What is Lordship Salvation?

[Don]

Just to throw this out there (and Judith, this is for you to think about as well): If repentance is truly a "requirement" for salvation, then isn't baptism also a requirement? (Acts 2:38)

I know of no Baptist preacher who says we must be baptized to be saved. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Winman]

As I stated in a related post on another thread sometime ago, can any mortal man's faith achieve any of Hebrews 11?

That is a rhetorical question, freeatlast, in which the answer is no.

Enoch did not have moral or mortal faith that would allow translation, that was the work of God and God's faith.
Noah did not have the moral or mortal faith to prepare the ark, that was God and God's faith.
And so it goes through the rest of Hebrews.

No one is stating that true faith from God does not work. It cannot help but work, but moral and mortal humankind faith are failures at both work and salvation.

I think a good verse to remember in this thread is found in Philippians 2:

"12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." ​

It is nonsense to believe that our faith is given to us by God. God enables faith, but our faith is our own.

If faith only comes from God, then why would God be angry for unbelief?

Mat 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

If faith is given to us by God, then why did Jesus ask Peter why he doubted?

Peter should have answered, "What kind of a question is that Jesus? You are the one who gives faith, it is your fault I doubted, because you did not give me enough faith."

This is false doctrine and just one more way to blame God for man's sin. If we doubt it is our own fault, because we do not believe God's word. If faith were a gift from God, then unbelievers could rightly blame God for not giving them faith. Nonsense.

 

[McWilliams]

I am at a loss. I heard some bad things about this board before I joined, but I did not believe it, but now I see it. I have never heard any Baptist preacher suggest that a person does not have to repent to be saved. I may need to leave this board. I need to pray. I just cannot believe this. My heart is sad.

There is no telling the truth in love here on this board. I now remember why I left here years ago and sadly I must leave again for the same bitter competitive spirit. You cant drive theology but it is shared in love.

 

[agedman]

It is nonsense to believe that our faith is given to us by God. God enables faith, but our faith is our own.

If faith only comes from God, then why would God be angry for unbelief?

Mat 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

If faith is given to us by God, then why did Jesus ask Peter why he doubted?

Peter should have answered, "What kind of a question is that Jesus? You are the one who gives faith, it is your fault I doubted, because you did not give me enough faith."

This is false doctrine and just one more way to blame God for man's sin. If we doubt it is our own fault, because we do not believe God's word. If faith were a gift from God, then unbelievers could rightly blame God for not giving them faith. Nonsense.

Your claim that it is a false doctrine is inappropriate. It is not a false doctrine akin to heretics and false teachers, but is a topic worthy of discussion and even agreement to disagree.

More to the point of your post, you quoted the experience of Peter in an attempt to show that faith equals faithful exercising of that faith.

Just because one has the faith of God, does not equate that they are faithful to exercise that faith. Consider Elijah after the mountain top experience.

Peter had the faith of God, but had little experience and no practical knowledge as the Holy Spirit exercising that faith through a believer's everyday living. The Work of the Holy Spirit and the Word in the believer exercises and demonstrates to the believer the faithfulness of God, but also the reliance upon the new nature (including faith) that He has given.

As 1 Corinthians 4 states:

"4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."​

And again in Galatians 2 states:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.​

The verses indicate that the believer does not fluff up their own faith, but lives by (the conduit) of the faith of Jesus Christ.

It is also important to know that the word "faith" is used throughout the NT as the persuasive credence in which one ascribes and adheres. There is no moral nor natural man ability to have such "faith" toward God, nor is there any unregenerate power in which one can express such. The Scriptures clearly state that is not the case of the natural man's state of affairs.

One further selection confirms the faith is not of human generational ability. Again in Galatians 3 it states:

"25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."​

That little underlined phrase (that faith is come) is more validity that it is not an innate in humankind, but given by God to the believer.

Also, the little word "in" is "en" which denotes a fixed position. NOT a preposition signifying movement in which one is placed into, but preposition of a decree, or stamp such as a king's stamp on a document making it official.

Does unregenerate man have a form of "faith?" 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says, no. If there is some human generated or innate faith it is fallen and has no desire to understand or know God, and God does not ever raise the fallen in glorification, for He has given us "new natures - created in Christ Jesus."

Your point that it gives man some "excuse" is merely a desire to validate your view with unsupported hyperbole and is not Scriptural.

But you already knew all this.

 

[Winman]

Your claim that it is a false doctrine is inappropriate. It is not a false doctrine akin to heretics and false teachers, but is a topic worthy of discussion and even agreement to disagree.

More to the point of your post, you quoted the experience of Peter in an attempt to show that faith equals faithful exercising of that faith.

Just because one has the faith of God, does not equate that they are faithful to exercise that faith. Consider Elijah after the mountain top experience.

Peter had the faith of God, but had little experience and no practical knowledge as the Holy Spirit exercising that faith through a believer's everyday living. The Work of the Holy Spirit and the Word in the believer exercises and demonstrates to the believer the faithfulness of God, but also the reliance upon the new nature (including faith) that He has given.

As 1 Corinthians 4 states:

"4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."​

And again in Galatians 2 states:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.​

The verses indicate that the believer does not fluff up their own faith, but lives by (the conduit) of the faith of Jesus Christ.

It is also important to know that the word "faith" is used throughout the NT as the persuasive credence in which one ascribes and adheres. There is no moral nor natural man ability to have such "faith" toward God, nor is there any unregenerate power in which one can express such. The Scriptures clearly state that is not the case of the natural man's state of affairs.

One further selection confirms the faith is not of human generational ability. Again in Galatians 3 it states:

"25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."​

That little underlined phrase (that faith is come) is more validity that it is not an innate in humankind, but given by God to the believer.

Also, the little word "in" is "en" which denotes a fixed position. NOT a preposition signifying movement in which one is placed into, but preposition of a decree, or stamp such as a king's stamp on a document making it official.

Does unregenerate man have a form of "faith?" 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says, no. If there is some human generated or innate faith it is fallen and has no desire to understand or know God, and God does not ever raise the fallen in glorification, for He has given us "new natures - created in Christ Jesus."

Your point that it gives man some "excuse" is merely a desire to validate your view with unsupported hyperbole and is not Scriptural.

But you already knew all this.

I stand by what I said, but this is not the thread to discuss this.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Iconoclast...

I refered to Lordship salvation as as being legalism, anf you replied..

Or some refer to it as the nornal christian.

life.:thumbs:

I am aware of that. But most of the time they grow weary of the "do more! do more! do more do more!" rat race, and they come to their senses.

They finally begin to understand that it is NOT a case of (((doing doing doing))) for God, but rather entering into the ~ rest ~ that God offers. Where HE initiates and completes his work through us.

Legalism is a terrible thing.

Praise the Lord

 

[agedman]

I am at a loss. I heard some bad things about this board before I joined, but I did not believe it, but now I see it. I have never heard any Baptist preacher suggest that a person does not have to repent to be saved. I may need to leave this board. I need to pray. I just cannot believe this. My heart is sad.

There is no telling the truth in love here on this board. I now remember why I left here years ago and sadly I must leave again for the same bitter competitive spirit. You cant drive theology but it is shared in love.

I would give you two thoughts about this (perhaps three).

First, not everyone on the board is a Baptist preacher. Some are teachers, some are lay people, some deacons, some house moms, some ...

Second, the BB is not for everyone. We all seek the truth (though it may seem the opposite) and the threads can be a bit "testy" at times. We all have our little hot button issues, and it is difficult to completely read attitude and intent without being in that person's presence.

Third, I personally consider that both of you (what little I have read of your posts) would find that the BB can offer a great deal of edification and you both have already brought certain edification to the board.

I would personally encourage you (both) to stay and contribute. You will be challenged and you will find agreement. That is just part of the mix. If everyone were in agreement there wouldn't be much discussion and debate.

If you think I or some other poster has stepped outside of appropriate deportment and especially one that is not Scriptural, it is imperative that you draw "swords" with that person and "contend for the faith" giving a ready answer to "the hope that is in you."

Call for good and Godly discussion and don't be afraid of the surges of froth and foam. There are good moderators on the board who are active in each thread.


One last thought.

It is not bad to leave for a while and then return if a certain topic or thread is not palatable. There are times when the "fools" don't need to be answered (proverbs) and sometimes when they need a good slap in the face (proverbs) - agedman's paraphrase version.

 

[agedman]

I stand by what I said, but this is not the thread to discuss this.

Really?

You were the one that considered what I posted in error as that of heretical proportions - false doctrine. I posted Scriptures to support and showed your use of Scriptures to be in error - though I didn't label them as "false doctrine."

This thread is on the merits of lordship salvation. In that discussion comes the genesis of faith.

I take the view that human "faith" in the unregenerate is also corrupt and unregenerate, and that God in giving the new nature also provides the purity of His faith, making the total of man's redemption all of Him and not one speck of human volition.

You take a differing view.

You make a claim that I refuted with Scriptures.

Stand by what you said all you like, but do not assume to claim that I have posted "false doctrine" and then not expect to have rebuttal giving Scriptural account of the view I hold.

You want to start another thread on the issue, fine. Copy your and my posts on the issue and others can join into the contention to perhaps a resolution.

 

[McWilliams]

Thanks for your encouragement! I will read a while and consider all you said.
Blessings,

 

[Winman]

Really?

You were the one that considered what I posted in error as that of heretical proportions - false doctrine. I posted Scriptures to support and showed your use of Scriptures to be in error - though I didn't label them as "false doctrine."

This thread is on the merits of lordship salvation. In that discussion comes the genesis of faith.

I take the view that human "faith" in the unregenerate is also corrupt and unregenerate, and that God in giving the new nature also provides the purity of His faith, making the total of man's redemption all of Him and not one speck of human volition.

You take a differing view.

You make a claim that I refuted with Scriptures.

Stand by what you said all you like, but do not assume to claim that I have posted "false doctrine" and then not expect to have rebuttal giving Scriptural account of the view I hold.

You want to start another thread on the issue, fine. Copy your and my posts on the issue and others can join into the contention to perhaps a resolution.

What does the "genesis" of faith have to do with Lordship Salvation?

Faith is a gift in the sense that no man could possibly believe in Jesus Christ unless God had revealed him to us through the preaching of the word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The hearing is man's part, the giving of the word of God is God's part. Without this revelation, no man could possibly believe in Jesus.

But all men are born with the ability to believe. The scriptures themselves show this.

Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

This verse iis speaking of a king or nation that trusts in their own strength to give them victory in war. It is faith, but it is faith in one's own self, not God.

You exercise faith every day. If you have ever used an elevator, you exercised faith. You trusted that the elevator would take you up and down in a building without falling.

Paul asked in Romans 10:14 "and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?". This statement directly addressess ABILITY. Paul does not mention supernatural regeneration here or anywhere in scripture to say we must be regenerated to believe. No, he says we must HEAR the word of God. The Paul asks, "and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Again, he does not say one word about regeneration to believe. Paul simply says a person must hear the word of God to believe, but there must be preachers who go out and teach, otherwise men cannot believe.

God does not require us to do something we are not able to do. God became flesh, he came down to our level and gave us revelation that we could understand just as we are.

But if your view is correct, God is unreasonable and unjust. He damns people to hell for unbelief when he knows they cannot possibly believe (in your view).

Yes, I call your view false doctrine.

 

[DHK]

Yes, I call your view false doctrine.

His view (agedman) is the Calvinistic position, and the way that more than 90% of Calvinists look at this subject (my guess), that faith is a gift of God. That is not false doctrine, but a point of theological difference.

What is false doctrine is FAL's point of view where "faith" is called a work.
Salvation is by faith.
Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God. Rom.5:1.
If faith is a work, and we are justified by faith, then we are justified by works. That is heresy. FAL's viewpoint is untenable and totally out of line with Scripture.

 

[Winman]

His view (agedman) is the Calvinistic position, and the way that more than 90% of Calvinists look at this subject (my guess), that faith is a gift of God. That is not false doctrine, but a point of theological difference.

What is false doctrine is FAL's point of view where "faith" is called a work.
Salvation is by faith.
Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God. Rom.5:1.
If faith is a work, and we are justified by faith, then we are justified by works. That is heresy. FAL's viewpoint is untenable and totally out of line with Scripture.

Well, I believe that teaching men have to be supernaturally regenerated to have the ability to believe is false doctrine. There is not one verse in all the scriptures to support this.

I agree with you that faith is not a work. Faith is ALWAYS contrasted to works in the scriptures.

 

[Winman]

This is what Albert Barnes (a Calvinist) wrote about Romans 10:17;

So then faith cometh ... - This I take to be clearly the language of the objector. As if he had said, by the very quotation which you have made from Isaiah, it appears that a report was necessary. He did not condemn people for not believing what they had not heard; but he complains of those who did not believe a message actually delivered to them. Even by this passage, therefore, it seems that a message was necessary, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the divine message. It could not be right, therefore, to condemn those who had not obeyed the gospel because they had not heard it; and hence, not right to make salvation dependent on a condition which was, by the arrangement of God, put beyond their power. The very quotation from Isaiah, therefore, goes to confirm the objection in Romans 10:14;15.

By hearing - Our translation has varied the expression here, which is the same in two places in the Greek: "Isaiah said, Who hath believed our report ͂ͅ ̓͂ͅ tē akoē ? So then, you must admit that faith comes by that report ̓ ̓͂ ex akoēs , and therefore this report or message is necessary." When it is said that faith cometh by hearing, it is not meant that all who hear actually believe, for that is not true; but that faith does not exist unless there is a message, or report, to be heard or believed. It cannot come otherwise than by such a message; in other words, unless there is something made known to be believed. And this shows us at once the importance of the message, and the fact that people are converted by the instrumentality of truth, and of truth only.

And hearing - And the report, or the message ( ̔̓̀ hē akoē ), is by the Word of God; that is, the message is sent by the command of God. It is his word, sent by his direction, and therefore if withheld by him, those who did not believe could not be blamed. The argument of the objector is, that God could not justly condemn people for not believing the gospel

Barnes agrees with me. Man could not possibly believe in Jesus unless they have heard of him. It is the message, the word of God that enables man to believe. There is no requirement to be supernaturally regenerated to be able to believe.

 

[agedman]

This is what Albert Barnes (a Calvinist) wrote about Romans 10:17;



Barnes agrees with me. Man could not possibly believe in Jesus unless they have heard of him. It is the message, the word of God that enables man to believe. There is no requirement to be supernaturally regenerated to be able to believe.

The question is not about whether a person must hear the Gospel and that enables him to believe. For the work of the Holy Spirit is through the Gospel and there is not any disagreement.

The real question is whether or not mankind has an innate ability of self-faith in which to believe.


Did you read what Barnes wrote in his notes on Romans 1:17?

"The gospel was not designed for this. It did not suppose that men had a certain degree of faith by nature, which needed only to be strengthened in order that they might be saved."

 

[Havensdad]

So slyly the "being" is placed into the verse you quoted.

But it is NOT in the text.

The actual verse states "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those what are sanctified."

There is no "being" in the original writing.

See for yourself:

Heb 10:14 For <gar> by one <mia> offering <prosphora> he hath perfected <teleioo> for <eis> ever <dienekes> them that are sanctified <hagiazo>​

Do you see "hagiazo" it is not "being sanctified" but "are sanctified."

Uh, no. You are reading the Greek language as if it has no inflection (English has very little...).

If you will bother looking at the underlying manuscript, you will see that it is not hagiadzo, but hagiadzomenous, which is the present, passive participle form of hagiadzo. "Passive" means that it is not something that you accomplish, but something done to you. "Present" means that it is current, and in this form of the Greek, continuous. "Participle" is what you might refer to as "ing" words.

So yes, "being sanctified" is the proper translation. "Are sanctified" is completely wrong, as it does not convey either the continuous sense nor the participle form.

The text says we are "being sanctified" not "are sanctified."

 

[Winman]

The question is not about whether a person must hear the Gospel and that enables him to believe. For the work of the Holy Spirit is through the Gospel and there is not any disagreement.

The real question is whether or not mankind has an innate ability of self-faith in which to believe.


Did you read what Barnes wrote in his notes on Romans 1:17?

"The gospel was not designed for this. It did not suppose that men had a certain degree of faith by nature, which needed only to be strengthened in order that they might be saved."

You don't get it, no man could have faith in Jesus unless the word of God had revealed Jesus to him. Men are not born with faith in Jesus. You did not have faith in Jesus until AFTER you heard of him.

Men have the ability to believe. I could show you all sorts of scripture that shows this.

Luk 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

The scriptures tell us why Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. He told it to rebuke and convict those who "trusted in themselves" that they were righteous. These men had faith, but it was misplaced, they trusted or believed they were righteous and able to merit salvation. Jesus showed that only the publican who placed faith in the mercy of God was forgiven of his sins and went down to his house justified.

All men have faith, all men believe something. It is impossible not to do so. Most folks trust in themselves that they are good enough to merit salvation. This is what we must repent, or change our mind about. We must realize we are all sinners and come short of the glory of God and that only Jesus can save us. We must place our faith or dependence upon Jesus only to save us as the publican did.

Even in this story you see no mention of a supernatural regeneration that allowed the publican to believe. He simply came in and confessed his sin and cast himself on the mercy of God. This is faith.

Salvation takes both the revelation and conviction of the Holy Spirit AND the faith of the man. You must believe for yourself, God does not believe for you. God enables you to believe through conviction and revelation, but you must believe for yourself.

 

[Winman]

Agedman, it is like this. I have played guitar around 40 years. Now I could give you one of my guitars for free. I could give you all sorts of instructional books that tell you how to play guitar. I could offer to give you free lessons on how to play.

Does that mean I gave you the ability to play guitar? No. You already have this ability if you have hands with fingers and ears that can hear musical notes. I have enabled you to play, but you already have the ability to play, although that ability is not well developed.

But if I did all this, would it give you the ability to play guitar? No. You have to pick up the guitar yourself and use your natural abilities to play. I cannot play for you, although I can help and enable you by giving you a guitar, books, and lessons. But you must use your own ability and learn to play for yourself. You are the one who has to pick up the guitar in your own hands, I can't do that for you.

The gospel is the same, God gives you everything you need to believe, but you must believe for yourself.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is what Albert Barnes (a Calvinist) wrote about Romans 10:17;



Barnes agrees with me. Man could not possibly believe in Jesus unless they have heard of him. It is the message, the word of God that enables man to believe. There is no requirement to be supernaturally regenerated to be able to believe.

Jesus does not agree with you or Barnes....He said a man must be born again.
Being Born from above is supernatural.

 

[Winman]

Jesus does not agree with you or Barnes....He said a man must be born again.
Being Born from above is supernatural.

You are correct that regeneration is supernatural and only God can do this.

Where you err is when you falsely teach a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. The scriptures say you have to believe before God will regenerate you.

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The scriptures say to those who received Jesus and believed on his name, to these persons (believers) God gave the power to BECOME sons of God. Believing precedes regeneration.

Believing is a natural ability all men have, though no man could possibly believe in Jesus unless God provided that knowledge and revelation to him. But only after believing the word of God does God give the power (regeneration) to BECOME a son of God.

Verse 13 is simply explaining that this becoming a son of God, this being born of God (regeneration) is something only God can perform. Nevertheless, God does not regenerate a person until they first believe on Jesus.

 

[Herald]

Where you err is when you falsely teach a person must be regenerated to have the ability to believe. The scriptures say you have to believe before God will regenerate you.

Regeneration is defined as, "the action of the Holy Spirit , who transforms the lives of those given the gift of faith so they experience a "new birth" and salvation through Jesus Christ."*

The sinner has a problem according to Ephesians 2:1 and 1 Corinthians 2:14. The sinner is spiritually dead and incapable of a positive response to the Gospel. Now, before you say it, I know that you disagree with this interpretation of Scripture. But understand that the hermeneutic Iconoclast is following traces as far back as at least Augustine, so it's not a novel idea. Being spiritually dead the sinner cannot believe apart from a work of God making him capable of believing. That is the Reformed understanding of Ephesians 2:4-5, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ ( by grace you have been saved)," It was while the sinner was spiritually dead [nekros = dead, as in a corpse] that God made him alive; alive before any act of belief [faith] on the sinner's part. That is what the Reformed believe the bible teaches about regeneration. I do understand that the Arminian view is that faith precedes regeneration. We just have a systemic disagreement that is inherent to our theological presuppositions.




*Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Donald K. McKim.