Lordship Salvation?

[npetreley]

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

That sounds really good, but I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying the difference boils down to those who want Jesus to be their Lord, and those who would rather have no Lord above them. Jesus is Lord no matter what any of us want. That's pretty obvious.

I repeat, however, that perserverence of the saints has nothing to do with Lordship Salvation, at least the way I hear it preached. Lordship Salvation is about accepting Jesus as your Lord in order to be saved. Perserverence of the saints is about the evidence of your salvation.

On a personal level, I don't necessarily agree that all saints will perservere. The above is more about how I believe it lines up (or doesn't line up) with LS.

 

[EdSutton]

Really? Then why did he ask Jesus "what must I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18:18
18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Luke 18
23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Eternal life=kingdom of God

They are one and the same.

The rich young ruler wanted to hear that he had done enough to qualify for an inheritance of "eternal life". He was unwilling or unable to "get it" that this 'eternal life' is a "free gift", not something you earn or qualify for.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Owned.

.....

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

That's not everlasting life that is discipleship. Discipleship is only for the eternally saved.

These two simple statements have summed it all up "in a nutshell." I agree, fully.

Discipleship is not salvation!

Nor does discipleship "lead to salvation."

Get it backwards and you wind up with Judas, the Pharisees, the rich young ruler, and the Lordship Salvationists.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

...because someone who is realy, really, really, TRULY saved, wouldn't do that."

Again, summing up the theology of Lordship salvation in a nutshell!

I absolutely detest and continually call the hand of anyone who uses any part(s) of the emboldened phrase, or its cousins like the one I have heard (and hate) the most, which is, "really, genuinely, and truly saved" as to the fact that -

"The Bible doesn't talk like that!"

It never says anything about 'being' or 'getting' "saved" with any of those qualifiers in its pages!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

That sounds really good, but I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying the difference boils down to those who want Jesus to be their Lord, and those who would rather have no Lord above them. Jesus is Lord no matter what any of us want. That's pretty obvious.

I repeat, however, that perserverence of the saints has nothing to do with Lordship Salvation, at least the way I hear it preached. Lordship Salvation is about accepting Jesus as your Lord in order to be saved. Perserverence of the saints is about the evidence of your salvation.

On a personal level, I don't necessarily agree that all saints will perservere. The above is more about how I believe it lines up (or doesn't line up) with LS.

With all respect here on this, I suggest you study Lordship Salvation a little bit more, and then get back to me.

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

Again, summing up the theology of Lordship salvation in a nutshell!

I absolutely detest and continually call the hand of anyone who uses any part(s) of the emboldened phrase, or its cousins like the one I have heard (and hate) the most, which is, "really, genuinely, and truly saved" as to the fact that -

"The Bible doesn't talk like that!"

It never says anything about 'being' or 'getting' "saved" with any of those qualifiers in its pages!

Ed

I just wanted to quote this because it quotes me, and I want to make sure that it conveys the tone in which I wrote what I wrote. I have the exact same attitude toward the phrase as you do.

 

[EdSutton]

I just wanted to quote this because it quotes me, and I want to make sure that it conveys the tone in which I wrote what I wrote. I have the exact same attitude toward the phrase as you do.

Maybe I wasn't as lear as I should have been. You are the one who accurately summed up the teaching of Lordship salvation in a nutshell. I was fully agreeing with you.

Ed

 

[Amy.G]

The rich young ruler wanted to hear that he had done enough to qualify for an inheritance of "eternal life". He was unwilling or unable to "get it" that this 'eternal life' is a "free gift", not something you earn or qualify for.

Ed

If that were the case, why was he sad? I think Jesus pointed out to him that money was his God, his idol. Nothing can come before God. When we come to God for salvation, we are willing to give anything for it because we have realized our sinful and depraved lives. We realize our need for God and call out to Him for mercy.

The rich ruler wasn't willing to let go of himself and reach out for God even it meant giving up eternal life. There are plenty of people just like that today. In fact, I'd say we were all like that at one time.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Maybe I wasn't as lear as I should have been. You are the one who accurately summed up the teaching of Lordship salvation in a nutshell. I was fully agreeing with you.

Ed

Oh, I knew you were, but with the part you quoted, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand.

 

[J. Jump]

The rich ruler wasn't willing to let go of himself and reach out for God even it meant giving up eternal life.

Amy it amazes me you keep saying the right thing, but you don't even realize it. Willing to let go of self is a work. If any man wants to follow after Jesus he must take up his cross daily and follow Him. That is works. That is discipleship.

He wasn't willing to be a disciple. He was a part of the family, but he didn't want to be a disciple. Those aren't the same things. HUGE difference.

And yes he was willing to give up his age-lasting inheritance not to follow The Christ, which is exactly what you have said.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy it amazes me you keep saying the right thing, but you don't even realize it. Willing to let go of self is a work. If any man wants to follow after Jesus he must take up his cross daily and follow Him. That is works. That is discipleship.

He wasn't willing to be a disciple. He was a part of the family, but he didn't want to be a disciple. Those aren't the same things. HUGE difference.

And yes he was willing to give up his age-lasting inheritance not to follow The Christ, which is exactly what you have said.

He thought he was part of the family because he was a Jew who followed the commandments, but no one is part of the family unless they have faith. He proved his lack of faith when he turned and walked away from the Messiah.

 

[J. Jump]

He thought he was part of the family because he was a Jew who followed the commandments, but no one is part of the family unless they have faith. He proved his lack of faith when he turned and walked away from the Messiah.

But that's not what the text says. We can only deal with what the text says. And Jesus NEVER says he was not entitled to an inheritance. If he wasn't a part of the family then Jesus would have simply told him he needed to become a member of the family. But instead He told him what he needed to "do" to make sure he got his inheritance.

Your idea simply is not supported by what the text says.

And to add a question how can you say he had no faith when he believed enough to ask the right person the right question?

 

[EdSutton]

If that were the case, why was he sad? I think Jesus pointed out to him that money was his God, his idol. Nothing can come before God. When we come to God for salvation, we are willing to give anything for it because we have realized our sinful and depraved lives. We realize our need for God and call out to Him for mercy.

The rich ruler wasn't willing to let go of himself and reach out for God even it meant giving up eternal life. There are plenty of people just like that today. In fact, I'd say we were all like that at one time.

Amy.G, you have inadvertantly 'hit the nail dead center with your head' as to the issue. So I'll repeat it. Salvation is not nor does not come from us "giving" anything for it.

God is the giver, here, and the only one. He gave his only begotten Son; God the Son gave his life on a cross on Mt. Moriah, for us. He gives unto them eternal life. Salvation is a gift.

We are only the receivers of His salvation, and that through repent/believe/faith, which is BTW, an all in one 'act'. It is in no way conditioned on us giving God anything, at all. It cost us nothing at all; it 'cost' God His Son, and it 'cost' the Son His precious blood and His own life.

And that is in 'total' contrast to the discipleship of following Christ. It may and can cost any of us who are believers everything, up to and even including our lives, and we witness that fact even today (try preaching Christ openly in defiance of the 'authorities' in such places as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, No. Korea, etc. to name just a few), as well as the martyrs all throughout church history, not to mention those in the OT "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, slain at the temple, as well as those slain '"between the testaments", those who may yet be slain durug the 'church age', and those who will be slain in the future during the events spoken of in The Revelation.

It costs something to be a disciple, often every material and personal thing one has or holds dear, including prison, witness Paul, Peter, up to some even today. It has cost some believers their wives or husbands and/or their families. You name it, discipleship has probably cost it to someone, somewhere.

Just don't confuse and confute the two things of salvation and discipleship.

That is the error of Lordship Salvation, in a nutshell. In a vernacular way of phrasing it, Lordship Salvation amounts to attempting to "push a rope." And "rope pushing" works no better in Bible teachings than it does in everyday life.

But the old "Baptist phrase" (although I do not know if its origin is really Baptist) of "just give your heart to the Lord" or "give one's heart to Jesus" is simply a platitiude that is unScriptural, in its entirety.

God said He would give us a new heart.

He didn't say anything about a trade.

I normally would have cited the Scriptures for all I said here, but simply do not have enough time to look up each one before evening services.

And as it is also business meeting night (and my first session as the Moderator at our church), they kinda' are expecting me to show up, I would guess! :laugh:

So gotta' run for now.

Ed

 

[Amy.G]

Ed, we must have got our wires crossed somewhere 'cause I agree that we can't give God anything for our salvation. Maybe I hit my head too hard on that nail!

 

[npetreley]

With all respect here on this, I suggest you study Lordship Salvation a little bit more, and then get back to me.

Ed

I'll do that sometime. I freely admit I'm not up on it. I only know what I've heard taught on the radio. I don't agree with what I've heard, though.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lordship Salvation is a False Gospel

This is a good summary of so-called Lordship Salvation.

Luk 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luk 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.

Christ didn't ask anyone to believe that he existed. Even the demons do that. He asked them to "Come and follow Me." If you think that's works based salvation so be it.

Deny-self, bear the cross and following are what should be the heart and desire of a born again Christian.

Demanding an upfront promise to do the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mture Christian is a man-centered, message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).

Lordship Salvation is a works oriented, false gospel!


LM

 

[npetreley]

But that's not what the text says. We can only deal with what the text says. And Jesus NEVER says he was not entitled to an inheritance. If he wasn't a part of the family then Jesus would have simply told him he needed to become a member of the family. But instead He told him what he needed to "do" to make sure he got his inheritance.

Your idea simply is not supported by what the text says.

I beg to differ. The text certainly does not say what you want it to say. It uses eternal life and kingdom interchangably. You have to mangle the text to separate them.

As for what you think the text says, not all of it is reliable in the way you claim it is. Just because they young guy said he had done all those things from his youth doesn't mean he actually did. He could have said he was a blue alien with pink blood. Just because he said it and it was accurately recorded doesn't make it true. Just because Jesus didn't say, "You're a liar" in plain language doesn't mean he was telling the truth.

You may laugh, but what he said was on par with saying he was a blue alien with pink blood. He said he followed the law from his youth. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Jesus knew better and exposed him as a fraud by asking him to do something Jesus knew darn well he wouldn't do.

Also, you've got a works-based gospel if you think he was part of the family because he followed the law from his youth. That's not how you get saved.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

If that were the case, why was he sad? I think Jesus pointed out to him that money was his God, his idol. Nothing can come before God. The rich ruler wasn't willing to let go of himself and reach out for God even it meant giving up eternal life. There are plenty of people just like that today. In fact, I'd say we were all like that at one time.

The young man's problem was covetousness. He loved and worshipped his wealth above God.

I wrote a chapter on this one incident. I did a synopsis at my blog. See The Rich Young Ruler.


LM

 

[J. Jump]

It uses eternal life and kingdom interchangably. You have to mangle the text to separate them.

EXACTLY! That's the whole point that I have been trying to make. Eternal life and the kingdom are the exact same thing. Thefore eternal life does not mean what most of Christendom would have us believe it means today.

It would be better understood as age-lasting life. It is life for the age. What age? Well the age to come. The Kingdom Age. It's not forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. It's speaking of the coming 1,000-year reign of the Messiah.

Just because they young guy said he had done all those things from his youth doesn't mean he actually did. He could have said he was a blue alien with pink blood. Just because he said it and it was accurately recorded doesn't make it true. Just because Jesus didn't say, "You're a liar" in plain language doesn't mean he was telling the truth.

Well here is where you and I are going to differ. To say that you are speculating. I fully believe that this is important enough that had the man been lying Jesus would have made that abundantly clear.

Just like some folks say that the Lord, Lord criers were lying because they said they cast out demons. However the text doesn't say they were lying and Jesus never makes mention of them not telling the truth.

I think it is very dangerous to go beyond the text. It says he had done these things and we are given no reason whatsoever to believe this man or the Lord, Lord criers were lying.

Jesus knew better

Again He didn't call him a liar. He didn't even suggest it, so to say that He knew the man was lying and didn't say anything is speculation at best.

Also, you've got a works-based gospel if you think he was part of the family because he followed the law from his youth. That's not how you get saved.

I never said that following the law from his youth is what saved him, so no I don't have a works-based gospel.

By the way prior to Jesus' birth how were folks saved do you think? I think this is CRITICAL to understanding Scripture and I think it is TERRIBLY misunderstood by Christendom today, which leads to a great many of the mistakes that folks make in Scripture.