Lordship Salvation volume 2

Jesus is my Lord but it doesn't depend on me, it is all about Him.

He is God come in the flesh. He is not only my Lord but my God incarnate and I love Him.

There is nothing that I can do but acknowledge it. There is nothing to prove.

One day every creature will bow the knee and confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God.

I do that right now in my heart as I write. There is nothing else to prove.
His Lordship does not depend on me, I have failed Him, but Jesus has never failed me.

He rebukes me when I need correction.
He seeks me when I have gone astray.
He forgives me when I acknowledge my sin.
He will never leave me or forsake me.
He has promised that He will never cast me out.

Someone talked about "holding on to their sin".
No child of God wants their sin. We hate our sin.
He took away our sins.
How can we hold on to something that we hate and almighty God has taken away?
Are we stronger than God?

Nuff said, goodnight.

HankD

 

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
That is the complete work of God in salvation.
Anything more than that turns it into a works based salvation.
This has nothing to do with dispensations, but rather with a simple gospel message. It is again defined in 1Cor.15:1-4. It is a simple message.

Whatever happened to that great Reformation principle of sola fide.
Don't the Calvinists believe in that principle any longer.

 

So, you make a judgment on it, and in turn it falls on those who believe it, yet, you don't listen to "famous" preachers???? I mean, wow, that sure makes you sound "spiritual." Not so much. (this would be like someone in the first century refusing to listen to Peter, or Paul). Maybe a little bit of the spirit of Diotrophes exists within you winman?

Thus your judment and indictment upon so-called Lordship Salvation is done in complete ignorance of any facts of what it truly is.

I'd suggest you start listening to some "famous" preachers.

Your theology and views are flawed and I'd suggest you "humble" yourself and start to learn from some other preachers out there who maybe can help straighten out your deficiencies, and I say this lovingly, they are many.

 

OK so what is the problem? He did not do what you accused him of. He never said someone is matured at the moment of salvation or is sinless as a Christian. He simply was teaching that true believers do not practice sin, but they do keep the commandments just like scripture says.
By the way the passage in 2Cor he refers to about examining yourselves also tell us how. It says for we can do nothing against the truth. True believers do not add to, twist, or take away from the word of God as they can do nothing against the truth but for it.
So does a person have to receive Jesus as Lord? Absolutely! Jesus did not suffer so men can remain in rebellion against who God is. No repentance, no Lord, and no salvation.

 

[SIZE=+0]Lordship salvation does not teach that a person has to be obedient to be saved. It teaches that the person is ready to get right with God no matter what it costs them as they seek His forgiveness. What it cost them is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The obedience comes after salvation and scripture does explain what it is like. 1John 2:3-4

It is not about repentance from sin to get saved as the NT never says that. It is about repentance towards God. The problem is not that we have sin in our lives and we need to stop sinning to get saved or even promise to stop or clean up out lives. The problem is we do not have God in our lives and we need to turn to Him for all He is. Repentance is done in spirit. It is the throwing ones self on the mercy of God to get ones self right with Him or as scripture says it is repentance towards God.

The turning from sin is the evidence that we have already been saved, not why we get saved, but that evidence starts the moment of salvation if the person has really turned to God. It is not turning for forgiveness so we can continue to live apart from (in sin) Him but so we can live with Him. Every person who is saved no matter their background from the moment of salvation are commandment keepers. If they are not they are not saved.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

If you do not understand what those passages mean then listen here to the whole message.
http://www.gerald285.com/web_media/BirthmarksofaBeliever.32.mp3

While the initial salvation is by grace, works always follow as we are saved unto good works Eph 2:10.
There is no salvation without repentance and there is no repentance if one does not receive Jesus for who He is, Lord. Trying to get right with God by receiving Jesus as just Savior only leaves the person in their lost condition as they are not ready to get right with God and God is not offering salvation to those who are not ready to turn to Him.
Keep in mind that repentance is like military term "about face". Repentance is a 180 degree turn from not wanting God to wanting Him.

The problem today is not with Lordship salvation teachers. It is with those false teachers that teach that a person can be saved by accepting Jesus as Savior. I have listened to a many a testimonies of people who say that back when they accepted Jesus as savior and now they are accepting Him as Lord. The day they accept Him as Lord is the day they get saved, not when they accepted Him as Savior. If He is not Lord of their life then His is not Savior of their soul.

Just ask this question. What kind of person would want Jesus as Savior and not Lord? The answer is one that is still in rebellion towards God and that person does not get saved.


[/SIZE]

 

DHQ,

What are you to believe? Are you to believe that Jesus merely existed? Or, are you to believe that Jesus was the propitiation, the substitute, for our sins? I will give an overview of some Bible verses explain how Dispensationalists get around them, and why this is not a violation of Sola Fide. Here are some clear Bible verses:

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”--Matthew 4:17. (The major role of Jesus was preaching repentance, which this indicates that at the beginning of his ministry to the end, it was focused on repentance, "from that time".

Scripture verses commanding Repentance

"Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent."--Matthew 11:20

"and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”--Mark 1:15 indicates that repentance and belief are part of the same action. We are to repent and believe in the Gospel.

"So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent."--Mark 6:12

"No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."--Luke 13:3--This is from Jesus himself. Unless you repent you will perish.

"No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”--Luke 13:5--Jesus seems adamant in repeating himself on this issue.

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."--Acts 2:38. The first sermon by the early church was to "repent."

"Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out,"--Acts 3:19.

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,"--Acts 17:30--They state that everyone is commanded to repent. This is when paul was sharing the Gospel to unbelievers. Thus, repentance was key in evangelism.

"but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance."--Acts 26:20

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise vas some count slowness, but wis patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.--II Peter 3:9--The example of faith is repentance.

Some ways Dispensationalists Handle these verses

If you recall, when John MacArthur used the teachings of Jesus to show his position, the biggest criticism he received from the Dispensationalists/easy believers is that he quoted from Jesus. Yes, they criticized him for using Jesus' own words. Why? The criticism advanced by Dispy's said that Jesus was in the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant, therefore his words were law and done away with. We are no longer, they said, shackled to that law.

John wrote the Book, "The Gospel According to the Apostles" to counteract this teaching from the Apostles.

Secondly, when reading Ryrie's book, there is not much substantive disagreements, mostly philosophical. They misunderstand the nature of argumentation when he says, "how much good works are enough?" The nature is not how much works, but are you displaying the fruit of the Spirit? Easy believism believes you can "believe" and then never give God another thought but still be saved. We don't believe that, we believe that Jesus' sheep will hear his voice and follow Him. It is not about how much work, it is about a commitment to God.

They say that we believe this is works salvation. Yet, this is the furthest from works salvation, rather it is by God's grace that we bear fruit.

Ryrie contends that the number of fruit is the issue. This is not the debate, the debate is whether someone can believe but live in a lifelong state of carnality. Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23).

Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one’s faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one’s faith.

Why this is not a violation of Sola Fide

These debates are often not helpful as someone will quote verses on belief and another on repentance, but no one shows why these verses are not contradictory. The reformers who said, "Sola Fide", understood that faith meant you understood the Gospel, and in faith you repented of your sins. Belief was more than acknowledging that Christ lived. Belief was more than believing that Christ died for our sins. Rather, belief was made up of the guiltiness of our sin manifesting itself to repentance.

Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

This personal commitment, or faith, is not contradicting the verses to repent, but the definition includes the verses to repent. You are not merely believing a creed about Jesus, but you are believing that your need of salvation rested entirely upon Christ's redemptive work and that the God-man died for our sins and if you repent and believe you will be saved.

Belief is more than just having some sort of generic "belief" in some creed about Christ. Rather, belief encompasses far more than cognitive assent of facts, but is more. Easy believism relegates belief to true creedalism, but even Satan has that form of belief.

 

Again, LS theory is backwards, man-oriented.

All who are born again of the Spirit have been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing they have to prove to Him.

However, all who claim Jesus Christ as Lord are not necessarily saved.

Luke 13

25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:​

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

It depends upon the Lord Himself, not upon us and what we have done or claimed.​

There is no such thing as "easy-believism" it is a misnomer.
To believe in Jesus Christ is impossible without the Holy Spirit.​

There is such a thing as "psuedo-believism" and I would endorse that phrase (FWIW).​

I understand the basis of Lordship salvation and it has an element of truth. The enemy has sown the seeds of the tares within the kingdom.
They have grown up and that is evident as every pastor is aware.​

But there is a reason that the Lord has said to leave them alone (apart from separating from those who openly sin).​

Matthew 13
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.​

For the most part we cannot tell the babes in Christ from the tares.​

His newborn ones need nurturing, they need milk before meat.
They need to walk before they run.
They need to learn of His advocacy when they stumble and fall while learning to walk.​

Luke 17

Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.​

Jesus will take care of His own business with the tares.

Matthew 13

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,​

Zechariah 14:21 ... and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.​

HankD​

 

So the "great crowds" in Lk 14 were "already saved"??? Is that why there were only a handful of people following Jesus at the crucifixion??? Plus, the text does not indicate a status of salvation. So the most likely option is to assume that they followed Jesus b/c of his miracles, authoritative teaching, and love. But they did not follow him for his lordship b/c so many turn away from him (Jn 6).

The fact is, Lk 14, Jesus was giving an evangelistic call to all the people following him b/c he doesn't want lukewarm followers. He gave an extreme message so that only the faithful (a word for the pist- root) would continue to follow. This is Jesus' evangelism.

 

hank you are correct that claiming Jesus as Lord does not mean the peson saved. The application of the claim does however.

 

This is a misunderstanding of our position. We do not believe in moralism and our works are acceptable, we believe that faith will produce fruit because of God's grace. It is about God's grace producing fruit in and through us.

Agreed, that is because their profession was not true. This verse attacks the idea that belief in a creed is enough. What this shows is merely saying "I believe" or "I accept" is not enough, even belief that Jesus should be your Lord is not enough. Belief and Repentance are needed, Biblical belief not merely assent, but much more than an assent to a creed of easy believism. God is more powerful in His saving work.

You are absolutely right that this is all dependent upon God. We believe our Sanctification is as much about God as is our salvation. Thus, it is not our works, we are careful to say, but God who has planned our works so that we may walk in them. We will produce fruit and do good works because of Grace, not to earn or merit grace. Again, you are confusing sanctification with justification.

There are some who look like Christians, but your latter statement that we should leave "them" alone is an overstatement. There are some who are rebellious that we should engage in the church discipline process in Matthew 18. There are those who leave the church that we can safely say are not of us. Yes, there will be "moral" people who truly don't believe and they look exactly like those of us bearing fruit of repentance, God will sort them out. However, there are times when actions do dictate we engage in church discipline and recognize those who abandon the faith.

Again, your last statement is a partial truth. He will take care of the tares who look exactly like Christians, go to church, are moral, etc.... However, he also wants the church to take serious the call to church discipline.

Our belief is not anti-justification alone, but we believe that true justification will produce fruit and God never saves us to just the beginning of our salvation, but to the end. His grace just doesn't save us from hell, it is continuing to save us and change us. That is a powerful Gospel, not like easy-believism where God saves you but then you are on your own.​

 

I find it interesting that the language of those against LS mimics so closely Calvinistic soteriology. I.e. HankD

 

This is one of the problems I have with this debate. Ruiz and others on the Lordship Salvation side confuse our view of justification and sanctification and thus they make statements about justification that we would never make, but join in opposing.

For that reason, most of these debates seem meaningless to me.

 

First, the quote you noted does not deal with either justification or sanctification, it deals with dispensationalism, which every major proponent is a dispensationalist. There is no accident that Dallas Theological Seminary was the hotbed for the other side of this debate.

Secondly, part of my rationale is supported by Ryrie and Hodge. They have said that their view is based upon their view of dispensationalism and part of their argument was based upon the dispensational hermenuetic. Whether you agree or disagree with my statement, it is true based upon the other side.

Finally, I have stated in my rebuttal against the easy-believism side of this debate why their are wrong. Namely, works fails to give you salvation but if God saves you He will produce fruit because of His grace. You offer no rebuttal to anything I said.

Thus, how did I confuse justification and sanctification in evaluating your view? What is it about dispensationalism did I misinterpret?

 

By quoting you almost verbatim I was trying to point out that you are guilty of the very thing you are accusing other of doing, namely, misrepresenting their views.

I don't think anyone in this thread (or anywhere else on BB) has ever stated that God is not powerful enough to complete the work of salvation.

 

Not in the same way. You see, we believe God not only authored our salvation but also our sanctification. Ryrie argues that while God saves you, there may not be any further fruit afterwards. We hold that Sanctification occurs just like Justification, it was wholly wrought by God. Ryrie believes salvation was wholly wrought by God, but denies this consistency for sanctification. Thus, a person can believe but never again return to the Lord or exhibit fruit of the Spirit, but he will still be saved. Now, I do need to be careful here because Ryrie believes every Christian bears fruit, however, he will say that this fruit could be one small inkling of fruit at salvation.

Thus, in context my statement was attacking the idea of Ryrie and Hodge on this point. My belief is that God was powerful enough to wrought salvation and powerful enough to keep us bearing fruit through our sanctification.

Thus, with that clarification I show that sanctification and justification is God's grace upon us, and that we will bear fruit in accordance to that Grace. That is how powerful God's grace is.

 

...then I don't understand how you cannot see the problem with his "barter system"

...and an unregenerate person can do this and knows the implications involved in doing so?

I agree the issue is one of sanctification. It's the fallacy of blending it with justification as the LS camp does not to mention a faulty understanding of repentance.

This has nothing to do with dispensationalism and is a complete strawman. God will complete the work of all of those who are His. It's a given. This will occur at glorification, not sinless perfection while in the flesh.

 

I do not know what you mean by "barter system" and John MacArthur. It has been a couple of years since I read his book, but I do not recall his statements in any book I have read.

An unregenerate person can realize his total and complete sinfulness and inability to save himself, thus he clings himself to God alone for salvation. He can understand God's complete and all powerfulness to save you and have his eyes open to the glory of God.

Repentance was not brought up by me, but it is an issue the easy-believism also is mistaken (MacArthur lists is as one of the major issues of contention). While the thrust is sanctification, some of the other side argue that we only need to "believe" but nothing more is needed. They are mistaken in that belief is not a mere creedal embrace, but salvation contained in the word "believe" is more than creedal assent. The reason we have to address it is because so many easy-believers reject repentance. However, I agree it is a sanctification issue but what is confusing is when people attack our side's sanctification arguments as justification. Yet, repentance is the issue. Ryrie says that repentance is not needed and that you can have faith for one second in your life, and never have faith again, but you are still saved.

You are wrong that this has nothing to do with dispensationalism. First, note one major non-dispensationalist who agrees with the easy-believism side who is also not a liberal? John MacArthur noted this trend of easy-believism as being distinctly by Dispensationalists in his book "Faith Works." As a person who believes in Covenant Theology, I think it is most impossible for CT to hold to an easy-believism view because of our hermeneutic. While some Dispy's hold to Lordship, I believe all who are easy believism people that are theologians are dispensational.

I say all that not to disrespect Ryrie. I love Ryrie personally. My wife was tremendously influenced by him and I respect him. However, he is wrong.

 

I'm talking about the "exchange" consisting of...
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.” - John MacArthur

I thought "dead is dead" in your system?

What else needs to be added to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"?

I (and every free grace person I have encountered) understand saving faith and repentance as two sides of the same coin making the notion you put forth above also a strawman.

I need to know how you define each term. Most LS'ers are calvinists, some are non. Most calvinists are covenantalists, some are not. I don't see the relevance in this whatsoever.

 

I gave you an exposition of the rich young ruler from Mark 10. You deflect everything I said with a non sequitor from Luke 14. I wasn't talking of Luke 14. Is this your regular tactic?
Your conclusion: "So the great crowds in Luke 14 were already saved?" How do you get that out of the story of the rich young ruler recorded in Mark chapter 10.
A total non sequitor.

 

I think you are drawing a comparison that is not there. WIthout reading the context I am at a loss, however, I believe he is expounding on the theology call substitution.

It is and nothing in my statement contradicts our theology. Now if you discount regeneration preceeding faith, it would, but I come within that context. I am not claiming a synergistic viewpoint, I am claiming what happens.

It is not what needs to be added, it is the bare minimum intrepretation that easy believers put upon it. Thus, Ryrie and Hodge deny repentance is a part of that belief. The Word believe is not merely cognitive assension, but is fuller than that in that it impacts much more than logic.

Are you saying that only cognitive assent is enough for salvation?

I think there is relevance. First, the only way you can get to the free grace position is through a dispensational hermenuetic. Without dispensationalism, the hermenuetic fails. We believe the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 has arrived as is noted in Hebrews 8. Dispensationalists reject this viewpoint. Thus, they believe we are (and I might add, ironically so) just as bad off in the heart as Old Testament believers. They believe there will be a time when we will serve the Lord with our heart and not ultimately turn away, but that is in the Millennium. We believe He changed our heart from stone to a heart that loves Him.

Secondly, Dispensationalism has stated that all dispensations end in failure of God's people. This is a very pesimistic view and one that draws lines where the Bible never draws them. Yet, their view believes the reason the Tribulation occurs and God starts a new dispensation is because of the failure of the Church, they will ultimately fall so bad that God must start with a new dispensation. The same goes with the Tribulation where, they believe, God sets up the Millennium and only then is Jeremiah 31 fulfilled.

Our view sees the failure by humans as being the law. There was a need for something more and that was Jesus Christ. Now that Christ has come, we are able to do what we were unable under the law, that is to fulfill Jeremiah 31:31/Hebrews 8. Thus, our ability and success is assured by Jesus Christ. We will end this age successful, not as failures. We are successful because God has caused us to be successful.

Thus, the entire hermenuetic does have something to do with this debate. Granted, people like MacArthur are still dispensationalists, but even he admits to being a leaky dispy.