Why is lordship Salvation so hard for many to understand?

[Iconoclast]

Yes no one is sinless.

No, we are talking about the saved. Unsaved people do not have Jesus as their Lord.

It's not sinlessness. LS beleives in progressive sanctification. It's a huge part of it because progressive sanctification is growth, which is what a Christian does.


Repentance happens at salvation, the results of repentance happens after salvation. No one teaches that anyone has to be good, clean up their act or any other way to put it in order to be saved. So please, stop trying to build your straw man. Everyone here has corrected you, but yet you keep trying to misrepresent. If LS is wrong, just show how it's wrong in what LS actually teaches. What you have put here, no one believes. From this point on, you will be just lying if you keep saying what you said above since you have been corrected on more than one occasion. It's not Christlike to lie about other believers in what they believe.

:thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

No, we are talking about the saved. Unsaved people do not have Jesus as their Lord.

The thread is: "Why Lordship Salvation is hard...."
It is about salvation--how people get saved. LS is a reaction to easy-believism. Theopedia will tell you the same thing. This is not about the saved it is about leading the unsaved to the Lord. The LS reject non-Cal methodologies and have come up with a new methodology which many of us object to because we believe it borders on a works-based salvation.
Is salvation by grace through faith?
Or, is gained by total submission to Christ? It can't be both.

It's not sinlessness. LS beleives in progressive sanctification. It's a huge part of it because progressive sanctification is growth, which is what a Christian does.

That is what a Christian says. That is not what is taught for an unbeliever at salvation, and that is the problem. Total submission to Christ as Lord for one to be saved leaves out progressive salvation completely.

Repentance happens at salvation, the results of repentance happens after salvation. No one teaches that anyone has to be good, clean up their act or any other way to put it in order to be saved. So please, stop trying to build your straw man.

This seems to be some people's default position. I tell you exactly what the position is even giving quotes. I support my position. I give Scripture. And when you can't refute it--the default is: you have a straw man. How many times I have heard that in the last few days, I cannot count.

Everyone here has corrected you, but yet you keep trying to misrepresent. If LS is wrong, just show how it's wrong in what LS actually teaches. What you have put here, no one believes. From this point on, you will be just lying if you keep saying what you said above since you have been corrected on more than one occasion. It's not Christlike to lie about other believers in what they believe.

I have given links, posted quotes, given the history of it, etc. What more can I do?
Realize this: The words "Lordship Salvation" are not in the Bible.
In its modern form it was invented by John MacArthur, although it does have a history that reaches farther back than MacArthur.
In MacArthur's book, he says that for one to be saved he "must be totally submitted to Christ as Lord."
That is not Biblical; it is a works salvation.
Salvation is a gift to be received not something to be worked for.
Submission is a work. That is what slaves do. Salvation is a free gift.

 

[RLBosley]

The thread is: "Why Lordship Salvation is hard...."
It is about salvation--how people get saved. LS is a reaction to easy-believism. Theopedia will tell you the same thing. This is not about the saved it is about leading the unsaved to the Lord. The LS reject non-Cal methodologies and have come up with a new methodology which many of us object to because we believe it borders on a works-based salvation.
Is salvation by grace through faith?
Or, is gained by total submission to Christ? It can't be both.

That is what a Christian says. That is not what is taught for an unbeliever at salvation, and that is the problem. Total submission to Christ as Lord for one to be saved leaves out progressive salvation completely.

This seems to be some people's default position. I tell you exactly what the position is even giving quotes. I support my position. I give Scripture. And when you can't refute it--the default is: you have a straw man. How many times I have heard that in the last few days, I cannot count.

I have given links, posted quotes, given the history of it, etc. What more can I do?
Realize this: The words "Lordship Salvation" are not in the Bible.
In its modern form it was invented by John MacArthur, although it does have a history that reaches farther back than MacArthur.
In MacArthur's book, he says that for one to be saved he "must be totally submitted to Christ as Lord."
That is not Biblical; it is a works salvation.
Salvation is a gift to be received not something to be worked for.
Submission is a work. That is what slaves do. Salvation is a free gift.

Wow. Now I truly understand what James White means when he spoke of the "dogged repetition of already refuted errors."

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow. Now I truly understand what James White means when he spoke of the "dogged repetition of already refuted errors."

Does a Christian have to totally surrender all known sin areas to Jesus all the time in order to either get or kept saved then?

And when a saint does sin, what causes him to do that, as many in LS refuse to accept that we still have the sinner nature there!

 

[RLBosley]

Does a Christian have to totally surrender all known sin areas to Jesus all the time in order to either get or kept saved then?

And when a saint does sin, what causes him to do that, as many in LS refuse to accept that we still have the sinner nature there!

:BangHead: Go back and reread the last 20 pages. I'm not laying it out for you again. I gave up a while back.

 

[preacher4truth]

Wow. Now I truly understand what James White means when he spoke of the "dogged repetition of already refuted errors."

Good to see yet another who is on track and can actually see what is going on. :thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

And when a saint does sin, what causes him to do that, as many in LS refuse to accept that we still have the sinner nature there!

Who are these people?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1

Does a Christian have to totally surrender all known sin areas to Jesus all the time in order to either get or kept saved then?

Not in your world...This "professed "Christian can keep hold of all his favorite sins, cover them up a bit, but enjoy sin to the full:thumbsup:

In the other world...Jesus saves His people from their sins....not in them:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Who are these people?

Y1 will never reveal the identity of Some people, because some people never actually said or believe what he claims...He never answers or shows a proof of anything.

 

[jbh28]

The thread is: "Why Lordship Salvation is hard...."
It is about salvation--how people get saved. LS is a reaction to easy-believism. Theopedia will tell you the same thing. This is not about the saved it is about leading the unsaved to the Lord. The LS reject non-Cal methodologies and have come up with a new methodology which many of us object to because we believe it borders on a works-based salvation.

I was referring to the specific point that was made, which was about saved and not the lost.

Is salvation by grace through faith?

YES!

Or, is gained by total submission to Christ? It can't be both.

Repentance and faith happen at salvation. Total submission to Christ is the result of true repentance.

That is what a Christian says. That is not what is taught for an unbeliever at salvation, and that is the problem. Total submission to Christ as Lord for one to be saved leaves out progressive salvation completely.

Not at all. You keep linking "total submission to Christ" as being perfect which is not what is being taught. No one is teaching that anyone will be perfect.

This seems to be some people's default position. I tell you exactly what the position is even giving quotes. I support my position. I give Scripture. And when you can't refute it--the default is: you have a straw man. How many times I have heard that in the last few days, I cannot count.

It's a straw man because you misrepresent even though you have been corrected countless times. You give quotes and misinterpret them, even though you have been corrected countless times. No one, I repeat no one teaches that anyone has to do any obedience nor be perfect to be saved. Total submission to Christ doesn't equal perfection.

I have given links, posted quotes, given the history of it, etc. What more can I do?

You are misinterpreting what people are meaning. You have been corrected.

Realize this: The words "Lordship Salvation" are not in the Bible.

No, but that doesn't make the teaching wrong. There is nothing wrong with naming something we believe in the Bible and call it something...Trinity for example.

In its modern form it was invented by John MacArthur, although it does have a history that reaches farther back than MacArthur.
In MacArthur's book, he says that for one to be saved he "must be totally submitted to Christ as Lord."
That is not Biblical; it is a works salvation.

No it's not. Now listen very carefully. MacArthur does not mean that you have to do any works to be saved when he makes the statement above. He means that when one believes and repentant, he will submit to God. This will result in good works. No one teaches that anyone has to do any obedience before salvation. so no, it 's not works salvation by any means whatsoever.

Salvation is a gift to be received not something to be worked for.

Agree 100% and so does MacArthur. "It is not that salvation requires faith plus works, but that works are the consequent outgrowth and completion of genuine faith" - John MacArthur.

Submission is a work.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean acting in submission, then yes. But that's not what is meant by Macarthur. He doesn't mean any act of submission. [/quote]That is what slaves do. Salvation is a free gift.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and MacArthur and I agree with you that it's a free give and no works are necessary.

 

[DHK]

Repentance and faith happen at salvation. Total submission to Christ is the result of true repentance.

Biblical repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. Total submission to Christ is the result of sanctification, not repentance; it is the result of discipleship and growth; not repentance. Repentance may be just one small step in a long process to "total submission." That will never come automatically "at the cross," that is, at salvation.

Not at all. You keep linking "total submission to Christ" as being perfect which is not what is being taught. No one is teaching that anyone will be perfect.

I guess I don't throw around words so lightly. If one is "totally submitted to Christ," then wouldn't it be fair to say that they have no sin that they know of? If they did, then they wouldn't be totally submitted would they? That is one of the problems with LS. It leaves no room for error in the way it expresses itself.
From the quotes that I have read, MacArthur says:
"In order to be saved on must be totally submitted to Christ as Lord."
To me that implies or infers sinlessness. It also implies works, not grace.

It's a straw man because you misrepresent even though you have been corrected countless times. You give quotes and misinterpret them, even though you have been corrected countless times. No one, I repeat no one teaches that anyone has to do any obedience nor be perfect to be saved. Total submission to Christ doesn't equal perfection.

I think we might have to agree to disagree, at least in part.
How does total submission to Christ not equal perfection?
I believe that the reality of total submission is a goal to work toward but never will be realized. Those who fail to see their true sinfulness in the face of a holy and righteous God have much to learn. How can anyone say they are totally submitted? We are not even doing all that we should be doing, much less not doing what we should not be doing.

No, but that doesn't make the teaching wrong. There is nothing wrong with naming something we believe in the Bible and call it something...Trinity for example.

If looked at objectively, in the current terminology of both MacArthur and Washer, I believe we can see how wrong it is.

No it's not. Now listen very carefully. MacArthur does not mean that you have to do any works to be saved when he makes the statement above. He means that when one believes and repentant, he will submit to God. This will result in good works. No one teaches that anyone has to do any obedience before salvation. so no, it 's not works salvation by any means whatsoever.

"In order to be saved on must be totally submitted to Christ as Lord."
The above statement is in direct opposition to "by grace are ye saved through faith." Salvation is a gift to be received, not a package to be worked for in "submission."
Where does the NT demand repentance in order to be saved?
In the verses you provide what does repentance mean?
Many times the "texts" given use repentance as a work in and of itself.

Agree 100% and so does MacArthur. "It is not that salvation requires faith plus works, but that works are the consequent outgrowth and completion of genuine faith" - John MacArthur.

This is the rub isn't it? In many of the posts I read here, the Cal will not take the word of one who says he has trusted Christ as sincere. He will take a wait and see attitude. Only if he sees works is the person saved. Therefore he is actually saved by works. IMO, he would not consider the thief on the cross saved because there was no fruit; the same holds true for Lot, in spite of what the Bible says.
We must leave the salvation of individuals in the hands of God. We are not their judges.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean acting in submission, then yes. But that's not what is meant by Macarthur. He doesn't mean any act of submission.

But that is what he says. He should say what he means and mean what he says. I take him at his word.

 

[Judith]

I answered your question completely and then I answered using the Scripture that you gave in your post, and showed how you used them out of context.

There is not one Scripture that demands one surrender totally in order to be saved. If that were necessary then salvation would be based on works and not on grace through faith (Eph.2:8,9).

Only because you do not understand surrender/repentance. There is no such thing as almost repenting/surrendering. If Jesus is not received as Lord He does not come become our Savior.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Only because you do not understand surrender/repentance. There is no such thing as almost repenting/surrendering. If Jesus is not received as Lord He does not come become our Savior.

He understanding both well. The misunderstanding here is what repentance actually is. Metanoeo means "to change one's mind." In coming to Christ, the ultimate change of mind is not about sin, it is about who God is.

 

[Revmitchell]

He understanding both well. The misunderstanding here is what repentance actually is. Metanoeo means "to change one's mind." In coming to Christ, the ultimate change of mind is not about sin, it is about who God is.

It is about sin and rebellion against God.

You cannot share the gospel and tell the lost about the cross and not deal with the reason Jesus was on the cross. To do so is to fail to share the gospel. Belief in God without turning from sin is no gospel at all. I am sure Joel Osteen would like it though.

 

[The Biblicist]

Only because you do not understand surrender/repentance. There is no such thing as almost repenting/surrendering. If Jesus is not received as Lord He does not come become our Savior.

We are not denying he is received as both Lord (as to his Deity) and Savior (as to his work of redemption). However, we are denying that the gift of eternal life is in any way based on, joined with, or dependent upon any kind of works done in our own person. We believe that the works performed solely in the Person of Jesus Christ satisfied completely the Law of God in our behalf - plus nothing, minus nothing. That God by his grace works in us to will and to do OF HIS GOOD PLEASURE in keeping with his purpose for the life of each person and in keeping with the measure of grace, and the measure of faith allotted to them. Christians vary in spiritual growth and in MANIFEST righteousness but they do not vary on the righteousness necessary to be justified before God - SINLESS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Moreover, not all righteousness is MANIFESTED in the person's life as Lot's "heart was vexed" with the sins around him but his own testimony was so poorly visibly manifested that even his children would not listen to him or follow him, and even his own wife was reluctant to do so, and he was easily led by his daughters into drunkenness and incest as the last words we have about his life as a child of God. However, Peter says he was not of them who are reserved for eternal darkness.

In addition, no person is without sin at any time in their life. To think so, is to either redefine the standard of the Law or redefine sin. Sin begins with a wrong motive (1 Cor. 10:31) and then proceeds to wrong attitudes and actions but even MANIFEST righteousness is regarded as "iniquity" (Mt. 7:23) if the motive is wrong. We are at all times coming short of "the glory of God" which is sinlessness (Mt. 5:48; James 2:10-11).

All children of God persevere in saving faith (1 Jn. 2:19) but not all perserve in MANIFEST righteousness (Lot, David, Solomon, etc.). However, all do persevere in righteous intent (Rom. 7:18 - "for to will is present but how to perform I find not.").

 

[Iconoclast]

It is about sin and rebellion against God.

You cannot share the gospel and tell the lost about the cross and not deal with the reason Jesus was on the cross. To do so is to fail to share the gospel. Belief in God without turning from sin is no gospel at all. I am sure Joel Osteen would like it though.

:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

He shall save his people from their sins...not in them.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is about sin and rebellion against God.

You cannot share the gospel and tell the lost about the cross and not deal with the reason Jesus was on the cross. To do so is to fail to share the gospel. Belief in God without turning from sin is no gospel at all. I am sure Joel Osteen would like it though.

Are you confusing gospel repentance with penance? Gospel Repentance is the change of mind, heart and will in regard to sin and the gospel WITH THE INTENT NOT TO SIN, rather than the progressive act of dealing with sin (that is progressive sanctification). However, in regard to progressive sanctification it is three steps forward and two steps back, never completed, never finished in this life, filled with victory and defeat, even though the INTENT NOT TO SIN is constantly present (Rom. 7:18).

At no point in our life do we ever cease to sin (1 Jn. 1:8-10) whether it is by omission or commission.

I think you are confusing INTENT with ABILITY. Gospel repentance declares the INTENT and the INTENT never fails (Rom. 7:18). However, ABILITY is found only by dying daily, moment by moment to sin by reckoning ourselves "dead to sin" based on our LEGAL POSITION in Christ by the POWER of the indwelling Spirit of Christ and that is a matter of inconsistency with the best of saints. The unregenerate man does not have that INTENT (Rom. 8:7) or ABILITY.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It is about sin and rebellion against God.

You cannot share the gospel and tell the lost about the cross and not deal with the reason Jesus was on the cross. To do so is to fail to share the gospel. Belief in God without turning from sin is no gospel at all. I am sure Joel Osteen would like it though.

:laugh: I'm sure Joel would, too.

I agree, the lost have to know the reason Jesus went to the cross. But even then, the change of mind that matters is not about sin. If it were only that, "repentance" would be about nothing more than not sinning. The point is, in our own power, we can't "not sin." That is possible only in the power of Christ. Therefore, our change of mind must ultimately be about who God is, and about His power, His love and His ability to change us.

Sin and its power over us must be spoken of in a true gospel presentation. But the real glory of the Gospel is that in spite of our rebellion and enmity toward God, He loves us anyway, and in spite of our sinful nature that rules that flesh, He has already paid its price. The real change of mind -- and of heart -- is found in ending that rebellion because we no longer conceive of Him as an enemy, but recognize Him as a friend and our Savior, and eventually, either quickly or not so much, come to realize He is Lord.

I separate those two to point out that many believe in Christ as Savior, that He died on the cross to set us free from sin and resurrected from the dead to prove life eternal. But even with that saving faith, we often continue on in our own strength to battle sin, which is futile. Surrender comes when we finally realize the battle is not only not ours, but it is already over. It ended at the cross. It takes some people years to realize that, but between salvation and that realization, they are no less believers and Christians.

 

[Revmitchell]

:laugh: I'm sure Joel would, too.

I agree, the lost have to know the reason Jesus went to the cross. But even then, the change of mind that matters is not about sin. If it were only that, "repentance" would be about nothing more than not sinning. The point is, in our own power, we can't "not sin." That is possible only in the power of Christ. Therefore, our change of mind must ultimately be about who God is, and about His power, His love and His ability to change us.

Sin and its power over us must be spoken of in a true gospel presentation. But the real glory of the Gospel is that in spite of our rebellion and enmity toward God, He loves us anyway, and in spite of our sinful nature that rules that flesh, He has already paid its price. The real change of mind -- and of heart -- is found in ending that rebellion because we no longer conceive of Him as an enemy, but recognize Him as a friend and our Savior, and eventually, either quickly or not so much, come to realize He is Lord.

I separate those two to point out that many believe in Christ as Savior, that He died on the cross to set us free from sin and resurrected from the dead to prove life eternal. But even with that saving faith, we often continue on in our own strength to battle sin, which is futile. Surrender comes when we finally realize the battle is not only not ours, but it is already over. It ended at the cross. It takes some people years to realize that, but between salvation and that realization, they are no less believers and Christians.

Where you struggle with the gospel is in your thinking that repentence (sinning against God) means sinnless perfection. It does not. You do not truly understand repentance.


When we come to the Lord for salvation we need to do that understanding out sinful state and having a godly sorrow for it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Where you struggle with the gospel is in your thinking that repentence (sinning against God) means sinnless perfection.

That's silly. I hold no such delusion, and my previous post should disprove your conclusion for you.

It does not. You do not truly understand repentance.

I fully understand it. It is nothing more than changing one's affections from earthly things to heavenly things. It involves turning to the living God from a god of self. It is looking to Christ instead of looking to another, including self or a "program" or anything that is used as a replacement for God. It has nothing to do with turning from individual sins. If it did, repentance would be sufficient for salvation.

When we come to the Lord for salvation we need to do that understanding out sinful state and having a godly sorrow for it.

How that sinful state is defined is what is at issue. Many believe it is the baggage of sin we carry with us, the individual acts of rebellion against God. It is not. Our sinful state is defined by the very rebellion that has previously kept us from understanding why God had done for us as He has done.