Lordship Salvation?

[webdog]

And there you have answered your own question. You once believed in something you thought was real. Then you stopped believing in Santa.

Apples and oranges, as you are talking about two separate demographics, one being a child with limited ability to reason.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Helpful Reading

Hello:

Because of numerous commitments I am not able to keep pace with this thread. Now I see another has begun.

I think most of you know I have written a book that identifies and refutes the errors in the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.

My blog site has over 70 articles, primarily on Lordship Salvation.

A number of you realize Lordship Salvation is a false gospel, a man-centered message that frustrates grace. I have you primarily in mind when I say you can find a great deal of information at my site that thoroughly documents the false teaching of Lordship Salvation.

As for those of you who have been drawn into the Lordship position I can only hope and pray you will one day be brought back to a balanced biblical position on the Gospel. For now, if you preach/teach that lost men must make a commitment to live in submission to the Lorship of Christ in order to be born again, you are teaching a false, works based, gospel.

In any event, visit my site In Defense of the Gospel to read much more on the Lordship position. I also address some issues with Zane Hodges, for example: repentance and the "crossless" gospel he has adopted.


LM

 

[npetreley]

A number of you realize Lordship Salvation is a false gospel, a man-centered message that frustrates grace. I have you primarily in mind when I say you can find a great deal of information at my site that thoroughly documents the false teaching of Lordship Salvation.

I'm about as far from being a free-willer as they get, but I can't help but agree 100% with the fact that LS (or what little I know of it) frustrates grace.

 

[Hope of Glory]

The thing you are missing is that santa is NOT real.

To those who believe in him, he is real. And they can prove it just as much as you or I can prove that God is real.

But, just like you, most of them will one day stop believing in Santa. (Although, I did see a remarkably familiar looking guy out salmon fishing a few years back...:wavey

But, the point is, that you can believe in something or someone with every ounce of your being, and then stop believing.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Do you think the jailer knew they were speaking in the aorist, punctiliar action?
Jailer: "excuse me Paul, are you using "believe" in the punctiliar action? I need to know so that I can make my decision."

Well, since the language that it's written in is that precise, then he would know, if that's the language that was being spoken.

However, the point is, God has written it down for us, in precise, easy to understand language, and except for the addition of the word "Christ" by the TR, every text and manuscript that I've ever seen, uses the exact same wording:

Believe [aorist] on the Lord Jesus and you will [indicative] be saved.

Here, I'll prove it to you, although I doubt it will do any good:

οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Πίστευσον ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν, καὶ σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου.

 

[Faith alone]

Just saw this, so I have not been involved in this debate and am not familiar with all the paths this thread has gone down... hope I am not repeating.

I see that Hope of Glory commented on the aorist tense used in Acts 16:31. That's a strong argument for those who say that faith must endure. I agree that this is evidence that any continuing is not assumed, though to say that the aorist tense is punctiliar (point-in-time) is perhaps a little strong. The aorist tense essentially just says that something happened, without saying much about how - in the indicative mood.

But OTOtherH, the present tense is much abused. True, it is linear (not continuous), in general, though that only talks about the kind of action at the moment of the action. It says nothing about its duration, that it endures forever.

For example, I could say that I was playing catch with one of my sons outside at 2 PM. No one would assume that I would still be doing so at midnight!

Also, the present tense is linear in Greek. There is no present tense that is punctiliar. There is the imperfect tense form of past tense which is linear, and the aorist form of past tense which is punctiliar as well as the perfect tense which has aspects of both. We don't have that in either the present or future tense. So think about it: how could someone indicate some sort of punctiliar action in the present? It would be impossible. Are you going to tell me that it is not possible to describe point-in-time kind of present tense action?! It would be impossible to describe someone hitting one nail with a hammer - impossible.

So what has happened is that in the indicative mood that the present tense performs a sort of double duty. It CAN be used to indicate punctiliar kind of action, as well as linearity in action. Fact.

Let me give an example of this that I've seen Zane Hodges use:

John 1:12 But to all who have received him (Aorist) – those who believe (present articular participle) in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children.

The phrase "all who received Him" is clearly equated with "those who believe in His name." The 1st is aorist and the 2nd is present tense. Obviously if we received Christ we did so at a point in time. Hence we also believed in Him at a point in time. I submit that the present tense in John 1:12 is punctiliar. Nothing else makes sense - context. In the indicative mood, kind of action is not so critical as in the other moods. Such claims that faith must be linear - enduring forever in fact - are based on 1st-year Greek text books. Look at the more advanced ones. That is simply not how it works.

Our eternal life is based upon coming to believe in Him. Let's not make too much of the tense. It happened at some point in history. We cannot use the present tense to say anything about the length of the duration of the believing - that's misusing the Greek tense. You can check this out in AT Robertson's Greek grammar, BTW, as well as in Wallace's grammar ("Beyond the Basics"). I can provide the specfic pages, if someone is interested.

So the question is whether if one stops believing if they are still "saved." Let's consider it. Some say that those who stop believing never actually believed in the first place. My reaction to that is that either we believed or we did not. Only God knows definitely, of course. But according to 1 John 5:11-13 John expects those who have been re-born to have absolute confidence that they have gained eternal life. This is based on simply knowing that we have trusted in Jesus Christ. There can be no genuine assurance of salvation in such a philosophy that says our believing must endure to the end. That's very sad. John Calvin said that "assurance is of the essence of salvation." IOW, if we believed in Christ, the natural result will be assurance. That is why we must be very careful not to give someone who has just been saved that assurance - allow the Spirit to give them assurance.

I think we need to think about something else... When someone has trusted in Christ according to 2 Corinthains 5:17 they are a new creation - the old has passed away and the new has come. Either that's true, or it is not. If it's true then it absolutely must be based on something that happened at a point in time. In John 5:24 Jesus said that a person who has believed in Jesus Christ has "crossed over" from death into life. He will not come into judgment. Period.

The issue I have with the LS position here is that it is wishy-washy. Either we are saved based on faith, that occured at a point in time, or we are saved by faith that endures - and hence we cannot ever know until we stand before Christ that we have gained eternal life. Only based on what the apostle John said in 1 John 5 above, I think he would have a big problem with this.

So don't let anyone put you off by saying that the present tense is linear (or continuous). In the indicative mood, it absolutely can be either punctiliar or linear - context will be key. And it absolutely does not imply that the action endures for a long time. And obviously, when we trusted in Christ (at a point in time, right?) we became a child of God. God did it. If our salvation depends on lasting faith, then we either did not become a child of God - God did not regenerate us - or our salvation is dependent upon a faith that endures - meaning it performs works - that is simply put, salvation by works. I realize that no LS adherant would agree, and that is not what they mean, nor do I mean to imply that they teach a salvation by faith plus works - they do not. But logically, what else can be concluded? It's very fuzzy. I think our Lord wants it to be crystal clear. I am convinced that He wants us to have convictions that we ARE children of God based upon faith at a point-in-time.

We can't have salvation (or justification) based on faith alone, and also have it based on a faith that never ends. I understand the logic that assumes that if someone really trusted in Christ, they will always trust in Him. But realistically, we all struggle with our faith from time to time. If John the Baptizer later doubted whether Jesus was really the Messiah, then it can happen to us. And don't try to tell me that John never really believed earlier! He was saved! Period. When he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" is his faith not clear? But when we then tell someone that this means they may not have ever really believed, what does that do to their assurance?

IMO if we seriously acknowledge that when a person has trusted in Christ that God has changed him - he has become a child of God. He is not the same. God did it. We simply believed. And because we are now children of God there will be changes - there will be works evidencing what God did. But we need to be very careful about saying that we must endure to the end in such works, or faith, otherwise we never really believed. We must not assume that genuine faith never ends or that we will continue to grow in Christ throughout our lives. Paul referred to Demas and Mark who began to follow the world - getting caught up in it. Mark came back to following Christ closely - Paul said that he would be useful to him. Demas was also saved. Do you really think that Paul would have used someone in ministry who was not a believer?! And the scriptures do not tell us if Demas ever came back to following Christ.

Some Christians are allowing the Spirit to cause them to grow in their sanctification, and others are not so faithful. Those who are faithful will be rewarded. But Paul talked about carnal ("fleshly" - literally) as well as spiritual Christians. He also spoke of the natural person, who is not saved. (1 Corinthians 2 and 3) Some Christians are not spiritual. (See Hebrews 5:11-14 as well.)

Nuf' said.

Thx,

FA

 

[Hope of Glory]

So don't let anyone put you off by saying that the present tense is linear (or continuous). In the indicative mood, it absolutely can be either punctiliar or linear - context will be key. And it absolutely does not imply that the action endures for a long time. And obviously, when we trusted in Christ (at a point in time, right?) we became a child of God.

You are quite correct in this, and this is similar to what I stated about a thousand pages back (and maybe on a former incarnation of this subject).

But, if something is dependent upon "believe" in the present tense, and that believing stops, then that which is dependent upon it stops as well.

Also, the present tense, is by necessity punctiliar after a fashion. You may very well believe until you die. Then, you stop believing, at least as far as others are concerned.

But, whether you believe for a moment, or believe for a lifetime, after the fact, you would write about it as an event; aorist. An example that I have used is that while actually building the temple, you would say, "We are building [present tense] the temple." Implication that it is an event, but it is ongoing action at the time you are speaking. However, after you're finished, you would say, "We built [an event] the temple." (This doesn't touch on future aorist, etc., obviously.)

So, you have the answer to "What must I do to be saved?" as "Believe", which is an aorist, active, imperative; it's a command, with no indication of compliance, and it's an event. More than one of my grammars says that "believe" in the aorist is simple mental acknowledgement, and I believe that Robertson is one of them. (However, I'm not going to look it up at this very moment.)

The result of believing on the Lord Jesus in the aorist is that "you will be saved", which is indicative. If you believe, it will happen. Unless God is a liar.

However, in John 3:16, it's the one who is believing (present, active, participle, which is synonymous with "faith") might or might not have aionian life.

We're saved by "believe", but commanded to live by "faith". Hebrews 11:6 says, “But without faith it is impossible to please him.” We have to live by faith that we might be pleasing to God, and that's where the grace of God comes in.

What is the grace of God? 2 Corinthians 12:9 says, “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” How do we get the power of Christ? The answer to that question is in Romans 5:2: “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” If we make shipwreck of the faith, then grace will not be available for us to endure in times of testing. (You can't make shipwreck of "believe" in the aorist; as you stated, you either believe or you don't.) We need the grace of God, if we expect to serve Him in an acceptable manner.

We need to have grace so that we may serve God acceptably. Hebrews 12:28: “Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” Not just serve God, but serve God acceptably.

As a saved individual, we should want to serve God, and we should want to serve him acceptably. But, there's no guarantee that any saved person will do so.

But, there is the guarantee, based on the promise of God, that if you believe, even if you do nothing else, and even if you stop believing, that you will be saved.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

So lets list the heresies being espoused here:

1. Even unbelievers will be saved.

2. Born again Christians may spend 1000 years in the flames of hell

3. There are two salvations to obtain. The first is obtained by believing on Christ for a couple of minutes (or maybe even a second or less than a second, who knows?) and the second is an earned salvation based on works alone and has nothing to do with the shed blood of jesus Christ.

This isnt just a matter of disagreement on secondary issues. This is a perversion of primary issues.


Galatians1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[J. Jump]

So lets list the heresies being espoused here:

1. Even unbelievers will be saved.

2. Born again Christians may spend 1000 years in the flames of hell

3. There are two salvations to obtain. The first is obtained by believing on Christ for a couple of minutes (or maybe even a second or less than a second, who knows?) and the second is an earned salvation based on works alone and has nothing to do with the shed blood of jesus Christ.

This isnt just a matter of disagreement on secondary issues. This is a perversion of primary issues.

I see you are up to your same old deception. You know purprosefully mis-stating someone's position in hopes of drawing people away is just flat out dishonest.

Who has said all unbelievers will be saved?

"Christians" will not spend anytime in hell because if they are "Christians" that means they are Christ-like in their behavior. Now there are some eternally saved folks that will spend the duration of the kingdom in outer darkness where they is wailing and gnashing of teeth. But even the gospel of the kingdom is split on whether that is actually hell or not. So to say that all these folks believe that is to be mistaken.

We receive the gift of everlasting life the very moment we believe in the Substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died and shed His blood in our place a sinner. When we believe on His finished, perfect works that were done on our behalf because of our inability we are saved.

How long do you think it takes to believe that? The very moment you believe that you are saved.

And you couldn't be more incorrect in your assessment of the salvation of the soul. It is NOT based on works alone and it has EVERYTHING to do with the shed blood of Jesus Christ!

Now maybe you need to learn a little more about what we believe before you go spouting off on your little lists, or maybe you just need to be honest in your representations. I let you decide which it is.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I see you are up to your same old deception. You know purprosefully mis-stating someone's position in hopes of drawing people away is just flat out dishonest.

Who has said all unbelievers will be saved?

I never said this.

"Christians" will not spend anytime in hell because if they are "Christians" that means they are Christ-like in their behavior. Now there are some eternally saved folks that will spend the duration of the kingdom in outer darkness where they is wailing and gnashing of teeth. But even the gospel of the kingdom is split on whether that is actually hell or not. So to say that all these folks believe that is to be mistaken.

Which is hell

And you couldn't be more incorrect in your assessment of the salvation of the soul. It is NOT based on works alone and it has EVERYTHING to do with the shed blood of Jesus Christ!

I never said anything about salvation of the soul.

Now maybe you need to learn a little more about what we believe before you go spouting off on your little lists, or maybe you just need to be honest in your representations. I let you decide which it is.

I have read enough of chitwoods rubbish as well as that same rubbish espoused here on this board. And the list is corret although you have distorted it yourself.

 

[J. Jump]

I never said this.

Seems as though you did - So lets list the heresies being espoused here:

1. Even unbelievers will be saved.

And this is just a post above mine. We're still on the same page and you are denying what you said. :laugh:

I never said anything about salvation of the soul.

Directly you did not. However the whole topic of what you call a second salvation is really talking about the salvation of the soul. I just used the proper terminology as Scripture does.

I have read enough of chitwoods rubbish as well as that same rubbish espoused here on this board. And the list is corret although you have distorted it yourself.

Well then you need to go back and re-read because you really don't have a clue. Again if you want to put together a "list" at least you could be honest enough not to misrepresent what others believe. I know that's kind of the name of the game when it comes to debates when you can't prove your own doctrines to be correct, but dishonesty is not very becoming of saved individuals.

Your list is incorrect. Now you can stop trying to represent what we believe or you can go back and study to actually find out or what I would suggest is asking. That would be the best solution.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Seems as though you did - So lets list the heresies being espoused here:

1. Even unbelievers will be saved.

And this is just a post above mine. We're still on the same page and you are denying what you said.

So you are denying that you said thse who believe and then stop beileving are saved?

Directly you did not. However the whole topic of what you call a second salvation is really talking about the salvation of the soul. I just used the proper terminology as Scripture does.

What book, chapter, and verse uses the term soul salvation?

Well then you need to go back and re-read because you really don't have a clue. Again if you want to put together a "list" at least you could be honest enough not to misrepresent what others believe. I know that's kind of the name of the game when it comes to debates when you can't prove your own doctrines to be correct, but dishonesty is not very becoming of saved individuals.

When false and heretical doctrines are placed in the light of biblical characterization then those who espouse them will be bothered. And it is you who hasnt proven anything except you think "all of christiandom is wrong".

Your list is incorrect. Now you can stop trying to represent what we believe or you can go back and study to actually find out or what I would suggest is asking. That would be the best solution.

It is quite correct.

 

[J. Jump]

So you are denying that you said thse who believe and then stop beileving are saved?

No I'm not denying that all all, but that's not what you said. You may have meant that, but that's not what you said. Your statement made it sound like we are universalists.

Once a person believes they are saved. That's what Scripture says, so that's what I believe.

Do you believe a person has to continue to believe through their entire lifetime in order to be saved?

What book, chapter, and verse uses the term soul salvation?

Try James 1:21. As netreply says one should be enough. But there's more.

When false and heretical doctrines are placed in the light of biblical characterization then those who espouse them will be bothered. And it is you who hasnt proven anything except you think "all of christiandom is wrong".

And all you've proven is that you can mis-represent folks.

It is quite correct.

I always find this funny that you folks think you know so much that you even know more about our beliefs than we do. You don't, but you can continue to pretend like you do if you want to. Again the more you do it the more it just shows your true colors.

By the way by their fruits we can know them is speaking of teachers and I believe that you are a teacher if I'm not mistaken so the fruit of dishonesty isn't a good fruit is it?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

No I'm not denying that all all, but that's not what you said. You may have meant that, but that's not what you said. Your statement made it sound like we are universalists.

I didnt make it sound like anything. I said that you believe that unbelievers will be saved. That is what you said.

Do you believe a person has to continue to believe through their entire lifetime in order to be saved?

Has to in order to be saved? no. But salvation begins and ends with he who has the power to give it. Any credit for salvation stops their regardless of what Gos may require from us. John1:12,13

Try James 1:21. As netreply says one should be enough. But there's more.

So you and your leader chitwood use this to make a distinction between two different salvations?


And all you've proven is that you can mis-represent folks.

I always find this funny that you folks think you know so much that you even know more about our beliefs than we do. You don't, but you can continue to pretend like you do if you want to. Again the more you do it the more it just shows your true colors.

By the way by their fruits we can know them is speaking of teachers and I believe that you are a teacher if I'm not mistaken so the fruit of dishonesty isn't a good fruit is it?

What I find funny is when false beliefs that cannot be defended are characterized correctly then those who hold to them choke on it.

 

[J. Jump]

I said that you believe that unbelievers will be saved. That is what you said.

NO it's NOT.

You have re-wrote what I and others have said in order to make it sound more harsh. Don't play games.

Has to in order to be saved? no.

Thank you. So a person that stops believing doesn't lose his/her salvation.

So you and your leader chitwood use this to make a distinction between two different salvations?

Yes there are those of us that recoginze that "Scripture" makes a distinction between salvation as it is presented in "Scripture."

What I find funny is when false beliefs that cannot be defended are characterized correctly then those who hold to them choke on it.

You are simply dishonest and people should be wary of you and others like you. It's one thing to say someone is wrong, but when you have to purposely mis-represent their beliefs to win an argument because you can't stand on your own belief system that's just well . . . pathetic. But it is certainly not surprising.

I think you have dug yourself a big enough hole that people that read your material should think twice. Unfortunately there are people that will believe what you say just because you are a "teacher." It's sad society can't think for themselves .

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

NO it's NOT.

You have re-wrote what I and others have said in order to make it sound more harsh. Don't play games.

No sir. i characterized it to present it correctly. The truth can be a big pill. Take a glass of water with it. It really helps.

Thank you. So a person that stops believing doesn't lose his/her salvation.

There is no way to make that assertion in scripture.

Yes there are those of us that recoginze that "Scripture" makes a distinction between salvation as it is presented in "Scripture."

No what you espouse to is two salvations. Which is no where to be found in scripture.

You are simply dishonest and people should be wary of you and others like you. It's one thing to say someone is wrong, but when you have to purposely mis-represent their beliefs to win an argument because you can't stand on your own belief system that's just well . . . pathetic. But it is certainly not surprising.

I think you have dug yourself a big enough hole that people that read your material should think twice. Unfortunately there are people that will believe what you say just because you are a "teacher." It's sad society can't think for themselves .

Dug myself a hole? based on what? because I believe :

1. One death, one resurrection and one salvation
2. The Kingdom of God is eternal. It has no begining and no end, nor is it physical.
3. Only believers of Jesus Christ are saved.
4. Hell is only for Satan and unbelievers.
5. That chitwood, craig, and isuppose faust are teachers of another gospel that will send people to hell.

If that is the hole you are refering to then I am guilty. Yep.

 

[Amy.G]

JJump:

Thank you. So a person that stops believing doesn't lose his/her salvation.

A person who stops belielving is now an unbeliever.

Yes or no.

 

[J. Jump]

A person who stops belielving is now an unbeliever.

Yes or no.

Don't try and justify a badly worded sentence, which was a mistake at best.

But to answer your question no these people in God's Eyes are not unbelievers, because the matter is over and done with the moment they believed. Now in "your" eyes they may be unbelievers, but as long as they are not in God's Eyes that ALL that matters. Is it not?

 

[Amy.G]

Don't try and justify a badly worded sentence, which was a mistake at best.

But to answer your question no these people in God's Eyes are not unbelievers, because the matter is over and done with the moment they believed. Now in "your" eyes they may be unbelievers, but as long as they are not in God's Eyes that ALL that matters. Is it not?

Do you have scripture for that? Where in scripture does God say that a person can stop believing and still be saved?

 

[J. Jump]

No sir. i characterized it to present it correctly.

You keep telling yourself that enough and you will start to believe it. Oh wait you already do. Well that is plainly not what was said, but was your mischaracterized re-write. If it is what I or any other has said then cough up the quote so we can all see it. Otherwise you should apologize, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that's going to happen.

Crow's tough to eat. Maybe try a little salt to choke it down.

No what you espouse to is two salvations. Which is no where to be found in scripture.

Says you, but I've already shown what you have to say should be taken with a grain of uncertainty. I'll trust Scripture over you any day of the week and twice on Sundays if you don't mind.

Dug myself a hole? based on what?

Based on the fact that you deal in dishonesty. That's what it is based on!