The "No Lord gospel"

[Jarthur001]

If this be said...

"One needs not to desire to have Christ Lord of their life at salvation."

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

 

[Deacon]

So the question needs to be asked....

What is necessary for salvation?

What do you have to know?

Personally, I didn't know much other than that I had a need for forgiveness,
I repented of my sins,
and trusted that Jesus was sufficent to meet my need.

Lord, Trinity, rebirth, revelation, Scriptures....knowledge of that stuff all came later.

Rob

 

[Jarthur001]

So the question needs to be asked....

What is necessary for salvation?

What do you have to know?

Personally, I didn't know much other than that I had a need for forgiveness,
I repented of my sins,
and trusted that Jesus was sufficent to meet my need.

Lord, Trinity, rebirth, revelation, Scriptures....knowledge of that stuff all came later.

Rob

I hate to get off track right from the start....

But...this is my pet answer.

We must know these 3 elements..

1) The fact of God. (holy and in control and hates sin)
2) God the judge (we are sinners and God will judge sin, we will die because of sin)
3) God the redeemer. (God saves sinners with the death of Christ in place of our own death)


Without these 3 elements, salvation will not happen.

How does this relate to Lord?

Salvation is not being saved from hell, but saved from sin that places us in hell. Our desire is to remove that sin and its guilt. It is not only to remove the sins of the past, but we desire to stop sinning. We need not stop sinning to be saved, but we know we cannot stop on our own and take Christ as Lord in order to remove the guilt and have the aid of Holy Spirit and power over sin. This is why Lordship is part of salvation.


With these three elements in place, we call out to Christ be our Lord and save us from sin.

********

Now back to the OP..

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

 

[Deacon]

As a new born believer, I didn't even know what "Lord" meant.

I believed in his ability to help me, knowing he was sufficient for my need.

Was he Lord? Sure he was!

Did I have to know it? Not really

Does this mean he is not Lord? No

Rob

 

[StefanM]

I don't think one necessarily has to be fully aware of Christ's lordship at salvation. However, I do not think one can intentionally reject it and be saved.

 

[David Lamb]

As a new born believer, I didn't even know what "Lord" meant.

I believed in his ability to help me, knowing he was sufficient for my need.

Was he Lord? Sure he was!

Did I have to know it? Not really

Does this mean he is not Lord? No

Rob

I am sure many Christians' testimony would be similar, Rob. But that is quite different from saying, "Jesus is my Saviour, but He is not my Lord," as some seem to do. If another Christian came to you, a new born believer, and showed you (from the Scriptures) that the things you already believed about Jesus Christ (that He had ability to help you, and that He is sufficient for all your needs) were in themselves indications that He is your Lord, I imagine you would have believed them. At your conversion, you were unable to put into words the fact that Jesus Christ is your Lord, but as you say, He definitely was, and is, praise His wonderful name!

 

[pinoybaptist]

<edited by pinoybaptist to not get this thread off-track>.

Yes, removing Lord from gospel salvation is Lordless salvation. No salvation at all.
The man who says he has been redeemed by Christ and yet remains in his error and sin, and runs from the teachings of Christ, may not even by His at all.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I can't believe I am reading these, and some from my fellow doctrine of grace-ers.

If knowing Christ and accepting Him as Lord is a pre-requisite to eternal salvation then we have just excluded millions of souls from Christ's grace, and have just limited the scope of His finished work at the cross.

Eternal salvation required nothing from the sinner. Not his acquiesence to salvation and the Lordship of Christ, not his intelligence, not his physical presence in Israel during the time of Christ, or in church or a gospel preaching activity after the cross.

Eternal salvation is all OF the Lord, to and for His elect, the only predicate being His mercy.

If He had decided to go back home to heaven after He was brought back to life by the Spirit, then His finished work for and in behalf of His elect people will still stand even if He had not sent out His apostles to be His witnesses and to preach the gospel to all nations. All His redeemed will still be with Him in heaven for eternity when they die here on earth in time.

The reason He sent out His apostles to the nations with the good news of their finished salvation is not so they can put a stamp of finality and approval to His work by their bowing to Him as Lord and by their getting to know Him as Savior and Lord, but so that there will be congregations of redeemed people called out from among the pagan and idol-worshipping nations of both the known and unknown worlds of their time who worship the true God in spirit and in truth.

These people bow down to Him as Lord, not to some hand-carved stone or wooden statue, because He is their Redeemer, and because He is the Son of the Living God proof of which is His resurrection, dedicating their lives and way of life to Him.

This is where MacArthur gets it wrong just like everybody else, or maybe he is saying the same thing and this is where LM and his critics get him wrong.

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.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Pinoy, Tell me I am not hearing a hint of hyper-calvinism in your reasoning...

Yes, you are. When I tried to kindly ask this of him, he dodged the question and never went back to that thread.


LM

 

[pinoybaptist]

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.

I will answer this, and this only.

Repentance is a change of mind. And a change of mind can only happen with the help of intellect, and intellect responds to a changed heart, and a changed heart is OF the Lord. Without regeneration there is no repentance.

Now, regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit, by operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses no means. Not the gospel, not the preacher. He alone is able to effect the quickening of His people everywhere and at anytime because He only is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, not the preacher.

Therefore, even if there were no gospel preachers sent out by the Lord, the Holy Spirit will still carry out His part in the eternal salvation of His people just as He does now, He will regenerate His own, and effect their repentance, instructing them Himself.

However, that is not what the Lord did.

He did send out His apostles, to establish churches, where He alone is worshipped, and where God is glorified, and where His people are instructed in kingdom living.

P.S.

From your statement, brother RB, it seems you are saying that regeneration and subsequently repentance can be effected by the Holy Spirit only in an environment where the gospel is preached ? Am I right ? If I am right, then is this not gospel regeneration ?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will answer this, and this only.

Repentance is a change of mind. A change of mind and a change of mind can only happen with the help of intellect, and intellect responds to a changed heart, and a changed heart is OF the Lord. Without regeneration there is no repentance.

Now, regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit, by operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses no means. Not the gospel, not the preacher. He alone is able to effect the quickening of His people everywhere and at anytime because He only is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, not the preacher.

Therefore, even if there were no gospel preachers sent out by the Lord, the Holy Spirit will still carry out His part in the eternal salvation of His people just as He does now, He will regenerate His own, and effect their repentance, instructing them Himself.

However, that is not what the Lord did.

He did send out His apostles, to establish churches, where He alone is worshipped, and where God is glorified, and where His people are instructed in kingdom living.

P.S.

From your statement, brother RB, it seems you are saying that regeneration and subsequently repentance can be effected by the Holy Spirit only in an environment where the gospel is preached ? Am I right ? If I am right, then is this not gospel regeneration ?

Hey brother,

Perhaps I am not an expert on hyper-calvinism. It seems your reasoning is hyper-calvinistic, theoretically, but not practically. And I am thankful for that. We must be on guard of hyper-calvinsim brother. And I don't mean the hyper-calvinsim as defined by the enemies of calvinism. Theirs is a strawman.

Perhaps you would be interested in looking at this article http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Please don't get me wrong brother, I am saying you are hyper-calvinist, but it is something we can test ourselves on. Perhaps that article will be an encouragment to you.

Now this statement which you say,

Now, regeneration is an act of the Holy Spirit, by operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses no means. Not the gospel, not the preacher. He alone is able to effect the quickening of His people everywhere and at anytime because He only is Omnipresent and Omnipotent, not the preacher.

This, I fear brother, is nothing more than rank hyper-calvinism. Let me illustrate:

What is Hyper-Calvinsim?

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .

This is from the article above. I would suggest reading the whole article as well. However, I would like to offerign the following, from the Scriptures, that refutes your assertion:

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Brother, God not only ordains the end, salvation, but also the means, preaching, to save those who believe. But you say God uses no means in the act of regeneration. This is contrary to the plain teaching of the Scriptures. He uses preaching, and the preaching of the Word of God. We are born again, my brother, in this fashion:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." 1 Peter 1:23

We must be born again brother, regenerated, but it is BY the means of the Word of God, the Gospel.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Romans 10:13-15​

You also asked me brother,

From your statement, brother RB, it seems you are saying that regeneration and subsequently repentance can be effected by the Holy Spirit only in an environment where the gospel is preached ? Am I right ? If I am right, then is this not gospel regeneration

I have never heard this term "Gospel Regeneration" before. But I will answer the question in this manner. The work of regeneration is the work of God. The act of conversion is the result. And God uses means in both. Consider the following statement from James P. Boyce,

At the outset of a discussion of these two subjects we are met by the question, whether they are not one and the same thing. They are unquestionably so intimately associated that it is difficult to separate them and point out the distinctions between them. The Scriptures connect the two under the one idea of the new birth, and teach that not only is regeneration an absolute essential in each conversion, but that in every intelligent responsible soul conversion invariably accompanies regeneration. It is not strange, therefore, that they are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is the act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart.

Remember brother, it is the will of God that begets, not the will of man as the false teaching of Arminianism says, but God begets by the word of God. This is HIS established means.

Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. James 1:18​

 

[J.D.]

Can anyone pray without expressing Christ's Lordship, even a sinner saying the "sinner's prayer"? Who are we praying to if not "the LORD"?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes, you are. When I tried to kindly ask this of him, he dodged the question and never went back to that thread.


LM

Hello, Lou. I'm not used to seeing you do short posts I missed this one. I don't remember you asking me about that, if you did, and I didn't respond, you can rest assured I didn't because I left the thread. Maybe got tired of all the bickering, or just got tired of it, period.
Anyway.
Everybody on this board knows what my stand is regarding the preaching of the gospel, that it is for instructional purposes for people who are already regenerate and not for the purpose of the eternal salvation of the soul.
Now, I erased my post previously so as not to get this thread off-track.
So, how about you answering the OP's question ?

 

[skypair]

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

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 appears to LS 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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hello, Lou. I'm not used to seeing you do short posts I missed this one. I don't remember you asking me about that, if you did, and I didn't respond, you can rest assured I didn't because I left the thread. Maybe got tired of all the bickering, or just got tired of it, period.
Anyway.
Everybody on this board knows what my stand is regarding the preaching of the gospel, that it is for instructional purposes for people who are already regenerate and not for the purpose of the eternal salvation of the soul.
Now, I erased my post previously so as not to get this thread off-track.
So, how about you answering the OP's question ?

I am no longer in the dark about your hyper-calvinism. I implore you to reconsider that position. But I will say no more about it.

 

[EdSutton]

Can anyone pray without expressing Christ's Lordship, even a sinner saying the "sinner's prayer"? Who are we praying to if not "the LORD"?

Um- yes. One does not automatically have to pray to the LORD God.

Muslims pray to Allah.
Roman Catholics often pray to Mary.
Some other religions also pray to other gods.
Some pray to 'saints'.
Some pray to ancestors.
Some prayed to Baal, in Scripture.
And one is said to have prayed with himself.

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. (Lk. 18:9-11 - NKJV)

Ed

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am no longer in the dark about your hyper-calvinism. I implore you to reconsider that position. But I will say no more about it.

Brother, I love you, and I love everybody who names the Name of Christ, regardless of his soteriology, and that goes for Lou Martuneac as well, whom I am sure you love, too, in Christ.
However, there is just no way anyone can convince me, after having been a non-Classic Arminian for 25 years (since 1973-1998 when I was baptized in a Primitive Baptist church) that the gospel was given as an addition or, in any way, an addendum, to the finished work of Christ at the cross.
The gospel is good news , nothing more, and nothing less, of a finished redemption undertaken by a graceful and merciful God. Hearing and believing the gospel, and obeying all its instructions, cannot make the redeemed elect of God any more redeemed than they already are, nor holier than they already are in Christ.
Christ sent out His apostles to reach as much and as many of His people with this good news, and to teach them what He taught them, and to baptize them in the Triune God's Name, and to gather them into congregations where His Name is glorified and His Lordship affirmed among a world of paganism, idol-worship, and, in the case of Jews, rituals and laws.
But the gospel does not save the soul.
In the words of Paul, it brings life and immortality to light, and any salvation that Paul accords to the gospel is salvation from immoral living, unjust behavior, ungodly conduct, untoward generations, and false doctrines and practices, and in these regards the professing redeemed sinner MUST accept and submit to the Lordship of Jesus in his life, or his profession means nothing at all but empty air.

 

[Jarthur001]

Um- yes. One does not automatically have to pray to the LORD God.

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 God yourself.


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.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Brother, I love you, and I love everybody who names the Name of Christ, regardless of his soteriology, and that goes for Lou Martuneac as well, whom I am sure you love, too, in Christ.
However, there is just no way anyone can convince me, after having been a non-Classic Arminian for 25 years (since 1973-1998 when I was baptized in a Primitive Baptist church) that the gospel was given as an addition or, in any way, an addendum, to the finished work of Christ at the cross.
The gospel is good news , nothing more, and nothing less, of a finished redemption undertaken by a graceful and merciful God. Hearing and believing the gospel, and obeying all its instructions, cannot make the redeemed elect of God any more redeemed than they already are, nor holier than they already are in Christ.
Christ sent out His apostles to reach as much and as many of His people with this good news, and to teach them what He taught them, and to baptize them in the Triune God's Name, and to gather them into congregations where His Name is glorified and His Lordship affirmed among a world of paganism, idol-worship, and, in the case of Jews, rituals and laws.
But the gospel does not save the soul.
In the words of Paul, it brings life and immortality to light, and any salvation that Paul accords to the gospel is salvation from immoral living, unjust behavior, ungodly conduct, untoward generations, and false doctrines and practices, and in these regards the professing redeemed sinner MUST accept and submit to the Lordship of Jesus in his life, or his profession means nothing at all but empty air.

I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. It is, in my opinion, what I understand to be hyper-calvinsim, and hyper-calvinism is false. I can read what your saying, I understand it, but at this point I cannot see how it agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles and our Lord Jesus Christ.

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

 

[skypair]

Oops, double post :saint:

skypair