Lordship Salvation volume 2

I'm in a motel somewhere in KY on the way to a mtg. in the UP of MI, and I just read the entire other thread, and it was the most inept defense of LS I've yet seen on the BB. Repentance, easy believism, fruit inspecting? Really? Those are all non-starters in a good LS defense.

A defense of LS must--MUST--deal with how the Lordship of Christ is treated in John and Acts, or it of necessity fails. And this was not done at all in the thread.

 

I think it is easily defended from Acts. The theme of repentance makes that clear (both repentance w/ faith Acts 20:21 and repentance by itself as in Acts 11:18). Not to mention that is it unwise to separate Acts from the Lukan narrative. It is volume 2 of a 2 volume work. So what was said in the Gospel kata Luke would be implied and understood in Acts. Not to mention those same discipleship concepts creep up again in Acts.

The thing w/ John is that it is an apolegetic for the identity of the Messiah. At least that is what the purpose statement is about. So John is not a soteriological treatise on the necessary requirement for salvation (i.e. faith alone). It may be implicit in the polemic to prove Jesus is the Messiah, but that is only a byproduct.

Also, the very nature of "faith" and the pist- root connotes a conviction and faithfulness. Thus, faith and repentance are not merely two sides of the same coin but at closer examination they are really just synonyms. So the issue in John is not so big. That is not to mention those passages in John that exclude faith and only mention good works (Jn 5:29).

 

No place does scripture say a person can be saved by accepting Jesus as Savior. To think a person can remain in rebellion towards God and be saved is foreign to scripture.

 

Acts is the book where we see how the Apostles proclaimed Christ. So where in Acts did they tell folk that they must receive Christ as Lord to be saved?

John "not a soteriological treatise"?? What "purpose statement" are you talking about? John was specifically written to teach people belief in Christ (20:31), not just His identity, a Gospel tract if you will. So where is LS in John? (Discussing repentance doesn't cut it. Discuss the Lordship of Christ.)

 

Who has said this FAL?

And to what degree of rebellion?
If you mean as a continuing way of life then I would partially agree.

This last question is the essential question against LS (IMO).
Where is the list of acts of rebellion which disqualify anyone from being a child of God?

e.g.
"You missed three worship services in a row, therefore Jesus is not Lord of your life".

"you don't tithe, therefore Jesus is not Lord of your life".

"You went to a movie house and watched a move, therefore..."

etc, etc, etc...

In any given LS church who makes the decision that someone has now disqualified themself from salvation (or wern't saved in the first place)?

In the past (long past) I have been part of the LS sphere of influence.

They are no more or less free from scandalous behavior than non LS.

Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" (koine emphatic) are the children of God.

Yes, Our father expects sancification and personal holiness.

But even the "smallest" sin is an act of rebellion against God.

...That which is not of faith is sin.

Who decides? God alone.


HankD

 

It is the state of rebellion we are all born with not a degree. The lost do not want God in their life as master, Lord. Those who truly turn to Him for salvation are surrendering that heart for His rule over them. In other words they are ready to get right with God no matter what it costs them. That is a heart of repentance. And what it costs them is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. They take that heart towards God and place it on Jesus and faith is born and salvation takes place. Yes they might fail at times, but their heart is to obey.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

I'm talking about THE purpose statement of John 20:31 (read D.A. Carson on the statement, it might help). The purpose statement was constructed carefully. So carefully in fact that it would detract from abuse as you have done above. The statement says nothing about teaching people to believe in Christ. That is a statement lacking clarity as it is. The purpose of John is to identify Jesus as the Christ/Messiah. John wrote his account to convince (the meaning of the pist- root) people that the Messiah/Son of God (synonymous terms) is in fact Jesus. Thus it is a polemic on the identity of Jesus. It is not a treatise on faith. That is a big time misnomer.

 

It takes time.

Give babies meat and they choke on it.

Jesus knew this:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Paul knew this:

1 Corinthians 3:2 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.

HankD​

 

Can't read Carson or much of anything else. My library is in Japan, I'm on the road in the US.

Here is the actual purpose statement: " But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." That's a hina purpose clause, Greektim. Surely you know what that means. The things John wrote were written for the purpose of having people believe in Jesus. How any commentator who knows the Greek could say differently I can't imagine.

Now, would you write a book on being a carpenter for beginners without telling the reader how to become one? So therefore, the Gospel of John must have much in it telling how to believe. So, again, where is the passage telling the unsaved how to receive Christ as Lord?

 

Ok... which ινα clause are you referring? The first is the purpose, the second is the result. However, the purpose statement is not limited to simply believe. Otherwise that would be the end of the statement. But the content to which his audience was supposed to believe or be convinced of was stated in the οτι clause -- that the Messiah is Jesus. Therefore, the grammar is specific. The book's purpose statement is one to say that the author is trying to convince his audience about a certain truth. In this case, that truth is the identity of Jesus. Thus you have so many messianic motifs in the account. It is seldom ever interpreted that way though. Quite unfortunate.

BTW... I was referring to Carson's 2 articles on the purpose clause. I will see if I can find it online for you.

 

Here is a good thought from Carson's first article on Jn 20:31 (the context is about the place and use of chpts 14-17 as it pertains to an evangelistic intent to the account)...

"[W]e must not think of this Gospel as 'evangelistic' merely in the sense that it was written to produce superficial professions of faith, but in the sense that it was written to produce converts who grow and persevere and develop as disciples. In that context, John 14-17 seems less out of place."

This quote comes from the Journal of Biblical Literature (1987) pg. 649.

There is some other great quotes here too. I might add them later to help my case

 

Carson's quote goes against what Lordship Salvation a la Washer and MacArthur teach.

Carson leaves room for growth. "It was written to produce converts who grow and persevere and develop as disciples." I don't think that any of us disagree with that.

Washer believes that one must be a disciple as soon as one is saved, wording it as a requirement for salvation. "Unless you forsake all that you have you cannot (be saved). But that is not what the verse says. He equates discipleship with salvation, whereas Carson doesn't, and neither did Jesus.

 

No, repentance towards God is done in a moment in time and never repented of. Repentance is a sate we enter into and never leave. Sanctification takes time but not repentance. The problem is that many who think they are saved are not.