Lordship Salvation

[Iconoclast]

The ticket is only when you got caught.

Are you saying this was the only time you have exceeded the speed limit?

Or do you do that on a regular basis?

:laugh: hey Winman....I have a deal for you....I will set my cruise control on 75 here in the mountains...and you can ride your car right in front of me, and we will see if the cruise control maintains that speed coming down a 6% grade out here in the rocky mountains....I will not hit brakes or use the jake break as I know you are in front of me,and you can help me maintain the limit:laugh::laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

This is unbiblical completely as it is a denial of the Supernatural work of salvation setting a person free from sin's dominion.
This is the false idea that passes for Christianity which is unknown to the scripture but those who buy into this "surrender" idea have a flesh based theology...so they find no trouble in a flesh based "Christian" which Paul clearly denies.

/d

there will NEVER be a state of sinless perfection that we attain in this life, as we still have the sin principle at work in us, still have the flesh, and still have those promptings esis to disobey the Lord even aftr being saved!

truth is that while her ein the flesh, we can still chose to sin, and the truth is that we have to rely upon the person of the Holy spirit to keep from submitting to the desires of our flesh!

 

[Yeshua1]

That may not have been what he said, but that seems to be the idea that he is getting at. He is arguing against using the "discipleship" passages in relation to salvation. To me that sounds like he is saying that discipleship is optional, therefore one can be a Christian and not a disciple.

No. we object to using the disciple passages in addition to those clearly telling us that while sinners, we get saved by grace of God alone, received thru faith alone, and THEN we can talk about being disciples of Christ...

And yes, the Lord does allow us to chose badly at times, to do at times bad sinning/or make bad decisions...

The person really saved will wnat to keep on vecoming more like jesus, but the truth is also that we will at times fail, and sometimes badly, but the real Christian will agree with God and repent/forsake, and keep moving on....

Jusy not a seamless 'we all got sauctifed" same time!

 

[Yeshua1]

This has nothing to do with LS.

neither would just assuming, as some LS holders do, that those advocating grace position also teach once saved just keep on sinning!

 

[Winman]

:laugh: hey Winman....I have a deal for you....I will set my cruise control on 75 here in the mountains...and you can ride your car right in front of me, and we will see if the cruise control maintains that speed coming down a 6% grade out here in the rocky mountains....I will not hit brakes or use the jake break as I know you are in front of me,and you can help me maintain the limit:laugh::laugh:

Well, we have lots of steep hills where I live, and I just gear my car down. I rarely have to touch the brakes.

But you might not be that skilled, so no way I want to be in front of you. :tongue3:

The point is, nobody obeys the law all the time, and driving is one of those areas where we all disobey frequently.

I have known a few Lordship Salvation folks. They just invite you to watch them, always boasting how holy they are. From my observation, they are just as sinful as everyone else, maybe more so. They just live in a world of denial.

 

[Iconoclast]

/d

there will NEVER be a state of sinless perfection that we attain in this life, as we still have the sin principle at work in us, still have the flesh, and still have those promptings esis to disobey the Lord even aftr being saved!

truth is that while her ein the flesh, we can still chose to sin, and the truth is that we have to rely upon the person of the Holy spirit to keep from submitting to the desires of our flesh!

No one said anything about sinless perfection.
You are commanded to mortifying sin....not the Holy Spirit.

 

[Winman]

No one said anything about sinless perfection.
You are commanded to mortifying sin....not the Holy Spirit.

Well, there is the problem. Nobody ever quits sinning, so it cannot mean that. So then the question becomes, How sinful can I be and still be saved? Or, How many sins must I commit to prove I am not saved?

This is a recipe for pure confusion. And folks are confused. Google, "how much can I sin and still be saved?" and look at all the hits.

https://www.google.com/search?q=who...7.12812j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

God is not the author of confusion, so this cannot be of God.

No, the scriptures tell us that we can know we are saved if we have believed on Jesus.

1 Jhn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Of course, this promise only applies to those who Jesus actually died for. If Jesus did not die for you personally, then your faith is vain.

Oh boy, more confusion, how can I know if Jesus died for me?

This is the fruit of Lordship Salvation and Limited Atonement; confusion.

 

[Revmitchell]

neither would just assuming, as some LS holders do, that those advocating grace position also teach once saved just keep on sinning!

I don't assume anything in fact I have never said such a thing. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one said anything about sinless perfection.
You are commanded to mortifying sin....not the Holy Spirit.

We are commanded to trust and rely upon the Holy spirit Himself, as he is the ONLY "method' God has equpped us with in order to live as we should for jesus..

paul described for us in romans 7 how a saved person trusting to live right for God fails in his own might, and how we can do that thru and by the might of the Spirit in us...

 

[Revmitchell]

The issue here, much like election, is that Lordship gets defined differently and people talk past one another.

 

[Yeshua1]

The issue here, much like election, is that Lordship gets defined differently and people talk past one another.

And also that each of us think that ONLY OUR defition is the right one!

 

[Revmitchell]

And also that each of us think that ONLY OUR defition is the right one!

If you do not follow or hold to it then yours is the wrong one.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you do not follow or hold to it then yours is the wrong one.

I hold that a sinner is saved by the death of jesus on their behalf, that God requires ONLT we receive that grace thru means of faith, and that once saved, we should obey the Lord, but that would result in my progressing sauctification, NOT involved in my justification state before him, as that was forever settled at the Cross!

 

[Revmitchell]

I hold that a sinner is saved by the death of jesus on their behalf, that God requires ONLT we receive that grace thru means of faith, and that once saved, we should obey the Lord, but that would result in my progressing sauctification, NOT involved in my justification state before him, as that was forever settled at the Cross!

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

I thought that you were saying that I held to a different theology then LS, so must be wrong...

 

[Revmitchell]

I thought that you were saying that I held to a different theology then LS, so must be wrong...

No what I was saying is that you do not get to define the Lordship position if you do not hold to it.

 

[padredurand]

No what I was saying is that you do not get to define the Lordship position if you do not hold to it.

As you know I have a rather extensive Wesleyan background. I've had that in mind while I've read through the few LS threads and have come to this conclusion:

• Both parties have their own Lordship emphasis.
• Each is tailored to be consistent with their soteriological position.
• Both demand evidence of justification and sanctification.
• Both demand evidence of fruit.
• Neither validate justification in the absence of any measurable spiritual growth.
• Wesleyans conclude, in the absence of measurable fruit, one who may have been saved have made a shipwreck of faith and are no longer saved.
• Non-Wesleyan positions conclude, in the absence of fruit, the person was never saved to begin with.

Of course there are 100 permutations of this but it is a general observation on my part.

 

[RLBosley]

As you know I have a rather extensive Wesleyan background. I've had that in mind while I've read through the few LS threads and have come to this conclusion:

• Both parties have their own Lordship emphasis.
• Each is tailored to be consistent with their soteriological position.
• Both demand evidence of justification and sanctification.
• Both demand evidence of fruit.
• Neither validate justification in the absence of any measurable spiritual growth.
• Wesleyans conclude, in the absence of measurable fruit, one who may have been saved have made a shipwreck of faith and are no longer saved.
• Non-Wesleyan positions conclude, in the absence of fruit, the person was never saved to begin with.

Of course there are 100 permutations of this but it is a general observation on my part.

Pretty much.

Though some, maybe not here though, would suggest that sanctification is not necessary and is in fact optional. That is the false teaching LS really is fighting against.

 

[Revmitchell]

As you know I have a rather extensive Wesleyan background. I've had that in mind while I've read through the few LS threads and have come to this conclusion:

• Both parties have their own Lordship emphasis.
• Each is tailored to be consistent with their soteriological position.
• Both demand evidence of justification and sanctification.
• Both demand evidence of fruit.
• Neither validate justification in the absence of any measurable spiritual growth.
• Wesleyans conclude, in the absence of measurable fruit, one who may have been saved have made a shipwreck of faith and are no longer saved.
• Non-Wesleyan positions conclude, in the absence of fruit, the person was never saved to begin with.

Of course there are 100 permutations of this but it is a general observation on my part.

I understand but one of the big problems we have around here is people that do not hold to a particular view have a bad habit of telling those who do what their position is and then condeming it. They set up strawmen so they can tear it down.

 

[padredurand]

I understand but one of the big problems we have around here is people that do not hold to a particular view have a bad habit of telling those who do what their position is and then condeming it. They set up strawmen so they can tear it down.

I think the principle gets lost in the algorithm so to speak. X leads to Y which results in Z. In the absence of Y then Z will not be attained and X never existed or was lost.

Ask 20 Baptists to define X and you'll get 24 answers. Same thing with Y and Z.

If X is the point of salvation how many different definitions do you think we could come up with among the BB? We might all agree on Grace but differ widely on the means of it. How many different definitions do you think we could come up with for sanctification? Is it immediate, progressive, both, a second act of Grace subsequent to justification or a concurrent act?

You shouldn't have to write a dissertation trying to explain what you mean by Christian.