The Two Surrenders

[DaveXR650]

This may help. It's from J.I. Packer, written in 1991.
"If . . . you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one’s life, and no perseverance in faith, I would have told you that you were out of your mind. Stark, staring bonkers, is the British phrase I would probably have used. But now the thing has happened. In The Gospel Under Siege (1981) and Absolutely Free! (1989), Zane Hodges, for one, maintains all these positions as essential to the Christian message, arguing that without them the Gospel gets lost in legalism."

From this, if Packer is understanding the no Lordship guys right - they were saying not that one needed to be careful or theologically precise in how exactly you come to Christ - but they were openly demanding that you avoid teaching that all those things EVER had to be included in the life of a true believer. That they were always an option and that one in witnessing, should carefully avoid making any mention of Jesus as Lord.

Living like any unsaved person, except you enjoy reading your Bible, going to church, and talking about God.

That's it right there! We all make mistakes and we all have areas needing growth. But if you can do that, and many do, and not feel a bit bad about it, you have no reason at all to think you are saved - and any clergyman that would just refer you back to the time when you made your profession of faith, instead of helping you repent and grow, is guilty of malpractice.

 

[Ascetic X]

This may help. It's from J.I. Packer, written in 1991.
"If . . . you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one’s life, and no perseverance in faith, I would have told you that you were out of your mind. Stark, staring bonkers, is the British phrase I would probably have used. But now the thing has happened. In The Gospel Under Siege (1981) and Absolutely Free! (1989), Zane Hodges, for one, maintains all these positions as essential to the Christian message, arguing that without them the Gospel gets lost in legalism."

From this, if Packer is understanding the no Lordship guys right - they were saying not that one needed to be careful or theologically precise in how exactly you come to Christ - but they were openly demanding that you avoid teaching that all those things EVER had to be included in the life of a true believer. That they were always an option and that one in witnessing, should carefully avoid making any mention of Jesus as Lord.


That's it right there! We all make mistakes and we all have areas needing growth. But if you can do that, and many do, and not feel a bit bad about it, you have no reason at all to think you are saved - and any clergyman that would just refer you back to the time when you made your profession of faith, instead of helping you repent and grow, is guilty of malpractice.

How horrifying to think you are saved, to feel like God approves of you, then end up in the lake of fire.

I received Christ as a teenager, sprang up as a zealous, devoted Christian, amateur evangelist, Bible teacher, leader of a county for a ministry, then recklessly backslid for over 20 years. I had a 2nd spiritual awakening when I hit rock bottom. For 21 years I did fairly good, but was blind to a few self-indulgences that I did not consider sins.

Two years ago, I had a 3rd spiritual awakening, which made me get rid of my television, synthesizers, worldly music, worldly books, and worldly movies. I now am hyper alert to the slightest deviation from the commands of Jesus and the apostolic teachings.

I do think back to when I said a salvation prayer and got baptized, for I believe I was 100% sincere and dedicated. But I know I deteriorated into a carnal, First Corinthians Christian. Not necessarily a hypocrite in the sense of pretending to be a Christian, but a foolish unsanctified Christian who was far removed from my original devotion. I lived in a trance produced by the deceitfulness of sin.

I know our salvation certainty is based on what the scriptures say, and not how we feel. But I also know we must take heed lest we fall. We must examine our behavior to verify that we are truly in the faith path.

I am sure of my salvation due to the Spirit bearing witness with my spirit, my genuine love for God, my extreme craving for scripture and sermons, my hatred of worldliness, my love for people, my kindness to all living creatures, and my fervent constant prayer life. I examine my spirituality regularly and strive to keep improving, even when my progress seems slow.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

How horrifying to think you are saved, to feel like God approves of you, then end up in the lake of fire.

I received Christ as a teenager, sprang up as a zealous, devoted Christian, amateur evangelist, Bible teacher, leader of a county for a ministry, then recklessly backslid for over 20 years. I had a 2nd spiritual awakening when I hit rock bottom. For 21 years I did fairly good, but was blind to a few self-indulgences that I did not consider sins.

Two years ago, I had a 3rd spiritual awakening, which made me get rid of my television, synthesizers, worldly music, worldly books, and worldly movies. I now am hyper alert to the slightest deviation from the commands of Jesus and the apostolic teachings.

I do think back to when I said a salvation prayer and got baptized, for I believe I was 100% sincere and dedicated. But I know I deteriorated into a carnal, First Corinthians Christian. Not necessarily a hypocrite in the sense of pretending to be a Christian, but a foolish unsanctified Christian who was far removed from my original devotion. I lived in a trance produced by the deceitfulness of sin.

I know our salvation certainty is based on what the scriptures say, and not how we feel. But I also know we must take heed lest we fall. We must examine our behavior to verify that we are truly in the faith path.

I am sure of my salvation due to the Spirit bearing witness with my spirit, my genuine love for God, my extreme craving for scripture and sermons, my hatred of worldliness, my love for people, my kindness to all living creatures, and my fervent constant prayer life. I examine my spirituality regularly and strive to keep improving, even when my progress seems slow.

Ascetic X, thank you for laying out your history so plainly. Your experiences are not unique; they are common to man. What you describe is exactly what Scripture presents in the lives of believers who are truly saved but who pass through seasons of blindness, carnality, and spiritual drift. Paul addressed this directly in First Corinthians. He called those believers “brethren,” “babes in Christ,” and “carnal.” He did not call them false converts.

The pattern you describe, early zeal, long decline, deep blindness, conviction, renewal, and later growth, is the biblical pattern of sanctification. It is not the pattern Lordship Salvation requires. LS teaches that long‑term carnality disproves salvation. Yet you, like many, affirm that you were saved during those years. That is the very category LS denies and Free Grace affirms.

Your awakenings were not new salvations. They were sanctification events. They were moments when God confronted you, corrected you, and restored you. They do not prove your earlier faith was false. They prove that God preserved you through your wanderings and brought you back.

Your present assurance is also based on the biblical witness of Romans 8. You speak of the Spirit bearing witness with your spirit, your love for God, your desire for Scripture, your hatred of worldliness, and your prayer life. These are evidences of life, not conditions for life.

In short, your testimony does not support Lordship Salvation. It supports the biblical distinction between salvation and sanctification. Salvation is by faith. Sanctification is progressive, uneven, and often slow. Your own story fits the Free Grace framework exactly.

 

[Ascetic X]

Ascetic X, thank you for laying out your history so plainly. Your experiences are not unique; they are common to man. What you describe is exactly what Scripture presents in the lives of believers who are truly saved but who pass through seasons of blindness, carnality, and spiritual drift. Paul addressed this directly in First Corinthians. He called those believers “brethren,” “babes in Christ,” and “carnal.” He did not call them false converts.

The pattern you describe, early zeal, long decline, deep blindness, conviction, renewal, and later growth, is the biblical pattern of sanctification. It is not the pattern Lordship Salvation requires. LS teaches that long‑term carnality disproves salvation. Yet you, like many, affirm that you were saved during those years. That is the very category LS denies and Free Grace affirms.

Your awakenings were not new salvations. They were sanctification events. They were moments when God confronted you, corrected you, and restored you. They do not prove your earlier faith was false. They prove that God preserved you through your wanderings and brought you back.

Your present assurance is also based on the biblical witness of Romans 8. You speak of the Spirit bearing witness with your spirit, your love for God, your desire for Scripture, your hatred of worldliness, and your prayer life. These are evidences of life, not conditions for life.

In short, your testimony does not support Lordship Salvation. It supports the biblical distinction between salvation and sanctification. Salvation is by faith. Sanctification is progressive, uneven, and often slow. Your own story fits the Free Grace framework exactly.

Thank you Anthony for cheering me up.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Thank you Anthony for cheering me up.

Your conscience is tender, your scruples are sharp, and you are my brother in the Lord.

 

[DaveXR650]

Two years ago, I had a 3rd spiritual awakening, which made me get rid of my television, synthesizers, worldly music, worldly books, and worldly movies. I now am hyper alert to the slightest deviation from the commands of Jesus and the apostolic teachings.

Keep in mind that what you are describing is what we were taught in the 80's by people like @John of Japan's grandfather as normal Christian experience and we were taught to doubt the salvation of those who had and did those things. Maybe we were legalistic but I mention that just to say that when he talks of being against Lordship salvation he may already be assuming a willingness to pay the price of being a Christian and living apart from the world that is at least equal to anything we are thinking of already. That is why I think we are talking past each other and really don't have a serious disagreement.
In other words no Lordship John R. Rice would have said "good" to your 3rd awakening and would have all along expected conduct from a Christian that at least equals your 3rd awakening. So you have to keep all that in mind.

 

[DaveXR650]

The pattern you describe, early zeal, long decline, deep blindness, conviction, renewal, and later growth, is the biblical pattern of sanctification. It is not the pattern Lordship Salvation requires. LS teaches that long‑term carnality disproves salvation. Yet you, like many, affirm that you were saved during those years. That is the very category LS denies and Free Grace affirms.

Agreed. The one difference is that those who teach Lordship Salvation allow for lapses and backsliding, but they would not refer you back to the time you accepted Christ and encourage you not to worry. They would have said "Yes, worry, because you are in trouble and the Holy Spirit is the reason you are concerned and that is very encouraging. But you must do something about this." They do not give out "assurance" as an obligation of a pastor but expect that a real Christian will work through and respond to the moving of the Holy Spirit, new teaching, or even church discipline. That is not to say that everyone who is uncomfortable with Lordship Salvation does not do this. Many do, but the theologians who caused MacArthur and Washer to do what they did - did not.

 

[Ascetic X]

Keep in mind that what you are describing is what we were taught in the 80's by people like @John of Japan's grandfather as normal Christian experience and we were taught to doubt the salvation of those who had and did those things. Maybe we were legalistic but I mention that just to say that when he talks of being against Lordship salvation he may already be assuming a willingness to pay the price of being a Christian and living apart from the world that is at least equal to anything we are thinking of already. That is why I think we are talking past each other and really don't have a serious disagreement.
In other words no Lordship John R. Rice would have said "good" to your 3rd awakening and would have all along expected conduct from a Christian that at least equals your 3rd awakening. So you have to keep all that in mind.

Do you know what theologians influenced Mac, Washer, and John Piper?

My position is that it is valid to tell an unsaved person to receive Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.

They should know that Christ wants to be and must be their boss, teacher, master, and manager, and not just an escape from hell.

Now, if they struggle with obeying Christ as Lord, or disregard the rigorous sanctification process, it might mean they were not sincere and never got saved. Or it might mean they have a lot of sinful baggage to deal with and hopefully will triumph eventually. Or it might mean they were seduced into the libertine version of Christian living and will not earn many eternal rewards in heaven.

 

[Ascetic X]

John MacArthur was primarily shaped by 20th-century Welsh Calvinist preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, modern theologians like J.I. Packer and John Stott, and historic Puritan writers such as Thomas Watson and Stephen Charnock, who anchored his commitment to expository preaching and Reformed theology.

 

[DaveXR650]

My position is that it is valid to tell an unsaved person to receive Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.

They should know that Christ wants to be and must be their boss, teacher, master, and manager, and not just an escape from hell.

I agree. The church I currently go to specifically states "Lord and Savior".

 

[DaveXR650]

John MacArthur was primarily shaped by 20th-century Welsh Calvinist preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, modern theologians like J.I. Packer and John Stott, and historic Puritan writers such as Thomas Watson and Stephen Charnock, who anchored his commitment to expository preaching and Reformed theology.

Yes. I would say Martyn Lloyd-Jones is my favorite. One thing to keep in mind and the reason you always want to be charitable in these discussions is illustrated by Lloyd-Jones. He said that the idea of a perpetually "carnal" Christian as currently defined, is a recent invention that was unheard of until modern times, much like the J.I. Packer quote earlier. But when it came to preaching, he also said that any preacher who preaches the true gospel of Christ is going to be on occasion, called an antinomian. I think Robert Traill, who wrote "Justification Vindicated", said much the same thing. You can't, nor should you try, to pin these guys down too much. There are legitimate concerns with Lordship Salvation that should be kept in mind, yet with my background I fully understand what MacArthur and Washer were trying to do. I can understand why some may not have the same opinion and in the case of all the guys who have commented on this thread, I see their points and have no problems with any of them. But I go with LS.

 

[Ascetic X]

Yes. I would say Martyn Lloyd-Jones is my favorite. One thing to keep in mind and the reason you always want to be charitable in these discussions is illustrated by Lloyd-Jones. He said that the idea of a perpetually "carnal" Christian as currently defined, is a recent invention that was unheard of until modern times, much like the J.I. Packer quote earlier. But when it came to preaching, he also said that any preacher who preaches the true gospel of Christ is going to be on occasion, called an antinomian. I think Robert Traill, who wrote "Justification Vindicated", said much the same thing. You can't, nor should you try, to pin these guys down too much. There are legitimate concerns with Lordship Salvation that should be kept in mind, yet with my background I fully understand what MacArthur and Washer were trying to do. I can understand why some may not have the same opinion and in the case of all the guys who have commented on this thread, I see their points and have no problems with any of them. But I go with LS.

I like Martin Lloyd-Jones and puritan Thomas Watson, whose Great Gain of Godliness is one of my favorite books, which CH Spurgeon wanted to read, but could never find.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 GMT 0630 am EDT 0330 am PDT

 

[John of Japan]

As a teenage convert, first hearing the gospel fully explained to me by the pastor at a Mennonite church camp, the idea was always “ask Jesus to come into your heart, receive Him as your personal Lord and Savior”.

Lord means Christ replaces self on the throne of your heart.

I don’t recall anyone saying “just believe in Jesus as the sacrifice for sin on your behalf”.

Lord to obey in your life and Savior who saves you from hell in the afterlife — these were always presented as a cohesive, inseparable unit.

However, this did not mean that if you struggled with Jesus being Lord in certain areas of your life, or if you failed completely, you thereby lost your salvation.

But if a person prayed a salvation prayer, and there was no change at all in their life behavior, the new birth probably did not really happen.

When I received Christ as Lord and Savior, my life changed in some ways. I boldly witnessed to people, I studied my Bible, I attended church services, I experienced joy and peace. But I struggled with honoring my parents, who were opposed to my conversion.

Thank you for sharing this; it's a blessing. However, forgive me, but you did not answer my question.

If you believe that accepting Christ as Lord is implicit in the Gospel, meaning it is part of believing, then I have no practical problem with that, though I believe it is mistaken theologically.

However, if you believe that when we witness to Christ we must explicitly tell them when you witness to them that they have to make Christ as Lord at the same time they accept Him as Savior, then I completely disagree. If you have been paying attention to my posts, I quoted James Kennedy's book on personal evangelism, Evangelism Explosion, where he teaches that we must tell people to explicitly accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved.

Here again is the Kennedy quote: “When Christ comes into a life as Saviour He comes to do something for you: to forgive you and give you eternal life. But, also He comes as Lord. He comes as Master and King. He comes to demand something of you. He says there is a throne room in your heart, and that throne is rightly His. He made you. He redeemed you. He bought you. He says that He wants to take His rightful place on the throne of your life. Are you willing to yield your life, to surrender your life, to Him, out of gratitude for the gift of eternal life?”
D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1970), 53.

So, which do you believe and practice?

Either way, if you will kindly answer, I'm done with the thread. I don't think it is profitable any more, though I thank you for your testimony post.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 GMT 0630 am EDT 0330 am PDT

Amen, the topic as presented has been exhausted.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1230 GMT 0630 am EDT 0330 am PDT

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new one