Is Lordship Salvation a misnomer?

Every single one of us, as far as I can tell, has agreed that we are to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. That we should be followers of Him, in our lives. or that we are to serve Him. But what JackRUS, FA, me, and some others are saying is that salvation and service are not the same thing. And we say this, because Scripture says it. Mike and John, inside the last two hours have said in short form, what I've taken much space to expand on. Jesus is, was, and always will be Lord.

S&N, you've quoted what must surely be your favorite verse in Scripture. Not that there is anything wrong with having a favorite verse, by any means. I'll quote your quote:
"Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Quoted for the third time.)"

FTR, Actually, you have quoted this verse, not three times, but seven, by count, assuming I did not miss any, and referenced it at least twice more.

 

I would assume by now, most of us know this verse is found in Scripture. I have not commented on the verse, for I did not deem it necessary. But because you (apparently) seem to think I've missed it, let me assure you I have not. The picture here given, which may not come through in the English language, is that of a slave, specifically a bought and paid for slave. And as such, he was the property of his master. The slave is not greater than his lord. (Jo. 13:16) Did you get that? I'll repeat it for Jesus did. The slave is not greater than his lord. (Jo. 15:20) The owner. The slave did not "make him (the owner) lord of his life." The owner was already, by virtue of who he was, "the lord of the slave's life."

Jesus is the Lord of your or my life, once we've been bought with the price. Before that He was and is not. And there is not one earthly thing we can do to "make Him Lord of our life." That perogative is His, and His alone.

That slave may be a 'profitable' slave; he may be an 'unprofitable' slave. The picture for the believer actually goes a bit further, still. As an unbeliever, the one is a slave by virtue of his birth. As a believer we were bought by another (The Lord Jesus Christ) in the slave-market of sin, and we have become the property of another, as Mike stated. We have been saved. We have been redeemed, once for all time, by the precious blood of Christ. We belong to Him, now. His property.

And then He immediately 'turns around' and does something entirely unexpected, for a Lord. He sets us free. Unlike the centurion, who at great price, obtained his freedom, Paul was free-born. The unbeliever cannot meet the price at all, but he can be free-born again. Now I'm free but by choice, I am still a slave- a love slave. That is the picture, that is here given, in Scripture of a Christian.

The attempt of Lordship Salvation is exactly the opposite of the Scriptural picture. It even has a model citizen in Scripture. That individual is David. It's hero is David, after he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and after Nathan has pronounced the Lord's sentence, so to speak. You'll find this in Psalm 51. David is praying for the Lord to restore unto him the joy of his salvation. He was not even doubting that he was saved. Lordship Salvation wants him to always doubt it. It seeks to destroy the assurance that I have. It can't stand to see one that it cannot condemn. It is nothing more than a modern day legalism, in another set of words. Its joy is to steal mine.

I have one negative thing to say, in a personal vein to S&N. Your comment to FA was out of line. This is one of the better threads I've seen, here. Let's keep it that way. This is an open forum, not a private one. I say nothing to one that I would not say to another. If you can weigh in on a post from JackRUS, if I can weigh in on a post from you; if, aside from Bro.Reuben' OP, every other post in this thread is weighing in, albeit indirectly, on a post from me, then FA can weigh in, as well. And without 'attitude' in the response.

Finally you (S&N) wrote:
"I don't know what "FG" is. "
FA has given the words the initials are being used for. He is correct, as far as I can tell. Several of us have given Biblical and theological bases, for what we've said. I think we have touched well on the subject of free grace. I apologize for not having Language Cop around to proof read this, but he's been asleep for hours. I'm heading that way. G'nite!
In His grace,
Ed

 

Good posts, Ed
We can't "make" Him do anything.

 

Uh, well, I simply responded to a post I made in which you asked me what FG means...

Now are you also saying that if I say something in response to someone that no one else should respond?

I felt that your statement in response to my post was somewhat rudely expressed, so I responded back a bit harshly myself, and I apologize for that.

But we FGers get a bit tired of the "cheap grace" and other slanders tossed around.

FA

 

My theology has no problems whatsoever with this verse. Christ simply put His finger on exactly what was keeping this man from believing in Him--his riches. Simply speaking, the man loved material things more than he loved spiritual things and desired to know God. Materialism is a great hindrance to the Gospel. I see it all the time here in Japan. What is needed is repentance--a complete change of mind about the value of riches and the need of a Savior!

If it were normative for a person to sell all he had and follow Jesus in order to be saved, then Christ would have used this approach when He dealt with sinners in other examples in the Gospels, and He did not do so. For example, He did not take this approach in dealing with Nicodemus in John 4 and the Samaritan woman in John 5. And you STILL have not answered my question as to why Jesus did not speak of His Lordship when dealing with these two about salvation.

S&N, let me as YOU! Did you sell all you had when you trusted Christ as Savior? I think not. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't have much to sell when I accepted Christ as my Savior since I was only 7 years old!! I agree that Christ is not talking about the need for every Christian to give everything they have to the poor. He's simply telling them that it's necessary to make Him Lord of their lives. In the ruler's case, his riches were the master of his life. He wasn't willing to give them up to make Jesus Lord so he went away.

(Just about) Everyone else on this thread believes that they can make something else lord of their lives but can be saved by grace only. This passage shows that Jesus didn't accept that interpretation.

Remember, we must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Through the grace of God we receive salvation through Christ's death on the cross and resurrection. That PLUS accepting Him as Lord (which the rich young ruler refused to do) causes us to be born again Christians.

I hadn't thought about it but now I can see that the need to accept Jesus as Lord does go all the way back to the MOMENT of SALVATION.

Can you argue that if the rich young ruler had accepted Jesus as Lord at the critical MOMENT he wouldn't have been saved? Can you argue that the reason he went away very sorrowful was NOT that he was unwilling to make Jesus lord of his life rather than his riches?

This very question still faces us. Are we willing to pay the price to be a Christian? There is a price to be paid to be one of His followers. John Calvin,Dr. Moeller, and all the FG's on this board haven't recognized that but that doesn't mean it's not true.

 

This verse says that SINCE we are bought with a price, YOU MUST glorify God (as Lord). It says exactly the opposite of what you're using it to prove.

 

Actually I quoted it four times. That's really a measure of your refusal to discuss the scripture.
You have not agreed that "we are to serve the Lord Jesus Christ". MA 6:24 says that if someone
doesn't serve Christ as Lord they serve the world (flesh). Do you believe that those who make the flesh their lord are saved?

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Both of these passages are talking about Lordship and its relationship to salvation.

 

This verse says that SINCE we are bought with a price, YOU MUST glorify God (as Lord). It says exactly the opposite of what you're using it to prove. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the verse says exactly what it says before you added some words, took away some others, and attempted to change the force and the apposition of the two clauses involved. While there may be and is some question whether or not there is adequate support for the words rendered "...and in your spirit, which are God's" in the Greek Texts, whether or not these words are to be found in the original texts, has no bearing on the other words that are found in the verse. "Since" is not found in any text that I have seen manuscript evidence cited. In the four of the five Greek texts that I have access to (three on-line, two personal possession, and although my niece who lives next door has one of mine this evening leaving me with four), the first clause of v.20 is introduced by the word "gar", written "γαρ", and translated properly as 'for' or 'truly'. The second clause is introduced by "dE", written "δη", and is in the imperative mood. As a secondary clause to a secondary clause, the rendering of therefore is an accurate rendering, for it is carrying the force of "therefore or so". However to render as "YOU MUST" and likewise adding on "(as Lord)" is reading more into the text, than the language can stand.

And for both S&N and JoJ, it might help to see exactly what is being spoken of in context, so let's look at verses I Cor. 6:16-21 (ESV):

"16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

The subject here is sexual immorality, not some generic idea of service.

You might note that the "bought with a price" idea is consistent with my last post having to do with being bought in the slave-market of sin, or redeemed.

In His grace,
Ed

 

This verse says that SINCE we are bought with a price, YOU MUST glorify God (as Lord). It says exactly the opposite of what you're using it to prove. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't know where you got this, but you are mistaken. The Greek word is gar, normally meaning "for," just as the KJV has it. It is usually used to give a reason for the previous phrase or sentence. So in this case the meaning is: "You are not your own" (v. 19); the reason you are not your own is that you are bought with a price (v. 20). Then the word for "therefore" in v. 20 is de (delta eta, not delta epsilon as in a similar particle), a particle used "w. exhortations or commands, to give them greater urgency; now, then, therefore." (BADG) After the therefore comes the imperative "glorify." So the reason we are to glorify God is that we have been bought with a price. The glorify command comes as a result of salvation, not to receive salvation.

So the logical progression is, Christ purchases us at salvation with His blood, so we become His property. He is our Lord by virtue of the fact that He bought us at salvation, not that we decided to make Him so. Then because we are bought, we are commanded to glorify God.

And I just now took time to read Ed's comment on the same passage, and he is right about the context.

 

John, what ARE you saying, here?? That "great minds" run down the same gutter??
Ed

 

Actually, that CAN'T be it; I only have Thayer!

Ed

 

S&N, you MUST interpret Scripture with Scripture, or your doctrine is in dire peril. And your point here is only valid if Christ used this approach every time He dealt with a sinner. He did not.

I will ask for the third time (or is it the fourth?), if it is necessary to consciously receive Christ as Lord in order to be saved, why did not Christ teach about Lordship when He dealt about salvation with Nicodemus in John 3 and the woman at the well in John 4???? If I don't get an answer this time, that would mean to me that you are not willing to deal with clear Scripture and the teachings of Christ Himself.

 

Only if we are both bowling balls!

 

And if Thayer was good enough for Paul it should be good enough for me, is that it??

 

I don't think my comment to FA was out of line. All I was noting was that your comments were inconsistent and that I wasn't making a general statement about FG.

However, I think several of your comments to me have been unacceptable.

1) OK, S&N, which one of these two things are you claiming-

That you are perfect, and you have given all (you did make the claim for 100%, you remember) and are beyond sin? Since, obviously, if and when one does sin, he or she ain't hit that 100% thing, yet.

Or are you claiming to be usaved at worst, and unsure at best? I don't get it, so I can use a little help, here! YOu know, inquiring minds, and all that.

Questioning someone's salvation because they disagree with you isn't allowed on this board.

2)However I detest the straw man of "cheap grace". [Mad] How dare ANYONE to speak of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, that was purchased with His own precious blood as 'cheap!! [Tear] That is about as close to being blasphemy, as one can come, IMO, and certainly falls under the condemnation of Hebrews 10:29-30.

Again, to my knowledge I haven't used the term cheap grace. If you can find where I have I'm mistaken. I don't think I deserve to be charged with blasphemy for something I didn't say.

 

Uh, well, I simply responded to a post I made in which you asked me what FG means...

Now are you also saying that if I say something in response to someone that no one else should respond?

I felt that your statement in response to my post was somewhat rudely expressed, so I responded back a bit harshly myself, and I apologize for that.

But we FGers get a bit tired of the "cheap grace" and other slanders tossed around.

FA [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I really wasn't trying to be harsh. The point I was trying to make to Ed was that he was inconsistent in his reply that I had copied. I wasn't making a general statement at all. In other words, if someone said that "white is white" in a post and later claimed "white is black" that would be inconsistent. The inconsistency would be internal to the post and I would be pointing it out to the person who had written it. It wouldn't pertain to anyone else unless they made the same inconsistent statement. That's all.

But you and others keep asking me if I believe in salvation by grace. Yes I do. Is Christ your Lord?

 

And if Thayer was good enough for Paul it should be good enough for me, is that it?? </font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't mean that at all! Means I'm too cheap, as a farmer, to fork over the 150 clams for the BAGD, and the related index.

Ed

 

This verse says that SINCE we are bought with a price, YOU MUST glorify God (as Lord). It says exactly the opposite of what you're using it to prove. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the verse says exactly what it says before you added some words, took away some others, and attempted to change the force and the apposition of the two clauses involved. While there may be and is some question whether or not there is adequate support for the words rendered "...and in your spirit, which are God's" in the Greek Texts, whether or not these words are to be found in the original texts, has no bearing on the other words that are found in the verse. "Since" is not found in any text that I have seen manuscript evidence cited. In the four of the five Greek texts that I have access to (three on-line, two personal possession, and although my niece who lives next door has one of mine this evening leaving me with four), the first clause of v.20 is introduced by the word "gar", written "γαρ", and translated properly as 'for' or 'truly'. The second clause is introduced by "dE", written "δη", and is in the imperative mood. As a secondary clause to a secondary clause, the rendering of therefore is an accurate rendering, for it is carrying the force of "therefore or so". However to render as "YOU MUST" and likewise adding on "(as Lord)" is reading more into the text, than the language can stand.

And for both S&N and JoJ, it might help to see exactly what is being spoken of in context, so let's look at verses I Cor. 6:16-21 (ESV):

"16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

The subject here is sexual immorality, not some generic idea of service.

You might note that the "bought with a price" idea is consistent with my last post having to do with being bought in the slave-market of sin, or redeemed.

In His grace,
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]I disagree with your interpretation of the Greek imperative mood. What I found was much closer to my original interpretation.

The Imperative Mood
CONTINUALLY, habitually follow this COMMAND! Often a call to LONG-TERM COMMITMENT. This combination in a verb calls for a constant & continual way of life.

1Pe 2:17 Honor (5657) all people, love (2PPAM) (5720) the brotherhood, fear (2PPPM) (5737) God, honor (2PPAM) (5720) the king

2PPAM: 2nd Person, Plural, Present Tense, Active Voice, Imperative Mood

These actions are not "suggestions" but are commands to make each one the habit of our life. But remember that whatever God commands of us, He always provides the grace & empowerment to us in Christ Jesus & His Spirit that we might be enabled to carry out the command.

BTW I added about three interpretative words. You added perhaps 50. I agree that consorting with prostitutes is not an activity of a saved man. I would also suggest that you look at three verses earlier in the same chapter.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Notice that Paul says that some of the saved people he was addressing had done some of these things but are not in danger of not entering heaven. Why? Because "ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

He doesn't just say "washed" which refers to salvation, but also includes justified and santified. Paul is talking about an ongoing process of abiding in Christ not a single moment.

 

I can not and do not speak for anyone else, nor do I try to. However you stated in another post these words:

"This very question still faces us. Are we willing to pay the price to be a Christian? There is a price to be paid to be one of His followers. John Calvin,Dr. Moeller, and all the FG's on this board haven't recognized that but that doesn't mean it's not true."
With all due respect, this statement is one of the most judgmental and outrageous, not to mention outlandish, at least as speaks to John Calvin, and Dr. Moeller, that I've ever heard. I have acknowledged there may well be an extreme price to pay. Whether or not "...all the FG's on this board haven't recognized that but that doesn't mean it's not true." is something only they can answer, and they "are of age, ask them!" But I will say something about the first two.

John Calvin was a tremendous influence in the Reformation in the first half of the 16th century, and still is today, to the point of being a "demigod" to some, including even some on the BB, IMO. Johnny C. certainly had his HUGE flaws, as well, IMO. Michael Servitus, a one-time friend of Ol' John, is probably the best known one of perhaps as many as 50 individuals that were martyred with the explicit, or at least implicit, consent of Calvin in the quasi-theocracy that was the Geneva Canton. (Jonestown or Waco, anyone???) Calvin is supposed to have said that he "...had Michael Servitus put to death for his own good." I suggest that Servitus probably would have begged to differ, as to this opinion, as well as some others. Maybe John Calvin saw some difference as to who actually paid that price. It might appear that way to some, and it certainly does to me. Frankly, I'm fairly well pleased that I never made his acquaintance; might not have been extremely healthful!

As to Dr. Moeller, the statement is even more outrageous, to the point of being unfathomable, and approaching unconscionable, for this individual is with us today. Dr. Carl Moeller is, in fact, the President and CEO of Open Doors USA, the American arm of Open Doors, International. (I'll not suggest to say that I would necessarily, and in fact probably would not be in complete agreement with some or all of the teachings and doctrines of some or all these individuals.)

Nevertheless, this is the organization founded by Brother Andrew and Al Janssen, which has for over 50 years been involved in ministering to the Persecuted Church, by bringing Bibles, hymnals, and other literature by millions of pieces into 'closed' countries, training ministers and missionaries, prayer ministries, and ministering in other ways to the Persecuted and Underground church in nearly 50 countries.

Dr. Moeller himself has recently made trips into China and Vietnam, among other locales. Each and every trip these individuals make, as well as anything they do puts them in peril of life and limb, as well as any they even make contact with. Others have made recent trips into Iraq, the West Bank, Sudan, Colombia, and other similarly hostile areas. Some of these individuals have prices on their heads, they are so hated.

I'm not real good at 'judging', as a rule, but I'm here going to offer this. I may be out on a limb, here, and in danger of having it sawed off, but I would guess that 'JohnofJapan', 'MikeinGhana' and 'Bro. Reuben', hailing from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are the three individuals in this thread that have experienced increasing degrees of hostility and danger, respectively. I would doubt that JoJ has been in such threat of constant peril as Dr. Moeller, Al Janssen or Brother Andrew, at that. I suggest that Mike and Bro. Reuben probably are closer in this.

With deference to all, and all respect due, unless some or all the rest of you are involved in something similar to that of Dr. Moeller, I would doubt, for example, that 'S&N' in NJ or 'whatever' in Choo-Choo town, are in such danger as Dr. Moeller. I am absolutely certain that Ed Sutton in KY, has never faced anything thatremotely even begins to approach this on anywhere near this scale.