Ray Comfort teaches xxxxxxxxx

It is a bug in vBulletin. he posted and rated it, and now no one else can rate it. I've asked about it and that's the answer I got. This thread, like so many others, have been rated by the author and not by those who should be rating it.

OK, ignoring the fact that you signed up to spam the BB with YOUR OWN SITE...

You fail to see that, no matter what the semantics, Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith and the one and only source of salvation. I am so tired of "Calvinist" this and "Armenian" that... it all boils down to Jesus. You want to condemn Comfort and MacArthur and just about everyone else... but all you are doing is trying to bury the fact that Jesus is where salvation comes from. Repentence is a part of salvation, but it is not salvation itself.

 

This true.

For what it's worth...

I think the two opposing groups (LS and Free Gracers) are talking on different aspects of the same thing and as such typically over-emphasising that portion they are focusing on the most.

One does not have to fully grasp Christ Lordship in order to be saved.
However, to be saved one must be fully dependant upon Christ to save them and keep them, thus establishing the very basic principle of the Lordship issue, whether it is something they grasp AS Lordship or not.

What is being contended by most non-LS is that salvation in Christ is not defined by your understanding of the full meaning of Lordship but that it is dependant upon who Christ is and what He has done. To make the understanding of Lordship a priority in salvation is to encumber the Gospel to whether or not we fully grasp Lordship and not grace or both grace AND Lordship.

The fact is, we are to grasp grace and that He alone is able and desirous to save.


On the other hand those for LS are merely acknowledging the basic principle that comes with salvation even if the person doesn't fully grasp the principle yet. That being, when they repent and recieve salvation they ARE setting themselves under Christ's Lordship to both save and Keep them, even though they do not yet fully grasp the concept we understand in spiritual maturity.

I think both are missing each other because they are talking about two different spiritual aspects of the same thing and over emphasising that one aspect when in fact both are right, but both must have balance.

It is only when you state that full understanding of Christs Lordship and our verbal declaration of our submittance to it as a prerequisit to salvation is unbiblical. We do not use the term Lord (in the sense of a ruler) as they did back then, but most will agree that they submit to the Godhood of Christ to save and keep them. Why? Because they understand that aspect better (Godhood vs Lordship) Both exemplify rulership and absolute authority over an individual but both are not understood in the same light today, with regard to subject being discussed involving salvation.

ANYWAY...Just my opinion.