The "No Lord gospel"

[EdSutton]

Let me offer, FTR, that I suggest some of us (probably including me) should read your/our posts more carefully before hitting "Send!". I suggest in the attempt to 'present points', sometimes we are (all) making unwise statements. I will give one small example from a post that just appeared on this thread.

At the time of my conversion, the gospel did not have to do with Jesus as Lord but God as Lord. Since that day, I have come to learn that "reconciling" with God is called "justification." We are not reconciling with Jesus. Instead, God "gives" us to His Son as "disciples" just as appears to LS demand.

There are some disturbing implications in this wording that have little or nothing to do, per se, with Lordship Salvation. (BTW, the 'bolded' words, which are exactly as copied, are not the disturbing ones, nor is 'Lordship Salvation' the problem here, either.)

'Nuff said. Think about it!

Ed

 

[skypair]

Here's what I believed when I was saved. It sounds much different than the LS "formulary" although I can use some of Calvinism's terminology to decribe it.

I believed that God the Father was Lord of all. He is all wisdom and truth. I believed (and still do) that receiving Christ as Savior through repentance was the only way to 1) be reconciled to the Father, 2) to know what my Lord God wanted me to do with my life and 3) to receive the power (HS) to carry it out. Notice, though, salvation and regeneration and indwelling of the Spirit come AFTER repentance.

At the time of my conversion, the gospel did not have to do with Jesus as Lord but God as Lord. Since that day, I have come to learn that "reconciling" with God is called "justification." We are not reconciling with Jesus. Instead, God "gives" us to His Son as "disciples" just as LS appears to demand.

So the process is this: God "draws" us to Savior Christ -- we "come" to Him repenting for reconciliation to God -- God "gives" us to Christ as disciples/followers of His "Lordship" for the "sanctification" of our spirit and our flesh. Do you see how these very Calvinist ideas are incorporated correctly into the sotierological model?

Often at the point of discipleship, though, the "sheep" go astray. :tear: We are not willing to nor are we able of ourselves to "foresake all" and follow Him. A disciple is a follower and a learner (spiritually growing, Eph 4:14-16) who progressively puts aside his life for Christ's. This is the "life" that JM's LS demands for salvation but which is really the life of "sanctification." We used to say of this model that it makes Jesus our Example but not our Savior. Knowing that Christ is Savior does NOT "by itself" equate to "faith" ("faith that is alone is dead," right? Jas 2:12).

skypair

Does anyone believe this besides me? :type:

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

Nor do they have salvation in any other.

Muslims pray to Allah.
Not the God of the Bible

Roman Catholics often pray to Mary.
Which is not the God of the Bible

Some other religions also pray to other gods.
But not the God of the Bible

Some pray to 'saints'.
Which is not the God of the Bible

Some pray to ancestors.
And not the God of the Bible

Some prayed to Baal, in Scripture.
But is not the God of the Bible

And one is said to have prayed with himself
And it does no good, for you are not self.


You can pray to a rock, but a rock will not save you. Christ our Lord will save, and it must be your desire to have Him as Lord.

The question asked was not whether one could have salvation by 'how they prayed' but rather could one pray otherwise. It asked nothing about praying to "the God of the Bible", regardless of intent. My answer stands in answering the question.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Does anyone believe this besides me? :type:

skypair

I fully agree with some of what you quoted, but not necessarily all of it. My own position is, I think, pretty clear, as well.

Ed

 

[Jarthur001]

The question asked was not whether one could have salvation by 'how they prayed' but rather could one pray otherwise. It asked nothing about praying to "the God of the Bible", regardless of intent. My answer stands in answering the question.

Ed

Ed,

Do you need a Lord in your salvation plan, or is it Lordless. That is what I have asked.

 

[Jarthur001]

Does anyone believe this besides me? :type:

skypair

Sky,

yes or no....

Its very simple.

Do you need a Lord in your salvation plan, or is it Lordless? That is what I have asked.

 

[pinoybaptist]

<snip>
You say you are a primitive baptist. I understand what this demonation is. Where is their official teaching in this regard?

There are many PB sites on the net, brother.

I got this from one:

10. Don't you believe that the preaching of the gospel is God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner ?

Answer: No, only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3:6-8). The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (2 Tim 1:10)


SOURCE

 

[EdSutton]

(since 1973-1998 when I was baptized in a Primitive Baptist church)

Now that is what I call a really l-o-o-o-o-o-o-n-n-n-n-g baptismal service!

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

[Jon-Marc]

Without Jesus there is NO gospel and NO salvation.

 

[webdog]

If this be said...



If we remove "Lord" from salvation, is this not "Lordless"?

Since new believers are compared to new "babes"...what does a baby know upon birth, or prior to birth for that matter?

When I was saved, I knew I was a sinner, and faith in Christ was the only way to get right with God. I didn't know what a full commitment to turn from sin was, I knew I was a sinner, and in order to be forgiven and made right in God's eye, I needed faith in Christ's birth, death and resurrection.

 

[webdog]

Pinoy,

Tell me I am not hearing a hint of hyper-calvinism in your reasoning...I don't think I am, but it sounds like your saying that the subsequent preaching of the Gospel, the accomplishment of regeneration and faith in Christ, was not needed. It sounds like your saying that that the salvation of the elect was complete with or without their repentance.

Oh, your intuition is correct. He and JohnP are the resident hyper's here on the BB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Oh, your intuition is correct. He and JohnP are the resident hyper's here on the BB

That may be, but I have seen in him far more of a tender, gentle, and meek Christian attitude than some here. He is my brother in Christ.

 

[webdog]

That may be, but I have seen in him far more of a tender, gentle, and meek Christian attitude than some here. He is my brother in Christ.

...as he is mine. We don't agree on how we got there, but we got there.

 

[Jarthur001]

Since new believers are compared to new "babes"...what does a baby know upon birth, or prior to birth for that matter?

When I was saved, I knew I was a sinner, and faith in Christ was the only way to get right with God. I didn't know what a full commitment to turn from sin was, I knew I was a sinner, and in order to be forgiven and made right in God's eye, I needed faith in Christ's birth, death and resurrection.

Hello Web,

Maybe you would like to address the OP and not dodge it like others has.


If we remove "Lord" from salvation, is this not "Lordless"?

Addressing you post...

You said...

I needed faith in Christ's birth, death and resurrection

Faith means believe.

You needed to believe Christ was born and died and was resurrected...for what reason did he do it?

I mean..these facts the devil knows. What makes your faith better?

 

[Revmitchell]

Claimming Christ as Lord is not deep theology that requires discipleship. Neither is it difficult to understand. Niether does it suggest maturity.

What it does say is "I am willing, teach me Lord". Zacheus didn't need to sit through a discipleship class to know to make amends or give to the poor. The woman at the well didn't need a 12 week disipleship class to know how to be a witness. Those who are truly saved have a heart for God (Dan 11:32)

We do many people a great disservice allowing them to think they are alright when they arefar from the Lord.

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,

Do you need a Lord in your salvation plan, or is it Lordless. That is what I have asked.

Which has to what with the question I answered in my post, and in my response to your last post?

I have stated that answer extremely clearly, if you actually bothered to read my posts(s), earlier.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1267501&postcount=40

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1268527&postcount=33

Going all the way back to my first month on the BB:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=31500&postcount=13

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=1895&highlight=make+Jesus+Lord

Plus several posts in this early thread when I was somewhat younger and a little less cantankerous, maybe, but before I learned my lesson about not using 'shorthand' on BB 'handles'. Incidentally, I would rate this last one as one of the most informative threads, for all to read, on the Lordship salvation subject that has been on the BB, even if you ignored all my own posts in it.

Ed

 

[webdog]

Hello Web,

Maybe you would like to address the OP and not dodge it like others has.


If we remove "Lord" from salvation, is this not "Lordless"?

Since Christ is Lord...your question makes no sense. Nobody here on the BB has removed Christ (Lord) from salvation.

Faith means believe.

You needed to believe Christ was born and died and was resurrected...for what reason did he do it?

I mean..these facts the devil knows. What makes your faith better?

Faith can mean believe, but faith is belief in action. The object of belief determines faith.

 

[Rippon]

Faith can mean believe, but faith is belief in action. The object of belief determines faith.

Faith=belief

Elect=chosen

Christ=Messiah

Soul=Spirit

They're called synonyms.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Faith=belief

Elect=chosen

Christ=Messiah

Soul=Spirit

They're called synonyms.

Rip,

Question for you brother. Feel free to PM me the answer if I am taking you off topic here. When you say soul=spirit, is that an affirmation of the dichotomy of man? I ask because I am about to study anthropology in my school and I have briefly read Charles Hodge on the subject.

Thanks.

 

[Rippon]

Rip,

Question for you brother. Feel free to PM me the answer if I am taking you off topic here. When you say soul=spirit, is that an affirmation of the dichotomy of man? I ask because I am about to study anthropology in my school and I have briefly read Charles Hodge on the subject.

Thanks.

Yes,I believe in the dichotomy of people.We are binary creatures. I have read very little of Charles Hodge.I own none of his books.He is appreciated very much in Reformed circles though.However,he seems too philosophical to me.I like the writings of his son,A.A. better.They're much more clear.

Gordon Clark, though a Christian philosopher, is less philosophical in his short Bible book commentaries. He develops the dichotomous nature of people very well from the Word of God.