I am CONFUSED about Lordship theology

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, May 21, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,366
    Likes Received:
    105
    Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Yesterday in my challenge/mini sermon somewhere I challenged my audience to accept the calling and make Christ Lord of their lives. I said that those that read a tract, say a prayer, but have no fruit throughout their lives probably are not saved. So is it true that Charles Ryrie and other non Lordship types teach intellectual knowledge only? if so I think they are dead wrong.
     
  2. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you that Charles Ryrie is "dead wrong." The call to "pick up our cross" is a call to salvation.

    However, there are two grains of "no Lordship" theology. Ryrie represents the more moderate grain. Grace Evangelical Society represents the whackadoo grain, which affirms that salvation is nothing more than a one-time intellectual "belief" in Christ (for more info, see here: http://www.faithalone.org/about/board.html).

    Both, however, affirm easy believ-ism, and deny the biblical Gospel call. Salvation is through faith (submissive trust...ENTRUSTING oneself to Christ), not mental assent.
     
  3. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    The choices are not "Lordship salvation" versus Ryrie and his ilk. There is the traditional evangelical position which is neither, but teaches solid repentance and faith. The modern "Lordship" view is comparatively recent in church history, with its recent popularity easily traced to John MacArthur and his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.

    There have been quite a few threads on this issue on the BB. I suggest you do a search and educate yourself.
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, I disagree with you. I would assert that historically the Lordship Salvation view IS the classic evangelical position. Those teaching are clearly seen, not only in 18th century evangelicals, but in the earlier teachings of men like Francke.

    Now if you are speaking of evangelicalism in its 20th century terms (after the advent of fundamentalism), then I would tell you that evangelicalism was a very broad field, and included both Lordship, and Non-Lordship proponents.

    The Lordship view is most certainly NOT recent in history.
     
  5. Berean

    Berean
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    817
    Likes Received:
    1
    I dealt with this issue 35 years ago when going through EE. In counseling new believers I was asked to use the phrase, "You must make him Lord in your life". I had a problem with this as I felt this was an act of works. I began to use the term, "You will be willing to make him Lord in your life".
    IMHO this gives a different approach and is free from Lordship Salvation.
     
  6. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is that works? You are not doing anything. Saying, "Jesus I will follow you. I put myself in your hands" is not works. Nor is it promising perfection.

    There is no Biblical precedent for a person going, "Jesus, I want salvation, but want nothing to do with YOU." That is foreign from the text.
     
  7. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,212
    Likes Received:
    192
    You missed that I said "modern Lordship view." :saint: IMO, MacArthur made explicit what many authors previously made implicit.

    At any rate, my point to evangelist 6589 is still valid, that there is a very widely accepted middle position.
     
  8. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    An exchange is works.

    This is the strawman of non lordship.
     
  9. Greektim

    Greektim
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    118
    I think it is interesting that in Jesus' presentation of his gospel, he warned people before they started to follow him. He said that followers should "count the cost". I think that makes it obvious what is expected of discipleship to Jesus. And Jesus only "accepted" disciples, not "converts".
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm...now you need to explain how someone who needs to be regenerated to "count the costs" can do so pre-regeneration.
     
  11. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no exchange. You are not giving anything. You are placing your life in the hands of the one who will save you. If you are in a burning house with a broken leg, and a fireman breaks in to get you, and you cling to the fireman when he picks you up, there is no exchange taking place. You are not "paying" the fireman. That is just ridiculous.

    There is no strawman. It is the inevitable conclusion. EITHER someone can say, "I don't want to follow you Jesus; I just want a ticket to heaven" or they cannot.

    If it is a strawman, then SURELY you would not have a problem just going ahead and denying that a person can do that? Right? Why don't you just go ahead and do that now....
     
  12. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    No its not.......
     
  13. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is...
     
  14. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    “This is what Jesus meant when He spoke of taking up one’s own cross to follow Him. And that is why he demanded that we count the cost carefully. He was calling for an exchange of all that we are for all that He is. He was demanding implicit obedience--unconditional surrender to His lordship.” (MacArthur, Hard to Believe, p. 6.)

    Whatever you say...



    Now you can show us of just one non-lordshipper who fits your "inevitable conclusion" to refute my strawman claim. Should I be holding my breath?
     
  15. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a shame how churches have lost sight of what works is and is not.
     
  16. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    ....or how they are becoming blinded to the fact that exchanging all that I am for all that Christ is (MacArthur's words) is nothing more than a front loaded works based salvation.

    But hey....if it sounds spiritual enough!
     
  17. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, according to your definition, the helpless person who is laying in the burning house is making an "exchange" when he gives up the wooden floor on which he lays, for the arms of the fireman...


    I am waiting for YOU to deny it...
     
  18. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, to paint a more accurate picture using your analogy, I deny the view of the fireman coming into the burning house, seeing you lying there, and asking "are you willing to give up your old life in exchange for me rescuing you"? (Lordship Salvation)




    What is there for me to deny? You erected the asinine strawman, you need to put your money where you keyboard is.
     
  19. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is an inaccurate picture. Sin is not some inconsequential part of the story. Sin is the fire that is bringing about your destruction.


    Why do you not simply deny it? Why can't you say, "Yes, I deny that a person can take Jesus' 'ticket to heaven' and yet say, 'I want nothing to do with you, Jesus...I just want to be saved.' "

    If it is so ridiculous, why can't you just deny it? What is so difficult about that?
     
  20. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0

    And you make my point. Thanks:thumbsup:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...