Lordship Salvation Is Legalism?

TC, please don't pout. :tear: There is NOTHING in the gospel of grace that demands "works." There just isn't. You know it and I know it. FAITH is the key.

I realize what you are saying -- that those who are saved acknowledge Christ as their Lord. That is a far cry from knowing how to apply that particular aspect.

Most SBC pastors were saved when they were around 6 years old. Did you know that? Do you think they understood "Lordship" at that age? Do you think that they were saved?

Lou is making a very important point -- that many in the church would not know they were saved without some "works" activities on their part.

Think about it, TC. You're a thinking man. LS is not so much about salvation as it is about assurance. Do you think that Gentiles -- Rom 2:14-15 -- "...do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)..." C'mon,TC -- LS is the same thing!

skypair

 

The rich young ruler was unwilling to accept Christ as his Lord. The Bible clearly says he went away unsaved.

 

The RYR went away because he was unwilling to give up his possessions, which has nothing to do with accepting Christ as Lord.

 

Webdog:

I wrote The Rich Young Ruler to address Lordship's misinterpretation of this passage.


LM

 

Really, where does that come from? As many SBC pastors I've heard testimony from, not one was saved as a child.

No works? yet you believe in arminianism, which demands a work for salvation.

 

If he were willing to have christ as his Lord, he would have willingly given up his possisions. Because he didn't want to follow what Jesus said means he was unwilling to have Him as his Lord.

 

That "stat" is a few years old but was cited from SBC statistics taken from "confirmation" interviews (is "confirmation" the word I'm looking for?).

skypair

 

I think you first must take his 'testimony' as Jesus did --- as if he were being honest about keeping the law and, thereby, being "saved."

So what we find Jesus offering to him is not salvation but discipleship.

skypair

 

I've always been a little uneasy about this interpretation. So Jesus wasn't aware that no man could keep the law perfectly? I submit that He would have known this, and therefore would have understood the RYR to not be saved. Why, then, would He have offered discipleship?

 

Mar 10:17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Mar 10:21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Mar 10:22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"

It's called hermeneutics. The man asked what He needed to do to be saved. Jesus said He lacked one thing for that. He refused. Jesus then said how hard it would be for a rich man to enter heaven , NOT "be a disciple". Jesus was affirming what L.S. teaches.

 

You are correct.

 

Matt. 19:
16Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good£ Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

Isn't eternal life salvation? He wasn't saved already, he was asking how to be saved. He did not keep the law, no matter his claim,as know, no one can keep the total law, thats why Jesus came.
the man wasn't asking for discipleship, but salvation.

 

I'm with you, bro. But to me, Christ was believing his testimony -- as we also should the testimony of others. We don't know -- and neither did Jesus.

All we can do from a profession is to hope we can "grow" them per Eph 4:13.

To look at it your way, if the man sold all he owned and "followed" Jesus, is that what it takes to be saved? Isn't that seeing Christ as a "good example" rather than as Savior?

skypair

 

I see your point, Hdad. It appears Jesus was telling him that it takes a work of commitment on his part to be saved. Do you think it is specifically to sell all he had? Did you sell all you had? Are you talking spiritually or literally?

Cause in the OT -- Jesus time -- things were taken literally. You might well say that, spiritually, Jesus took your place. But in the OT, they sacrifices literal blood as a "work of faith" unto salvation. Apparently, by my reading, the rich young ruler had done that if he followed all the law as he said.

skypair

 

Do you believe that we must give up all that we physically own in order to be saved?

Let's look at it differently then. First, he wasn't sure he was saved. Do you buy that? Second, notice that Jesus didn't deny his salvation. He said, "...go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." He is actually agreeing with the ruler that he was saved because Jesus said he would have, not heaven, but "treasures in heaven" In following Christ, he would have learned the NT way to salvation and discipleship (aka: sanctification), right?

I know -- it gets a bit tricky because the "page" was about to "turn" and the new covenant was about to be revealed. We need to be very careful in this area because even when Jesus revealed the coming new covenant, many disciples turned away because they did not understand, John 6:60. I would suggest that this is the case of the RYR.

skypair