Honest debate of Lordship Salvation

The problem with this kind of proof is how do you measure it? It may be a useful yardstick on a personal level (do I really believe Jesus is my Lord?), but I don't know if you can measure accurately someone else's commitment that way.

Maybe if they out-and-out deny Jesus as Lord, that would be pretty obvious (though still not 100% reliable - they could be overreacting to something and not really stating what is in their heart). But we can't necessarily draw a conclusion just because they're not living as well as we think they should live as Christians.

 

It seems to me that LS is more about evaluating ourselves rather than others. I cannot say and don't have the right to that another is saved. But I can look at myself and ask myself some very important questions.

Paul said we are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Isn't this what LS is about?

 

For those that know the details of LS, does this verse contradict it?

Pro 24:16 For a righteous man may fall seven times
And rise again,
But the wicked shall fall by calamity.



If when a person that is falling many times during his life, at those times, does he pass the LS test? Even though this verse tells us he is still righteous?

 

after eading John 15 and 1 John 2 what do you think?

 

I don't know enough about LS to have an answer, that is why I am asking the question with regards to this verse.

 

LS doesn't require perfection. The overall view has to do with motivation of actions not just specific behavior. Peter didnt always act right but it is obvious he called Christ Lord.

It is untrue that we cannot judge on this issue. Matt 7:16, 20

 

But that still doesn't answer my question, in regard to that verse. If when a person, is in the process of falling many times, at that point would he pass the LS test? That is what I am trying to figure out? I don't know enough about it to know the answer. But it would seem to me that if he wouldn't, but he also is righteous there might be a problem. Please take note, I am not saying that LS is wrong, I just have questions. I happen to like JM, and read some of his work, and enjoy it.

 

I would be careful about using wisdom literature to define doctrine. What I am saying is this... according to these verses from Proverbs.... basically what is being said is that a righteous person will realize his sin and repent. Don't we do that daily? Don't we recognize that our righteousness is as filthy rags daily? Whereas a wicked man who does not recognize his sin wallows in it. Does that make sense?
Another example of wisdom literature that you can not build doctrine upon is if you raise a child in the way of God he will not depart from it. (My paraphrase.) You don't really think if you raise a child in church that will guarantee that child will be saved do you?

 

Thanks for the reply, and I understand what you are saying, and I do agree. But I guess I still have questions. Take someone who once saved, will stumble for not just a moment or a day, but years. But like the Prodigal son, returns to the Lord one day. Is LS saying that he couldn't have been saved, while he was in the mud for those many years? Another question does LS claim that if someone struggles repeatedly with a particular sin, and falls many time over and over again with regard to that sin, they not really saved? Those are the questions I have about LS. From what I have read about it, it sounds like there is some standard with regard to ones salvation.

 

I would have great doubts about someone who is a prodigal. The point of the prodigal wasn't about a stumbling believer. It was about a loving Father waiting to recieve the prodigal after returning.

 

This is similar to what I was suggesting above. I don't think you can say the person wasn't saved because he spent some years in the mud. IMO (and this is just my opinion), Lordship is a relational issue, not a behavioral issue. If your relationship is right, it should translate into behavior, and all things being equal, it WILL translate into behavior. But you can't always work backward from the behavior to determine if the relationship is there. It's not that simple. There may be other factors involved. We all react differently when our faith is tested, and at any given moment we may seem like we're rebellious.

 

Let me ask you something. If one who knows it is sin to do something and does it anyway.... are they really believing in the Lord? If they are practicing sin?
1 John 3
4. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
5. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
6. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8. the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

John was writing in response to gnosticism. I feel that in the church today, and among the reformed and non reformed brothers alike, that an antinomian attitude is too prevalent. We are not saved by the law, but by grace through faith. A regenerate person will deny himself (whole hearted commitment to follow the Lord) pick up his cross (die to self) and follow Jesus. It is that simple... and that complex.

 

That was a good answer :thumbs:

 

I understand what you are saying, and I can't disagree, but that opens more questions. How do we know at what point is one practicing sin and not saved, or just stumbling, but is saved? How do we know when a sin is habitual enough that it is a lifestyle of sin, and one isn't saved? Is the answer that, as long as we are saddened when we sin, and repentant we are saved? Or is the answer when someone willfully sins he isn't? How do we know? My pastor once sad that we should never try and see how close we can walk to the edge of a cliff without falling, and I would agree.

 

I want to follow this thread, but don't have time to contribute much today (or maybe at all). But I want to throw some points in that are rarely seen in these discussions. (And yes, I did read the thread so far and various other threads on the BB about the subject.)

(1) The Gospel is very clear in Scripture, as taught in 1 Cor. 15, that Christ died for our sins (as proven by His burial) and rose again the third day (as proven by over 500 witnesses). We are to give the Gospel to every creature. But since the Gospel doesn't discuss accepting Christ as Lord, then that is not part of our message. The Gospel doesn't include the Lordship of Christ in the sense of making Christ Lord of one's life (though it implicitly includes His deity).

(2) We are told that in order to enter the kingdom we must become as little children. What little child can understand the concept of Christ's lordship? I know I didn't when I was most definitely saved from sin at 4. I didn't understand Christ's Lordship until age 16, but I was baptized, won my kindergarten friend to Christ, read my Bible through, was faithful in church, obeyed my parents. Those things were the result of my new birth, though, not a qualification for it.

 

The part about confessing Jesus as Lord kind of sticks out in my mind as something that includes the lordship of Christ in the gospel. The sacrifice of Christ is only good because of his lordship.

Sounds to me like you understood his lordship, though you may not have known it by that name. This is exactly the kind of thing the LS is talking about. No one makes these things a qualification for the new birth. Submitting to his lordship is the result of the new birth.

 

If you are talking about Rom. 10:13, that verse is very commonly used by LS advocates. However, it does not say, "Confess Christ as Lord," but "Confess the Lord Jesus." The phrase "Lord Jesus" is clearly accusative in the original. To "confess Christ as Lord," it would have to have the word ws (omega sigma) as in Rom. 1:21. There is clear Greek grammar for "Christ as Lord" which doesn't exist in Rom. 10:13.

If you are talking about Rom. 14:11 or Phil. 2:11, they talk about every knee bowing and confessing that Jesus is Lord. In these verses it is not those who are believing, but "every knee." So who confesses Christ as Lord? Someday it will be everyone. But of course we are not universalists who believe that everyone will be saved. Now, since a completely lost person can and will confess that Jesus is Lord of all, how is that a part of salvation?

This is a key point to me. It matters not if you confess Christ as Lord, He is Lord of your life anyway! But it does matter if you don't accept Him as your Savior.

Sorry, but when I was first taught LS in 1972 in a class taught by Arend ten Pas (one of John MacArthur's sources), I was taught that you do have to accept Christ as Lord to be born again. I asked him this same question about childhood salvation then and ten Pas gave no answer, whether he had one or not. Maybe had it figured out by 1976 when his book came out, but I never bought the book.

But it is moot whether or not I understood the lordship of Christ at age 4. (I'll say again that I did not.) What matters is the Scripture. Can you show me in the Word of God that to accept Christ as a child means to accept the Lordship of Christ?

 

Well, I've found a few minutes to post.

You know, everyone goes to Romans to explain the Gospel. The "Romans Road" is used by many to give the Gospel, and Romans is used as the theological foundation for any discussion of salvation. However!! Romans explains the Gospel and salvation, but it is not the book designed to teach it to lost people. That book is John's Gospel (20:30-31).

Now, the word "Lord" appears 44 times in the book of John. There are only two places in the book of John where it actually discusses the Lordship of Christ. In every single other instance, it is used as a title for Christ, and then usually in conversation by Christians addressing Christ, not as a condition of salvation.

The first is after Christ washes the disciples' feet in ch. 13. And there the purpose of the discussion is not to get anyone to accept Him as Lord. That is given as a fact. No, it is to teach humility and service to the disciples. Salvation is not in question in this passage.

The second is when He discusses the relationship of servant and Lord in chapter 15. But then he tells them that they have a new relationship with Him, that of friendship!! Salvation is not in question in this passage either.

Some would say that when Thomas calls Christ "My Lord and my God" in 20:28 he was getting saved. But that is speculation. At any rate, even if Thomas was getting saved there, John never tells anyone to believe Christ as both Lord and Savior.

One final note on John. If you will check your harmony of the Gospels, you will find that the strongest passage on the Lordship of Christ in all the Gospels, the one where Jesus tells His disciples to take up their crosses and follow Him, is not in John!! It occurs in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not in John. So the only book in the NT with a goal of having people believe in Christ does not tell us to take up our cross, deny ourselves, and make Christ the Lord of our lives.

 

John, you know Greek better than that. Every major translation except the KJV and the NKJV disagrees with you, as do most commentators that I am aware of. "Jesus as Lord" or "Jesus is Lord" is a perfectly acceptable rendering of the double accusative. It does not have to have the "as" there. Rom 1:21 is a different construction.

But even if you were right, you still have to confess the lordship of Jesus: " ... Confess the Lord Jesus."

In order to be saved, you have to recognize who Christ is and what he did. That means you accept him as Lord. What you describe above about your life after salvation seems to be LS, whether you accept the terminology or not. A person at whatever age they are has to understand the gospel, and the gospel is inseperable from the Lord of the gospel.

Yes, if you confess Jesus as Lord ... you shall be saved.

 

Kind of shooting from the hip here, aren't you? Maybe you're short on time or something. You thought I was referring to 10:9, but I said 10:13. (I guess you were referring to 10:9, though. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be tricky, just misspoke myself.) On 10:13, on my side, check the NASV (always very literal), the NIV, the New English Bible, the RSV--in fact, name a major translation that disagrees with me!!

On 10:9, surely you don't believe that actual confession with the mouth is a necessary prerequisite to salvation, do you? If so, then pity the poor man who cannot speak from birth, an operation, etc.. He is destined for Hell for the lack of vocal chords.

You are pontificating here. You say, "In order to be saved, you have to recognize who Christ is and what he did. That means you accept him as Lord." So please give me Scripture, don't just lecture me.

On the contrary, what you are describing is not LS. A true LS advocate insists that you must accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved, not after slavation. I would quote John MacArthur here, but judging from the recent debate here on the BB (I do not mean you) I would immediately be accused of twisting MacArthur's words. So let's just stick to Scripture, shall we?

I am perfectly willing to admit that if a person is saved they are born again, and thus will act differently. That does not mean ergo, that he has "made Christ Lord of his life." If one is a servant or slave, he obeys his Lord in everything. Christ taught that to be the very basic level of servanthood. I don't do that and I'm pretty sure you don't.