"Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?

Bows down and raises hand in hope to be added to list of belief without requirements/conditions...oh... wait... wrong tread...:laugh:

 

Jack Hyles summed up Lordship salvation in this manner, he said that it is a doctrine that requires one to "receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord in order to be saved".

But when you analyze this doctrine -
(a) it is nothing but salvation by works because it adds to salvation by faith (and faith alone), because man requires to do something in order to save himself - and that is to make Jesus the Lord of his life, and they normally back it up by the following statement : "if Christ is not Lord of all, He will not be Lord at all."

Jack Hyles went on to say this about Lordship Salvation:

and

and

and most importantly:

and what most Lordship Salvationists don't realise:

And please note:

 

New? Because I hadn't seen you on this topic, bro. :love2:

Garner? Mt 12:31. To me, it is the one thing you can do in your spirit that has eternal consequences in your soul. To die committed to the notion that good is evil and evil is good makes it impossible to ever be saved as the Bible seems here to suggest.

skypair

 

Cute. :laugh: Was that Joel Osteen's "globe" and church in the background?

skypair

 

Lou,

I am using the term no-lordship because its being used on this board as the opposing position to lordship salvation. How then can I define it? I have never heard of it.

What I see now is a mass amount of confusion. Is Jack Hyles the proponent of this anti-lordship view?

 

Apart from the personalities the issue of the O/P is ""Forsake sin" FOR Salvation?" and it's relationship to "lordship Salvation".

In some cases to claim Jesus as Lord proves nothing.
See the emphatic doubling "Lord Lord".

Matthew 7

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

As to "easy-believism", I have said this many times before, believing on Jesus Christ is one of the easiest things I know how to do.​

What is the alternative to "easy-believism"? ", "difficult-believism"?​

Could it possibly be a term invented by those who don't have real belief but replace it with works as these above who called Jesus "Lord Lord" ("and in thy name done many wonderful works")?​

It can work both ways.​

I think what we are taking about are the phonies, the tares sown in the kingdom which Jesus will take care of just before He returns.​

HankD​

 

Thank you, Ed.

It would seem to me that "easy believism" would have to testify that Jesus is not God for their gospel to be false. Cause realize, the Eph 4:3-6 "unity of the Spirit" are 7 things all saved believers agree on by the mere fact of being saved. But does anyone see a saved persons works among them? No. But verse 4:7-8 says "BUT to everyone is given grace ... gifts ... [4:14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

See, to me, this is where the "Lordship" issue comes in -- people that say that if we are still children, we aren't saved. And they, themselves, are "carried around ... by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness" of Calvinism! They wouldn't even be in this "pickle" if they had just confessed that WE ourselves must choose Christ as Lord and Savior unto salvation! That would have cleared up the "Lordship" issue for good and forever and we could get on with teaching people about their free will and personal responsibility to receive Christ in a saving way.

I believe, Ed, that with CALVIES, much like their Catholic predecessors, the issue was "muddled" over the notion that we are saved through "infant baptism." For a long time, even Calvin couldn't give up this notion and Luther, knowing better, still gave into it that that baptism takes away sin and enters you into the "kingdom" without any commitment.

To later "walk an aisle," etc. would be to deny that one is already saved/regenerated though passively. So now comes the "Lordship" thing which is a commitment and is discipleship and has all the outward manifestations of being saved. Since "walking the aisle" and being baptized again has all the manifestations of Heb 6:6, "crucifying Christ afresh and putting Him [not to mention putting infant baptism] to an open shame," it is obvious they cannot do this.

So the personal commitment turns from being a "justifying" work of "confessing with the mouth" to being "sanctifying" works similar to the Jews offering sacrifices that had no spiritually saving effect but only the "purifying of the flesh"(Heb 9:13) WHICH, INDEED, IS WHAT GROWING IN THE SPIRIT DOES FOR A REAL CHRISTIAN'S FLESH.

skypair

 

HankD, Goldie, all...

I believe it all comes back to 1) this "passive regeneration/salvation" thing coupled with 2) the early belief in "infant baptism" as salvific. These teachings reinforce one another AND deny the gospel of the Bible which says that salvation is given to those who understand the gospel and commit their lives to Christ as a matter of personal choice.

Obviously, personal choice and commitment FINALLY play a role in "salvation" under the LS scheme but it's more the role it played with the Pharisees who "tithed mint and anise but overlooked the weightier things of the law," not to mention they overlooked whether they had committed themselves to God or to religion (as, again, seems to be the case of LS as well).

Are any of you LSers getting the gist of this reasoning? If you're "not allowed by LS-Calvinism" to make a commitment for justification, eternal salvation, then your "Lordship" commitment to sanctification is ONLY applicable to salvation from evil and sin in this life. Sure the Pharisees were saved from sin in this life, right? But they weren't saved before God if their commitment was to religion.

skypair

 

Here is the only conclusion I have been able to reach so far: The non-LS position is not really a position at all. There is no group, fellowship, denomination, creed, statement of faith, or otherwise that defines it. It is therefore probably just a few professors, laymen, et. who are reacting to the doctrines of grace in a different way, or specifically, trying to refute Dr. John MacArthur.

This is the only conclusion I can reach so far, but I am open to being corrected.

 

It's called a Bible, specifically the New Testament.

 

Glad to hear then everyone in that camp are Calvinists.

You get the point of my statement here? Your response is completely meaningless and comes accross as sarcastic. I would hope you meant no sarcasm. I have run into this kind of thinking before. A pastor once said to me he was a "biblicist" and I said, Great! I am glad we are agreed on the calvinist view of soteriology. Of couse he said, no, no, no....

Let this no-lordship camp stand up for itself and put their doctrine in print. Or sit back down and let real men do the work. :laugh:

 

It was sarcastic, and I sense sarcasm in your post too

I don't rely on specific creeds and statements of men to form my theology. While helpful, it's not what I depend on. I eat the cherries and spit out the pits in each view I come across. Man's views (including mine) are flawed. The Word of God is not. Why do you need something in print...because you have come to depend on such to form your theology? Depend on the Holy Spirit, man!

 

My reply was not meant to be sarcastic at all. I made my statement to prove my point. And I consider it an act of cowardice when a man will not make a statement of his faith, either by ascribing himself to one or writing his own.

You calumny of me depending on a creed for my theology and then your exhortation to depend on the Holy Spirit is reprehensible. What height of folly I find it to be when men boast so much of what they say the Holy Spirit teaches them and think so little of what He has taught others. Is that what your doing?

I did not ask you about reliance on a creed. I asked for this "group" of so-called non-lordship advocates, which you claim to be one, to formalize what it is they are standing for and/or against. So far nothing in this regard exists. Let this group stand up and be a man and state in print what it is they believe concerning this lordship issue, or sit down.

I am adding a note here, that I have expressed my views in this post. Please, webbdog, do not miscontrue my language to be a personal attack. It seems that it could be considered as such, and I just want to make clarification. I do consider it cowardice when a man will not formally state what it is he believes. But I am not by this calling you a coward, just stating my opinion here.

Also, I am not calling you reprehensible. But I do think your calumny of me is reprehensible.

 

You have summarized this well.

And welcome to the Baptist Board.

Us 'grace types' such as (but not necessarily limited to) Lou Martuneac, webdog, skypair, and EdSutton are kinda' like the trucker hauling nitroglycerine down the highway. We can use all the help we can get! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I don't want to get into any personal differences here, but why should there be some sort of "standard position" set forth for 'this "group" of so-called non-lordship advocates' (a misnomer in itself, as I have already attempted to point out, for both webdog and EdSutton, among others, have stated that they in fact do fully believe and preach the Lordship of Jesus Christ)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1267501&postcount=40

any more than there should be a "standard position" for any and/or all other group(s), anywhere? There are multiple doctrinal and position statements that would cover about every group around, as far as I know. Certainly the FGA, and GES have them, to name two "groups" whose names have recently appeared on these pages and in the threads that touch on this subject, just as do Quentin Road Bible Baptist Church (which just hosted the 'Grace Conference'), Dallas Seminary, Master's Seminary, and IFCA to name some others that have appeared, by name. It is not exactly a secret as to what most of these believe and teach.

Nor, FTR, is it that hard to find out what webdog (12K plus posts and counting) or EdSutton (6500+ posts) believe on this or about any other subject, with a little searching of the topics of the BB archives.

I do not attempt to discern what ReformedBaptist believes by searching another's posts - only yours. Nor can any other speak with any authority for me, whether as an individual or in a "group" (although they could 'cite' someting I have written, and be accurate, I suppose). Why should what webdog believes be any different?

Let me add a couple final notes, to this post. I opposed the teachings of what is known as Lordship Salvation long before I ever even heard of an individual named John MacArthur.

And well over 35 years ago, I realized that "Lordship Salvation" as taught by 'Calvinists' was in the final analysis no different from "Lordship Salvation" taught by 'Arminians'. Both denied salvation by grace, in that they 'added' something to this. It made absolutely no difference as to whether this was any "up-front" commitment" or was a "back-door" commitment. "Lordship salvation" was still 'demanding' a "commitment" for salvation, (regardless of how loudly or how often it was claimed not to be) and as such, 'demanded' some sort of 'works' from an individual in addition to "faith/believe/belief/repent/repentance/trust", all of which are words both nouns and verbs used as synonyms for that which is 'necessary' for salvation/justification (or eternal life) in Scripture (Eph. 1:12-13; 2:8-10; Lk. 5:32; 15:7; Jo. 3:13-18, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Rom. 4:1-8; I Tim. 4:10; II Cor. 7:10) and which words do not carry the idea that any 'good works' are either 'implicitly contained' in them or need be in addition, for salvation.

These quotes are from individuals regarding 'Lordship Salvation".

And just in case you happened to have missed it, the first time around, Dr. Gerstner repeats -

I, as a dispensationalist, do "get it", contrary to what Dr. Gerstner asserts. I do not see a difference, here. I do not agree that any works, whether meritorious or non-meritorious are part of the integral definition of faith. Paul did not add this disclaimer in Rom. 4, so I will not either.

Scripture says we should be careful to maintain good works, and does not say anywhere that these will be 'automatic'. (Tit. 3:8, 14) I fully agree - on both counts!

Ed

 

In the year you have been here on the BB, I'm guessing you have a pretty good idea what I believe. I am also not dismissing past theologians or creeds, I am not being defined by them. As I have already maintained, I take the good from many views, and spew out that which isn't. I guess what I believe cannot be strictly defined by one group, one creed or one theologian. I believe we are saved by grace through faith and the birth, death and resurrection of our Savior. That is Truth, and what is important. Everything else, if it doesn't fit within that paramater, I reject. Lordship Salvation doesn't fit within that paramater (for the reasons and errors Ed Sutton has already pointed out)...so I reject it.

 

Then I have no idea necessarily what you believe. And even though I have been around awhile webbdog, I regret to inform you that I have not followed your teaching very closely. :laugh:

For the record, if anyone is curious about what I believe and why, you may refer to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This is available for public view here http://www.bereanchurchps.org/about/doctrine.asp

We also affirm the five solas of the Reformation. There are very few exceptions I take to the 1689 Confession, but I have not subscribed to the Sabbatarian view it contains.

 

And there you go. Mr Gospel with no Lord himself.