Lordship necessary for salvation

Would there needs be another level to categorise whose definition of Lordship is "real" Lordship? And what does one mean when they refer to "submission" to that form of Lordship. I'm sure that even some here when they think of "Lordship Salvation" have something different in mind to another.

Darren

 

I don't anyone has even disputed that fact.

Yes but what if I turn around and say, I don't want to submit to Jesus? Are they really saved? Did God convert them knowing they have no intentions to follow Jesus?

I don't think anyone is even disputing that fact. Its only when a sinner has the idea that they can "come to Christ" with the mind that they only want a Savior not a Lord. I think its a one package deal. Again, this would have no impact on salvation being a free gift.

Darren

 

Well, at times we all act like this, especially if you ask people for money. :tongue3:

This is the all or none argument. If nobody fully obeys Jesus 100% of the time, then how often do you have to obey? Who decides how often you have to obey? Are you really sure you are obedient enough to Jesus to be saved?

So, there is a multitude of problems with this doctrine.

 

That's likened to saying that Christians don't sin. Again, this may simply fall to people's expectation of what it means to submit to Christ as Lord. 100% obedience? Of course not. At the end of the scale to remove the problem by removing the expectation to "obey" Christ as Lord is equally not the answer.

I'm not addressing your understanding of Lordship (as it relates to your objections), certainly not from an acticle written by someone with their own view and not mine. As far as I'm concerned there are multiple problems trying to explain what Lordship Salvation means, from everyone's different points of view. Does the bible teach Jesus is Lord? Yes. Should that be an important fact as one comes to Christ? I know so. The fact is people on this thread in favor of Lordship Salvation would equally say that salvation is a free gift by faith and faith alone. They would also say no one can obey God unless they are regenerated/born again/saved, they would also argue that no one obeys God with 100% perfect obedience, so there is at least 3 lines of evidence to suggest that that man's view of Lordship Salvation does not represent the views on this thread.

My former Baptist church had a Lordship Salvation booklet in the back of the church refuting Lordship Salvation. The entire booklet was "Lordship Salvation teaches this" but "the bible says this". Most points were in the form of strawmen. Let's just say this did not present the doctrine responsibly enough to really make a geniune case against it.

Darren

 

Christ decides how often you have to obey, and the answer is completely. Further, quite the opposite... I am quite sure that I am NOT obedient enough to be saved. Again, faith doesn't come becuase of works, but faith demonstrates itself in works of repentance. This is not to say that a Christian does not sin - but when they do, the Lord will chasten those He loves. The idea that someone can come to Christ and have no change in their lives whatsoever is simply not consistent with Scriptural testimony.

In the words of one author (it might have been MacArthur), Salvation is not easy. It's not hard. It's impossible. But what is impossible with man is possible with God. Christ commands people to do precisely what they cannot do. To the man with a withered hand, He says "Stretch out your hand." To the lame, He says, "Get up and walk." To the blind, He commands, "See!" To lost sinners enslaved in sin and in rebellion against God, He commands, "Repent and Believe." He commands them to do the very thing they cannot do so that it will be to the praise of His glory.

 

While I'm still waiting for answers LS defenders to my conundrums from (1. Why doesn't Paul include Lordship in his Gospel, and 2. How can a toddler confess Christ as Lord?), here is another one.

What book of the Bible specifically declares itself to be the book to teach how to believe, and in spite of that why does it never command anyone to believe in the Lord or accept Christ as Lord or acknowledge Him as Lord? (Hint: it's not Romans.)

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the difference between "lord" and "king," then. I continue to see a difference in the Scriptures here.

 

Why is it that I often experience more mutual respect among Buddhists than I am sensing from you LS advocates on this thread (the exception being the always gracious Archangel)?

Until this post I have enjoyed our interaction. But now you are proclaiming what you think I believe without ever asking me.

So when the Apostle Paul tells me he is about to explain the Gospel, am I to disbelieve him and ignore his explanation? That is not good hermeneutics, either.

You are guessing at what I believe and getting it wrong. I do not, repeat not, believe what you say here about "a mere acknowledgement." I am by no means a follower of Zane Hodges and his views.

The term "gospel of the kingdom" occurs only four times in the Bible: Matt. 4:23, 9:35 and 24:14, and Mark 1:14. In which context are you finding this detailed explanation?

I follow the view here of John Stott, who wrote, "He actually mentions four events--the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus. Yet it is clear that his emphasis is on two, namely that Christ died (and was buried in order to prove it) and that Christ rose (and was seen in order to prove it). The appearance attested the reality of his resurrection, as the burial attested the reality of his death" (Christian Mission in the Modern World, p. 44). The burial is proof of the death of Christ, and I mention it as appropriate when I give the Gospel.

I also mention the third day as appropriate. Preaching the resurrection is very vital in Japan, where they worship their ancestors. Preaching a dead Christ without the resurrection results in the attitude, "So what, I already worship dead people."

And once again you are presuming to know my doctrine and getting it wrong. I do not, repeat not, believe that a prayer to "accept" Christ is what saves. It is faith from the heart, whether or not one prays. Prayer is a work that may or may not show the faith of the heart.

My wife and I have terrible colds, I have to go to the church to prepare for tomorrow, and I have great burdens about some of my church people right now. I am truly not enjoying this discussion any more. But I will get back to it as the Lord leads.

 

Submission is hard to make for some. The Pharasee's in Romans 10:1-4 could not submit to the righteousness of God.

Good Post by the way. A men
MB

 

Since you didn't even include the resurrection in your definition of the kingdom Gospel, one wonders if you really put much stock in Paul's definition.

There are a lot more passages proving that 1 Cor. 15:1-8 does indeed teach the whole Gospel. In fact, the substitutionary death of Christ and His resurrection are mentioned together in Scripture over and over. As proof that this is indeed the Gospel, simply do a study of the sermons in Acts. Over and over again these two are mentioned together in sermons: Acts 2:23-24, 3:13-15, 4:10, 5:29-32, etc. In none of these passages do the apostles command people to believe in or acknowledge Christ as Lord. The only conclusion is that the apostles in Acts did not consider the Lordship of Christ per se as part of the Gospel they were presenting.

Please, by all means, find a single passage in Acts where the apostles urged people to make Christ their Lord.

Actually, you did a good job with your illustrations of the fireman and the bank, if only you hadn't pushed the metaphor into meaning submission. Saving faith is when one completely trusts Christ and Him alone for salvation from sin and Hell, knowing there is no other way.

A. H. Strong's Systematic Theology (1907) puts it this way: "The three constituents of faith may be illustrated gfrom the thought, feeling and action of a person who stands by a boat, upon a little island which the rising stream threatens to submerge. He first regards the boat from a purely intellectual point of view,--it is merely an actually existing boat. (Emphasis in the original--JoJ.)As the stream rises, he looks at it, secondly, with some accession of emotion,--his prospective danger awakens in him the conviction that it is a good boat for a time of need, though he is not yet ready to make use of it. But, thirdly, when he feels that the rushing tide must otherwise sweep him away, a volitional element is added,--he gets into the boat, trusts himself to it, accepts it as his present, and only, means of safety" (p. 839).

I was educated at Tennessee Temple and other schools and have preached the Gospel for 40 years and never preached the LS doctrine. My father was educated at Wheaton in the 1940s and preached the Gospel for 60 years, but never preached the LS doctrine. My grandfather (mother's side) was educated at SBC schools in the 1920's, preached the Gospel for 60 years and never preached the LS doctrine.

That brings me to say that the LS doctrine is a fairly recent one. You won't find it delineated in the old systematic theologies, sermon books, doctrine books, etc. The first I know who presented it as a doctrine that you must consciously accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved is Arend Ten Pas, my old prof in the early '70's. Then the one who popularized it was John MacArthur, of course. (Tozer and others preached it before then but never systematized it.)

Note this quote from R. A. Torrey (I could give you many more like it from other evangelical authors): "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will show itself by a surrender of the entire life to His control" (Revival Addresses, 1903, p. 147; emphasis in the original). So to Torrey (and the other evangelicals of his day), surrender came after salvation.

Not at all. The normal evangelical doctrine is faith as described above by Strong, Torrey and others down through the years, not that of either MacArthur or his counterpart, Zane Hodges. It can be proven that LS doctrine has not been the doctrine of the evangelical community as a whole since it's inception. Even to this day only a small minority accepts it.

Thank you. I appreciate your graciousness.

 

Many attribute the rise of Lordship Salvation to the MVs, and Romans 10:9 in particular.

KJB

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

NIV

Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Just goes to show that the KJB and NIV do not convey the same understanding.

 

Wouldn't giving Jesus the title of Lord "Lord Jesus" be saying that Jesus is Lord?

 

First of all, I believe everyone who trusts Jesus believes Jesus is Lord. We do not believe Jesus an ordinary man, he was God made flesh.

But there is a difference between saying you must trust Jesus for salvation and saying you must become obedient to Jesus for salvation. Trusting on Jesus is relying on him only to save you, being obedient is dependent on your works.

As John from Japan pointed out, trusting Jesus is like a person jumping out of a burning building to fireman holding a net below. I myself have used this analogy to describe saving faith. It is a complete ceasing of trying to save one's self through self effort or works and placing your life in someone else's hands. This is the trust that is shown in the scriptures. Jesus himself commended or trusted his life into his Father's hands.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

I will say this, trusting Jesus is an act of obedience, and not trusting Jesus is an act of disobedience. The scriptures speak of us who have "obeyed the gospel" (Rom 10:16).

But nowhere do the scriptures require a person to make a promise to obey Jesus as a condition of salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be a free gift, but a reward for fulfilling a required condition.

And it is so with the firemen. We don't have to promise the firemen that we will obey them to be saved by them. We simply jump, completely trusting our life into their hands. This is all Jesus is asking us to do, cease from attempting to save ourselves and depend upon him only to save us. And if a person truly trusts Christ they will be born again and receive a new nature by the Holy Spirit that naturally obeys God, in fact it is impossible to disobey God while being led of the Spirit.

If a person reads the NIV, they could be impressed that they have to "submit" to Jesus as Lord to be saved. The verse does not say that, it says we must "confess", not submit or obey. Reading the KJB gives a very subtle, but different meaning as John of Japan explained in posts #7, 11, 14, and several others in this thread.

 

I would in no way way one must "become obedient to Jesus for salvation." that would be works salvation in basic form.


But nowhere do the scriptures require a person to make a promise to obey Jesus as a condition of salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be a free gift, but a reward for fulfilling a required condition. [/quote]I would say a result in a way. Not that we have to promise to never sin again(which we know we cannot fulfull) but that we repent(turning, change of mind) of our sins which will result in a changing of our actions.

I would disagree with you on the NIV here. One will come to the same conclusions using the NIV as the KJV in this passage. Giving Jesus the title of Lord is saying that Jesus is Lord.

 

Confessing someone as Lord doesn't seem to carry a whole lot of weight if you're not surrendered to him.

Randy