Lordship Salvation volume 2

Hank said:
"Give babies meat and they choke on it."
He was referring to sanctification and not repentance.
As you say repentance towards God is done in a moment in time.
Sanctification is a lifelong process. Those who advocate LS believe that a babe in Christ should be an adult the day that they were born.

 

Then we agree because that is what I meant.

HankD

 

Can you give any reference where any person who holds to Lordship salvation believes the person is an adult (mature) at the moment of salvation? I have never heard that before.

 

My point in mentioning Carson was because he sees the purpose behind the gospel according to John as wider than simply Jesus the Saviour. He argues that there is a great emphasis on discipleship which would thus equate salvation with discipleship. So while there is growth in that process (LS advocates do not deny this), there is a clear conversion in which faith is seen in the life of the person.

BTW... LS does not advocate faith plus works but rather a faith THAT works. Big distinction.

 

Because you have never heard it stated that way.
1Cor.3:1-5 teaches about carnality in believers--"the carnal Christian."
The LS advocates deny the existence of any such "carnal Christian," though it is taught right there in 1Cor.3. Paul also calls them "babes in Christ," and so they were, spiritually. But how long had they been Christians? Paul worked in Corinth for 18 months and had personally won many of them to the Lord. He mentions some by name in chapter one: Crispus, Gaius, and thanks the Lord that he didn't baptize any of the others except for these ones. Thus the ones that he is speaking to are the ones that he led to the Lord (primarily). IOW, they had been Christians for some time now, and they are still babes in Christ--carnal Christians.

They had not become adults yet. They weren't adults at the time of salvation (LS advocates), and they weren't adults now. They were still babes in Christ; carnal Christians, and Paul could not feed them the meat that he had wanted to feed them, he had to feed them milk.

 

This is the quote including the verses that I posted in the other thread:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1738305&postcount=111

 

Jesus never equated salvation to discipleship. Why would anyone start up a modern day movement that does equate the two, and at the same time muddies the waters of salvation to the degree that it appears that LS salvation is a works-based salvation.

 

Mark 8:34ff. refutes that:
Then Jesus called the crowd to himself along with his disciples and said to them, "If anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me continually.
Mar 8:35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and for the gospel will save it.
Mar 8:36 For what profit will a person have if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?

Also, Jesus doesn't just say "cannot be my disciple" he also says, "isn't worthy of me" which is clearly salvific language. The problem is, if you deny that this was the gospel presentation of Jesus, then you are saying that there is no soteriology in the synoptics. That is a scary prospect. And this is not just a synoptic concept. John 15:2 makes that clear. It is similar to the saying found in Matthew 7:17-19. BTW... those passages about bearing fruit in Matthew is all set in the context of the wide gate and the narrow gate. Matt. 7:13-21 is evangelistic and discipleship. Thus it is a both/and issue.

 

The lack of acknowledging the lordship of Christ as a part of the content of the gospel is a result of the pandemic disease of diminishing the pist- root in our understanding of its semantic meaning. It has 2 primary meanings: (a) to be convinced of something so much so that it affects (changes) your life & (b) faithfulness. This is the denotation bound up in the Greek word. However, the English word "faith" or "believe" has a softened connotation of a simple mental acknowledgment. This is much to do with a reaction from the reformation period and the fear of having a works based salvation. I understand the fear, but to rebound to the other extreme (a worksless faith) is also something to fear. A faith that produces works (a faith that works) is the only way to understand verses like John 5:29, "those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

 

You are trying hard to put Scripture into context which is good, but LS preachers don't do that. They fire off a half dozen verses like these rapid machine gun style without context to make their point well-understood.

Even your example in Mat.7, I don't believe you have the context right. The entire passage is speaking of false teaching and false teachers. He tells them how to differentiate the false teachers from true doctrine--by their fruit--which is not works, but rather doctrine.

In general LS preachers don't care about context. If you are not a disciple you are not saved.

 

I was wanting a person who you said taught what you said.

 

I cannot be absolutely positive about Paul Washer, but in what little I know of him I doubt he has ever said a new Christian is mature, but I can absolutely say that John MacArthur has never taught that.
I know of no person who holds to Lordship salvation that teaches what you said. So your statement is not accurate.
Lordship salvation is a fact. No one is saved without receiving Jesus as Lord of their life. He is Lord and He does not come as janitor. If he is not Lord of the persons life He is not Savior.

 

All Christians are disciples, but not all who claim to be disciples are Christians. many will say Lord, Lord, only to hear I never knew you.

 

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:20-21)

What is the context?
The context has nothing to do with salvation or discipleship. It has to do with false teachers. Take Benny Hinn for example. I don't believe he is saved. He believes there are nine persons to the trinity. Yet, he calls Christ, Lord. He falls into that category--a false teacher who calls Christ, Lord.

 

The emphasis of LS theology is wrong.

It is based upon the works of man and if that man is worthy of being called a Christian and/or can maintain his standing before His Lord.

LS teaching is based on a human unknowable commodity: the heart of a man.

Was Jesus still Peter's Lord when he denied Him with curses?

The emphsis is upon the Lord. Only God can look upon the heart.

On the other hand there will be those who have called Him "Lord, Lord" but are/were the workers of iniquity all along.

Again, ultimately LS theology has to deal with sinning Christians and what to do with them.

Jesus forgives them. 1 John 1:9.

OR

He corrects them

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.​

It is His perogative.

When someone makes an unreasonable demand (publicly or privately) of a babe in Christ, that one may himself find that the Lord of that babe will measure them with their own yardstick.

Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.​

James 2
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.​

HankD

 

I am a little confused here. What does Matt 7 have to do with anything I said?

 

Yes and all Christians keep the commandments.
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

If a person is not keeping them they are a liar according to scripture.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

You're way off track.

The entirety of the Sermon on the Mount* (so-called) is dealing with true kingdom persons, and otherwise.

(*you can find this in Matthew chapters 5-7.)

Thus it is dealing with salvation, (those who are truly saved and those who are not) not just "false teachers" as you erroneously conclude. You cannot divorce chapter 7 from chapter 5 and make it stand upon it's own separate from the entire context.

This is where you get off course and this is what you are doing.

In so doing you're making fallacious conclusions.

 

You are right. It is dealing with the Kingdom. Matthew wrote this gospel, and his audience was primarily the Jews. There are more OT references and prophecies relating to Christ as Messiah in this Gospel than in any other. These three chapters don't deal with salvation at all, just as the beatitudes don't deal with salvation. He is writing about various subjects in relation to the Kingdom--nothing to do with salvation.