what think defending a position entails.

Hogwash!!!! Those groups misuse and misinterpret the bible. Jesus an archangel? Satan jesus brother? Get real man. I know biblical theology so can see the verses I posted in context.

 

[InTheLight]

LS is not works based as submission and surrender are works of the HS. Non Calvinist confuse works of the HS with human works.

Supposing someone goes forward and says the "magic prayer", then shows fruit that he is submitting and surrendering. Are they saved?

 

[JamesL]

LS is not works based as submission and surrender are works of the HS. Non Calvinist confuse works of the HS with human works.

So if works inevitable outcome of faith, then why mention it? It's going to happen, right?

 

[gigabyte71]

Hogwash!!!! Those groups misuse and misinterpret the bible. Jesus an archangel? Satan jesus brother? Get real man. I know biblical theology so can see the verses I posted in context.

Aren't you a self professed apologist? You should be better able to defend your belief on a topic, especially one that you started. Seriously, you should try using a few of your references, explaining the context, and finish it off with how it defends your position. It makes it appear has though your entire position is based on what someone else said.

 

[InTheLight]

Aren't you a self professed apologist? You should be better able to defend your belief on a topic, especially one that you started. Seriously, you should try using a few of your references, explaining the context, and finish it off with how it defends your position. It makes it appear has though your entire position is based on what someone else said.

Get with it gigabyte71. You're supposed to read books about it, not require someone else to articulate their position. :wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Did the blood of Jesus cleanse me fully in the sight of the fatherm or was it merely all past sins, and only those that I repent of, and unless i walk in perfect obedience , then his shed blood refuses to cleanse me any more?

I should always try to stay in obedience, to follow Jesus, but have failed to always do that since salvation...

Are you claiming to have been able to do that?

I asked you 4 questions....answer them please.....give specific answers to those 4 questions....feel free to use as much scripture as you would like...

 

[The Biblicist]

Hogwash!!!! Those groups misuse and misinterpret the bible. Jesus an archangel? Satan jesus brother? Get real man. I know biblical theology so can see the verses I posted in context.

You don't get it do you? They support their false theories by merely prooftexting JUST AS YOU ARE DOING! Proof texting is not a defense but a pretense unless you can support the proof text by context and that you have not done.