Lordship Salvation volume 2

[Alive in Christ]

The 1st reached its page limit and was closed.

Thought I would start V2 with the excellant post by QuantumFaith at the end of V1...

Originally Posted by quantumfaith

Modern dispute

The controversy moved to the forefront of the evangelical world in the late 1980s when Calvinist John F. MacArthur argued against the doctrine of carnal Christianity in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. In response, in 1989, Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation and Zane C. Hodges published Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. As both MacArthur's and Hodges's books were published by Zondervan, some bookstores displayed them together under the banner, "Which One is Right?". MacArthur later published Faith Works (1993) and Hodges released a second edition of his earlier title, The Gospel Under Siege in 1989.

Two ministries, The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, arose with the purpose of advancing free grace soteriological views which opposed the concepts introduced through "lordship salvation". Each group contributed numerous books, journal articles and pamphlets detailing the problems of lordship salvation.

While the concept of "free grace" dates to the 17th century, "Free Grace" was adopted as the term for the opposing camp in the lordship controversy by such authors as Charles Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, and Bill Bright.[citation needed] While free grace is nominally undisputed in Protestantism, the "Free Grace view" in this sense postulates that "Lordship salvation" is in opposition to this principle by demanding submission or surrender as an additional step required beyond faith alone.

The "Free Grace" view nevertheless affirms regeneration and the "inevitability" of good works by believers. "Free Grace" thus postulates that good works are inevitable but should not be taken as evidence of one's salvation or righteous standing before God. Proponents of lordship salvation, on the other hand, criticize opponents as advocating "carnal Christianity" by leaving open the possibility of indulging in sinful behaviour and still sharing equal assurance as one who is in some degree subduing sin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lordshi...on_controversy]/quote]

 

[John of Japan]

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.

 

[Greektim]

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).

 

[Alive in Christ]

From the OP....

Calvinist John F. MacArthur argued against the doctrine of carnal Christianity in his book The Gospel According to Jesus. In response, in 1989, Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation, and Zane C. Hodges published Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. As both MacArthur's and Hodges's books were published by Zondervan, some bookstores displayed them together under the banner, "Which One is Right?". MacArthur later published Faith Works (1993) and Hodges released a second edition of his earlier title, The Gospel Under Siege in 1989.

Two ministries, The Grace Evangelical Society, founded in 1986, and the Free Grace Alliance, founded in 2004, arose with the purpose of advancing free grace soteriological views which opposed the concepts introduced through "lordship salvation"

The bolded material above are books and ministries that I have found to be extremely benificial, and spiritualy rich, and I would HIGHLY recommend them.

 

[freeatlast]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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?

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).

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.)

 

[freeatlast]

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?
QUOTE]

Acts 20:21 You will notice it says faith in the Lord Jesus Christ not Savior Jesus Christ. The same in Romans. He must be confessed as Lord, not Savior. If you do a study on the Greek word for confess you will see it means “to say the same thing".” If (“Lord”) it is only spoken a word and not applied in surrender to what Lord means then it is not confession from a biblical standpoint as it is a lie since "Lord" is not simply a title, but rather a position. The confession has to be true to the Position of Jesus. In other words they receive Him as their personal Lord, Master. To reject Jesue as Lord and seek to take Him as Savior is not repentance towards God. Confessing is not simply admitting something in the Greek like it is in our English. To reject Jesus as Lord is to remain in rebellion to Who He is and to suggest that God saves people while they remain rebellious is foreign to scripture.

 

[HankD]

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.

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

 

[freeatlast]

Who has said this FAL?

And to what degree of rebellion?

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.

 

[Greektim]

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?

But you already made the mistake of disjoining Acts from Luke. If it was in volume 1, then it is assumed in volume 2. Plus, the concept of repentance is very much in line with lordship. If you are turning away from your life of sin in order to follow Jesus, that is a good example of lordship. It is the praxis of lordship.

But if you need specific passages, consider 2:36, 4:33, 7:59, 8:16, and so on. Perhaps the most important statement to reveal the content of what it is to preach Jesus is 10:36 where it says, "preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ, he is Lord of all." The construction in the Greek is quite clear, the last phrase is in apposition to the concept of preaching the gospel of peace through Jesus. And that concept of that gospel is that he is Lord of all.

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.)

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.

 

[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.

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​

 

[John of Japan]

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?
QUOTE]

Acts 20:21 You will notice it says faith in the Lord Jesus Christ not Savior Jesus Christ. The same in Romans. He must be confessed as Lord, not Savior. If you do a study on the Greek word for confess you will see it means “to say the same thing".” If (“Lord”) it is only spoken a word and not applied in surrender to what Lord means then it is not confession from a biblical standpoint as it is a lie since "Lord" is not simply a title, but rather a position. The confession has to be true to the Position of Jesus. In other words they receive Him as their personal Lord, Master. To reject Jesue as Lord and seek to take Him as Savior is not repentance towards God. Confessing is not simply admitting something in the Greek like it is in our English. To reject Jesus as Lord is to remain in rebellion to Who He is and to suggest that God saves people while they remain rebellious is foreign to scripture.

I expected an answer like this. Simply referring to Christ as Lord is not the same as demanding acceptance of His lordship. Sorry, nowhere in Acts 20:21 does it talk about receiving Christ as Lord. Try again.

As far as homologew meaning "say the same thing as," that is the etymological fallacy. I dare you to find a translation that renders it that way. Try again.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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?

 

[Greektim]

I expected an answer like this. Simply referring to Christ as Lord is not the same as demanding acceptance of His lordship. Sorry, nowhere in Acts 20:21 does it talk about receiving Christ as Lord. Try again.

As far as homologew meaning "say the same thing as," that is the etymological fallacy. I dare you to find a translation that renders it that way. Try again.

I gave you a very specific answer in Acts 10:36. I think it makes clear that the content of their gospel presentation to believe in Jesus was said to refer to the fact that he is Lord of all.

 

[Greektim]

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.

 

[Alive in Christ]

FAL....

No place does scripture say a person can be saved by accepting Jesus as Savior.

Here are just a few of the multitudes of scriptures which make crystal clear that a person who trusts Christ, and Christ alone, at the exclusion of any and all works, they are saved.



"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

"even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."

For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

"therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved


Of course I could on and on, but you get the idea.

 

[Greektim]

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

 

[Alive in Christ]

Greektim..

"[W]e must not think of this Gospel as 'evangelistic' merely in the sense that it was written to produce superficial professions of faith,

Well, of course. That is a given. Nobody is saying that if someone just speaks certain words, without meaning it, they are saved. Of course they have to mean it.

For that matter, a person doesnt not have to speak words at all.

But it is still faith, and faith alone. Not faith plus works.

Faith alone.

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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​

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.