Lordship Salvation: Is it false?

Good post, but a question!

DHK, you have just made a marvelous post, and done it far better than I ever could, IMO. :thumbs:

However, I do have one word of caution for you.

Since you apparently believe this, if you continue to post in this manner, I suggest you will soon find yourself lumped together with such as webdog, LouMartuneac, and EdSutton, to name but three, and thereby face the wrath of the same individuals who accuse (or have falsely accused, to be more accurate) :tear: the above three of not believing in repentance, or 'Lordship' and who either do not understand or misrepresent those who do, as well as believe in "easy believism," which is no doubt in contrast to the "hard believism" which they apparently espouse.

(Never mind the little miniscule, annoying, trivial, insignificant fact that the above three have multiple posts on what they, in fact, do believe.) :type:

Do you really want to be lumped together with us 'free grace" types??

Ed

 

Actually, I would suggest that Prof. Zane Hodges has done any effective 'distancing', as opposed to Lou Martuneac, frankly.

I have not "distanced myself" from anyone, per se, for I have not really 'moved,' I do not think. Any movement that has taken place would have come, both to be closer in agreement, or further apart in agreement from another's movement, pace AmyG. moving closer with my stated view on repentance.

I do not agree with everything Zane Hodges says or has said, then or now. I will fully agree with Zane Hodges, John MacArthur, James P. Boyce, Lou Martuneac, and/or ReformedBaptist, as well as anyone else, when I believe they are correct, as I understand Scripture, and disagree with any and all of them when I think they happen to be incorrect. To my knowledge, I agree with no one else, completely, in every particular, yet I suggest my own views are easily discernable.

Incidentally, I am not attempting to avoid your question, in any way, although I suggest I, like Lou Martuneac, am further removed from the stated postions of Mr. Hodges, today, than I was with his positions of 20 years ago.

But like the old farmer (of which I is one) said, when his wife suggested as they were driving along, that they didn't sit as close together as they did when they were first married. The Old farmer replied, "I ain't moved."

Gotta' run, for now.

Ed

 

Martyr complex??

Not even close.

Just want to warn others of the danger of potential "collateral damage!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I believe I understand your position. You said in another post:

Could you help me to understand how you view the relationship between repentance and faith and then how both are related to the appropriation of salvation?

If repentance is necessary for salvation, and faith is necessary for salvation....and repentance isn't part of faith (although both are required for salvation) doesn't that make repentance a "non-meritorious work" that must accompany faith for salvation?

If repentance must accompany faith for salvation, doesn't that tie repentance and faith together in such a manner that they cannot be separated, as far as salvation is concerned?

If repentance and faith cannot be separated in the appropriation of salvation, why can't we say repentance must always be a part of faith in salvation? (notice the opposite is not true, faith doesn't always have to be a part of repentance because repentance alone does not bring salvation)

peace to youraying:

 

Here we go again.You're back to the ole' God merely got the memo routine.God only knows ahead of time who will believe in your estimation. That's a rather low view of God you have.If you don't believe that God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own -- you simply disbelieve the Bible.No Calvinist here has said that God "forces" salvation on anyone. I'm waiting for you start up on your puppet act once more.
Elect ones are elect long before they believe.Of course if you deny the biblical testimony of passages such as Ephesians 1:4;2 Thess. 2:13 and 2 Tim. 1:9 -- naturally you'd hold to your belief.

Otherwise why the Great Commission? Why evangelize? God knows the elect. They will become Christians anyway. After all they are the elect are they not? They have no choice but to be saved whether we witness or not. As far as I understand your position, it negates the very reason one must carry out the Great Commission.
[/quote]
Why do you bring up things that have been answered repeatedly?Why the G.C.? How about the fact that it's a command of the Lord;that's why.God ordains the means of salvation;not just the end result. BTW, how many Calvinists ( not non-Cals) from Church History can you name who did not believe in the Great Commission?...Your silence is deafening.



Then why did he not cause the rich young ruler to be born again?
That wasn't very loving on His part was it? Especially when the Bible testifies about God that "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
[/quote]

God is under no obligation to save anyone.The passage of 2 Peter 3:9 has no bearing on those who are reprobate.What God wills -- He accomplishes. He does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life.


Salvation is indeed a one time event. Sanctification is a life-long process.
[/quote]

There are different senses to salvation;sanctification is a part of salvation as is glorification when we are completely saved in the fullest sense of the word.

We become God's elect after we are saved. But God knew about it before we were saved.
[/quote]

I've already addressed this one before. I get a kick out of your addendum;an afterthought by you and your particular belief regarding God -- "But God knew about it before we were saved."How much credit or glory does God get with this view of yours?The Bible says He shares His glory with no one.

 

Lou,
Sorry I am so late getting back, pesky job.

I do believe that you must be willing to forsake everything to be saved.
I believe you must repent to be saved.
I believe you must come by faith to be saved.
But none of these are works, they are gifts bestowed upon us when we become new creatures (regeneration).

 

Why do you bring up things that have been answered repeatedly?Why the G.C.? How about the fact that it's a command of the Lord;that's why.God ordains the means of salvation;not just the end result. BTW, how many Calvinists ( not non-Cals) from Church History can you name who did not believe in the Great Commission?...Your silence is deafening.



Then why did he not cause the rich young ruler to be born again?
That wasn't very loving on His part was it? Especially when the Bible testifies about God that "He is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
[/quote]

God is under no obligation to save anyone.The passage of 2 Peter 3:9 has no bearing on those who are reprobate.What God wills -- He accomplishes. He does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life.


Salvation is indeed a one time event. Sanctification is a life-long process.
[/quote]

There are different senses to salvation;sanctification is a part of salvation as is glorification when we are completely saved in the fullest sense of the word.

We become God's elect after we are saved. But God knew about it before we were saved.
[/quote]

I've already addressed this one before. I get a kick out of your addendum;an afterthought by you and your particular belief regarding God -- "But God knew about it before we were saved."How much credit or glory does God get with this view of yours?The Bible says He shares His glory with no one.[/quote]
I see you took the whole wrapping quotes exercise to heart

If you can't do something so simple as that...how can you expect us to take your views on important topics serious? I have no clue who you are responding to, and who said what. Swallow your pride and do it right, for cryin' out loud!

edited to bold and underline my post since responding to this post is almost impossible!

 

"Soitenly!"

I characterize "repent" as effectively, the 'flip-side' of "believe" where the subject is one's eternal salvation, although both "repent" and/or "believe" do not necessarily have to be talking about salvation, at all. Hence I often speak of "believe/repent" or some variation of the same. Same with the noun forms of "faith/repentance." More information on this should be able to be found here, in varied threads the posts link to:

http://www.baptistboard.com/search.php?searchid=455386


Gotta' hit the sack, unfortunately, for I am going to sleep at the computer.

More later, hopefully.

Ed

 

Much "wiggle room" indeed. That extended note loaded with the usual of extra-biblical presuppositions forced into or extracted from Scripture reminded me of an Indian proverb, "Much wind, Strong thunder, NO RAIN!"

In any event, the post ended with an answer that was an evasion of the crux of the question. As LS advocates always seem to do, they redirect the question to what should follow salvation, which is discipleship, and avoid the LS requirements FOR salvation.

RB’s dodge began with, “Those who are saved…” JM’s statement is not and my question to RB was not about “those who are saved.” RB reinterpreted my question to suit the answer he wanted to give instead of dealing squarey with the clear meaning of my question.

The issue is whether or not the lost must be willing to forsake everything for salvation, to become a Christian. This is the crux of the LS controversy and is the issue that RB steered clear of.

The LS debate is not over results of, it IS over requirements FOR salvation and this is what RB and many LS men will try to evade.


RB you wrote,

JM wrote, “Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” In context, as I demonstrated from his various books which contain the statement JM is speaking of becoming a Christian, NOT what should follow becoming a Christian.

The born again disciple of Christ should be willing to forsake everything to follow Him. Lost men, however, are not born again because of their willingness to forsake everything.

So, let's try this again RB: Is salvation (the reception of eternal life) for those who are willing to forsake everything?


Lou

 

DHK:

Excellent use of Scripture to show the shortcomings and pitfalls of LS especially its faulty under pinnings by RB.. I think Ed is right, you are abut to told you don't understand LS, you can't understand LS and you are misrepresenting LS and its supporters.

 

Is that what you say? I never said that! If I did, you should use quotes. It's always a good idea, lest you falsely accuse a brother.

Don't you believe that God knows ahead of time who will believe? You are in a sad state of affairs if you don't believe in the foreknowledge of God.

No:
1. I don't have low view of God. and
2. I don't disbelieve the Bible.
3. I don't believe (as you seem to) that God is a big bully ordering some to heaven and throwing others to Hell at his own whim and will just depending on what kind of mood he was in "before the foundations of the earth." Now, that is a low view of God.

You just stated it above. So don't deny it.
"God determines,arranges,plans,ordains the salvation of His own."

The above statement is yours. Summarized it says that God forces salvation on who he wills. We don't have a choice in the matter. All is pre-determined. No one has any choice in the matter. Again, why the Great Commission if everything is pre-determined and God just forces his salvation on "his elect."

I don't deny any part of the Bible; just your interpretation of it.

God gives commands for a reason. He did not make us all little robots without any wills or reason, or ability to choose whether to obey him in carrying out the Great Commission. If God simply "ordained" the means, then why put the Great Commission in the Bible at all? It really isn't needed is it. You have just fallen in the same trap as RB did. Everything is pre-determined. Why should God even require us? Why didn't he just make robots, automatons instead?

Regarding church history or Calvinists and the Great Commission, when William Carey wanted to go India his church tried to dissuade him. They were not evangelistic at all. They tried to do everything in their power to keep Carey from going to India, believing that God could save the people of India without Carey's help.

My wife comes from a church with reformed doctrine. They were not evangelistic: no missions program, no visitation program. Eventually the church dried up and died. I look at that as typical Calvinism.

I am glad that you have come to this admission.
So you will admit then, that God is under no admission to save "the elect."
You did say "anyone" didn't you? Then, that must include "the elect," correct?
That kind of shoots Calvinism in the foot doesn't it?

The truth is: God is not obligated to save anyone (as you say).
Also, Man is not obligated to receive the salvation that God has provided.
Both parts of the equation are needed. There must be a choice on man's part.

Now look again what you unwittingly said:
A."God does not will the salvation of those He does not choose for eternal life."
Let's look at the statement's corollary:
B. "God forces the salvation on those that He does choose for eternal life."

If statement A (your quote) is true, then the corollary also (statement B), of a necessity must also be true. You are indeed saying that God forces salvation on people. This is exactly what you are saying. You couldn't have made it any clearer.

Context gives words meanings. The Bible also says that we wait for our redemption, but it is speaking of our bodies and the resurrection, not our salvation. Our salvation, per se, is a one time event. We are saved by grace through faith--a one time event.

Then why are you trying to take credit for what God knows?
You say you know what He knew before the foundation of the earth--even the very elect. You are very presumptuous. We say we cannot know, and thus we evangelize. God knows who will be saved, but doesn't force anyone to be saved as you have posted here. The gospel needs to be preached so that "whosover shall call upon his name shall be saved." That involves choice, a decision.

 

RB:

Any objective reader can note that your answer was crafted to avoid the crux of the issue, which is how the lost are born again as defined by JM. You spin into Calvinism simply to avoid dealing with how MacArthur conditions salvation (the reception of eternal life) on the lost man's willingness to forsake everything.

His statement(s), which I documented for you from three of his LS books prove he is speaking of the reception of eternal life, which you dodged for a Calvinistic reply to what should follow the reception of eternal life.

That’s OK though, most every LS writer flees the discussion of JM's statements on the LS requirements FOR salvation in preference for what should follow salvation because that is NOT (for me anyway) where the main controversy is.

Now you want to turn this thread away from LS to discuss the obvious errors with Zane Hodges’ reductionist “Crossless” gospel. Sorry, you’ll need to open a new thread if you want that discussion.

BTW, you'll need to open a separate thread on Ryrie because on the main question of how a lost man is born again he is NOT even close to the heresy of Hodges.


LM