Lordship Salvation?

JJ, let's look at the context since you brought it up. Back up a few verses and you'll see that the context is referring to eternal life, which cannot be earned, in contrast to your kingdom doctrine in which one earns a place in the kingdom by their works.

Jesus tells about 2 men who went to worship in the temple, one a Pharisee and one a sinful tax collector. The Pharisee believed he was justified by his works, but tax collector saw his own sinfulness and begged for mercy. Jesus said the tax collector was the one who left justified. This clearly speaks of eternal salvation. (Luke 18:9-14)

Next, we see Jesus rebuking the disciples for not letting the children come to Him to be blessed. Jesus says that in order to receive the kingdom of God we must come to Him as a child. He said that the kingdom of God belongs to "such as these". We must come to God a child comes to a parent: trusting, believing, relying on Him for all things. He was obviously speaking of eternal life. How many good works can a child do to earn a place in the kingdom? (Luke 18:15-17)

Next, comes the rich young ruler, who went away sad because he was not willing to give up his riches and put God first. Why was he sad? Did Jesus say anything about him losing out on the kingdom and being punished for 1000 years? He was sad because he knew he had just rejected eternal life.

Next we see Jesus saying that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Those who heard Him say this were astonished and asked "who then can be saved?" Jesus replies that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to save himself, but it is possible with God. There is NO doubt this is speaking of eternal life, which man CANNOT attain on his own merit.

Jesus goes on to say that whoever has left home or family for the sake of the kingdom of God will receive eternal life. The kingdom of God consists of all believers and they WILL receive eternal life. (Luke 18:29-30)

This whole passage is speaking of eternal life, which is NOT based on works as your kingdom salvation requires.

I think you have become so obsessed with this kingdom theology that you have been blinded to the truth of scripture.

 

We certainly agree on this whole topic, Amy. Someday I hope you will see the same connection with free will. Man's pride makes it very difficult to give up the sense of taking credit for something.

Kingdom: I can't earn my way into heaven by works, but I can take credit for earning my way into the kingdom with works.

Free will: I can't earn my way into heaven by works, but at least I can take credit for making the right decision.

 

Thanks NP. I think we agree on a whole lot of things. We agree that man (or me) can take NO credit for our salvation. It is all of God. We just disagree on the mechanics of it. I don't want that to hinder our friendship though. It doesn't for me. :saint:

:godisgood:

and

:jesus: is Lord!

Total agreement!

 

This is true. Good post.

Where Jesus commands "DO" He is not speaking of "Faith". On the one hand we have discipleship. On the other we have Relationship.

If you will not submit to disciplship (take up your cross and follow Me) you cannot receive rulership (if we suffer with Him we shall also reign with Him).

 

I thought we already did. It's a context of works. Plain and simple.

This is a statement of WORKS.

Ah yes again more proof of what I have been saying. This is talking about entrance into the kingdom of God. Eternal life is entrance into the kingdom. The kingdom of God is equated to the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew. This is not talking about the endless ages, but it's talking about the coming kingdom of the Messiah. That is the context. Now if you want to say this is "eternal salvation" then you are going to have to accpet a works based salvation that leads to life that has a beginning and an end.

Context simply doesn't allow anything else.

But once again the Bible doesn't equate the phrase eternal life with everlasting life in the endless ages. That is a man-made transition that Scripture doesn't speak to. And once again eternal salvation is NOT an inheritance. Inheritance is a family matter. This rich young ruler was ALREADY a part of the family. Notice that Jesus did NOT tell him that he doesn't have an inheritance coming to him. He was part of the family. He just didn't want to "do" what was necessary to receive that inheritance.

Context simply doesn't allow for any other view. That's the amazing thing about Scripture. It is written in such a way that if we will let Scripture speak for itself it will never lead us astray.

 

There is not one shread of evidence in scripture that supports a born again believer or even an OT saint that will spend even 1 second in the lake of fire. That is because of the FACT that Jesus took ALL the punishment for our sins. God will only punish those whose sins have not been forgiven, that is...unbelievers.


You are still relying on your own works to avoid punishment. I will rely on the finished work of the Lord Christ, by whose stripes I am healed.

He that believes on the Lord Jesus Christ is under NO condemnation.

 

Amen. J Jump would also say Amen! I am sure of it. Because he knows the diference between Hell and the LOF.

Then explain this verse.

 

Lacy, JJump most certainly says that the unfaithful Christian will spend 1000 years in the lake of fire. And yes, I do know the difference between hell and the lake of fire although I think there are times when they are used interchangeably. I may be wrong on that though.

As for me explaining the scriptures you've quoted, I'm done with that. I am now blue in the face. I do not believe in your kingdom exclusion doctrine. Period.

However, if it is true, then God will surely reveal it to me as He always has.

God Bless.

:saint:

 

You remind me of one of those blind brothers trying to figure out what the elephant was by feeling of different parts.

Philippians 2:12-13
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

We will cast our crowns down ultimately at Christ's feet honoring him as the one who "earned them in us".

But what do you do with the "Wll done, thou good and faithful servant". Do you ignore it? Edit it? Magically declare it hypothetical?

Is God just messing with us when he says:

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

or

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

 

No. He doesn't. And all the saying so won't make it so. Ask him.

Study it out.

Then why make a statement like that in the first place. I've proven my doctrine with scripture. Getting blue in the face proves nothing.

You say God will not punish a believer. I showed you scripture after scripture that says He will. You can't just ignore them.

Now you are talking!

Lacy

 

How do you expect God to reveal something to you that you have already determined to be false? That's like the man on top of the house with flood waters below that turned away the helicopter, the row boat and the motor boat and all the rescue attempts because he was praying that God would rescue him.

But what I'm still curious about what you are doing with the warning passages that you have said are given to believers? Have you determined that they aren't given to believers now or that believers can lose their eternal salvation?

 

If that didn't happen, I'd still believe in pre-trib rapture, and salvation by free-will choice.

 

And with all due respect I would say that wasn't God that revealed that to you, but I know that you could say the same of what I believe. Only time will tell.

 

The context is works.

It's not about our common salvation. No works on our part are involved for that.

However, works are talked about an awful lot, in relation to our wages.

What are wages?

Wages are what you earn. There are several words in the KJV translated as wages, and they are all something that you earn, but are from different perspectives.

In Luke 3:14, we have a group of people saying, "What shall we do?" The verse says, "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."

He doesn’t say, “Throw down your spear and quit the army”. He gives them instruction on how they should behave as soldiers. There were many soldiers stationed in the area, and many of them helped the publicans, and as such stood to gain by immoral means. Even other soldiers, other than the ones helping publicans, often stood to gain by extortion through several means.
They ask him, “What shall we do?” Works.

The first part of his response is, “Do violence to no man”. This is a common expression in ancient Greek, and it's quite common in the LXX, but it's found only in this passage in the NT. The literal meaning of the word is to shake thoroughly, and thereby, means to thoroughly terrify. It came to mean to extort money or property by intimidating. It was a process of blackmail to which Socrates referred. This act was a constant temptation to soldiers, not only to try to get some booty from those being intimidated, but if they didn’t pay up, the soldiers would turn them in for rewards offered for arresting those committing certain crimes. But, might does not make right in the eyes of God.

This ties in with the second instruction: “Neither accuse any falsely.” The soldiers would often intimidate someone, using physical force, for monetary gain, but people would stand to gain by informing on those committing certain crimes. Accusing someone falsely could gain a nice little reward, or could exact revenge upon an enemy. (We never see this happening today...)

He doesn’t tell the soldiers to quit soldiering, but he does tell them quit intimidating and quit falsely accusing people. But, he also told them something else: “And be content with your wages.” Discontent with wages was a primary complaint of many of the mercenary soldiers. The word for “wages”, “opsOnion”, was originally anything cooked and bought. From “opson”, which means “cooked food”, and “Oneomai”, which means “to buy”. It was originally anything eaten with bread, such as broiled fish, and it came to mean whatever is bought to be eaten with bread, and then it came to mean a soldier’s pay or allowance. “OpsOnion”. “Rations”; “pay”; “wages”. It wasn't a free gift, it was earned.

This word is used in only four places in the NT. 1 Corinthians 9:7 uses this word. It says, “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?” That word “charges” is the same word. In other words, “Who goes to war supplying his own rations or wages”. Who provides our rations or our wages? God. In 2 Corinthians 11:8, Paul is speaking and he says, “I robbed other churches, taking wages [of them], to do you service.”

What I want you to see is that in Romans 6:23 it says, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. "

Rations; pay; wages; food.

Death (thanatos) is the diet of sin. It’s the rations of sin. It's what you earn.

This thanatos is what you earn. This aionian life is a gift. Can you show me a single example in the Bible in which being born is referred to as a gift? (To the one being born; a baby is called a gift to the parents.)

Do we as saved individuals sin? If so, what are the wages of that sin?

Let's look at an extra verse in this passage: Romans 6:22-23 says, “But now being made free from [the] sin (of lawlessness), and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of [the] sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”] “Being made free from the sin”. There is the definite article “the” before sin in the Greek, and that's an important thing that was omitted in the KJV. Because of the definite article “the” before the word “sin”, and sin being singular in number, it is the sin of lawlessness because of the context and also because of 1 John 3:4: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law [lawlessness]: for [the] sin is the transgression of the law [lawlessness]."

"Transgresseth the law" is "anomia" or "lawlessness", and the sin [the definite article is also in the Greek, but omitted in the KJV here] is lawlessness. It's doint what is right in your own eyes.

The wages of the sin is death. You earn thanatos death.

Do you earn being saved or not? Are works involved in whether or not you are saved?

What is aionian life?

 

All true. There are some simple tests you can apply to these things, although they're certainly not foolproof.

1. Given that one or the other were true, which would more likely glorify God?

2. Which is the simplest reading of the text? (For example, do I have to assume Jesus keeps switching topics mid-sentence in order to draw my conclusions?)

Alternate way of phrasing #2: Does the text make sense as is, or do I need to filter it through a secret decoder ring in order to understand it? If it makes sense as is, then put away the decoder ring.

 

Uh, #2, especially the alternate phrasing.

Maybe that's why I can't understand the ME doctrine. I lost my decoder ring.

 

And this is part of why I think that preachers need to preach from the original languages, and if they did, there would be far fewer denominations and far fewer splits within those denominations.

But, when you hold men as being infallible and reject the words as written (or as closely as we have them that they were written), you are going to have contradictions, and are going to have to ignore large parts, or are going to have to say, "Well, those warnings to saved people aren't really to saved people, because someone who is realy, really, really, TRULY saved, wouldn't do that."

When you realize that there are many different words for "male offspring", denoting different levels of maturity and position, but are translated as "child" and "son" interchangeably, you see a difference. When you realize that "hell" and "lake of fire" are not synonymous, and hell is used only as a warning (it's also simply "the grave", and also a place of confinement for angels in the KJV) to saved people, you see a difference. When you realize that "aionian" is limited in duration, and that there are temporal warnings and everlasting warnings given to people, the differences are obvious.

(As an aside to this conversation about "aionian", it's interesting that universalists see that this does not mean "forever", so they ignore the warnings about forever, and think that everyone will be saved eventually. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just as we are justified forever by Jesus, but we are also commanded that we must justify ourselves continuously, are not two mutually exclusive ideas.)

But, those things don't sound good, and those things don't fill the pews, so we ignore them, we ignore the original languages, we ignore the evolution of the English language, and ignore the possibility that we might just be wrong about something that's an uncomfortable subject.

 

LOL! Well, that's how I feel about pre-trib rapture. The order of events is really obvious if you just read the text plainly.

The explanations I read from pre-tribbers is incredibly convoluted. They mix symbolism with literal definitions as needed to support their conclusion. When the going gets really tough, they add a liberal sprinkling of polydesnootin (it's a joke, laugh) to rearrange a whole bunch of sequential events into the order they want them to occur. Filter it all through a secret decoder ring, and you get pre-trib rapture.

 

Some of the post (but not necessarily the links provided, as I simply do not remember exactly which one said what, of the links in this post) is probably necessarily oversimplified. I fully agree that Lordship Salvation 'flows' from Calvinism (but not necessarily Calvin, himself, but rather the Canons of Dordt), as I stated in another thread. Let me add that some of it flows from Arminianism (again, not necessarily Arminius, but the outgrowth of the Articles of Remonstrance), as well.

The real issue for the Lordship Salvationists is that of "Perseverance". And I have said before, it makes no difference to me, as a "free gracer", or even to the teaching, whether or not one "'had it' and lost it", somehow, or "never really 'had it' to begin with". In the final analysis, "they don't 'have it.'"

The Lordship Salvationist demands to be able to judge this. And that is (one of) my primary disagreement(s) with th at teaching.

Jesus is Lord, already, and nothing you or I or anyone else can do can accomplish one iota toward "making Him Lord" (of our lives).

It can't be done!
We're too late!
You can't "make Him Lord!"
God has already beat all of us to it!
God already made Jesus the King of kings, Lord of Lords, and Lord of all!

And, IMO, it is an insult and a slam to the Lord Jesus Christ - God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, and an intrusion into the Divine Authority and a questining of the Divine veracity, to suggest any of us could ever possibly "make Him Lord" of anything!

Ed

 

Oh yeah! Guess my last post shows that now, most all "the usual suspects", including me, have now arrived at the "scene of the crime."

This should save Captain Renault some time! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed