Lordship necessary for salvation

I dont think that we must surrender to the Lordship of Christ to be saved but I believe someone who is saved will surrender to the Lordship of Christ.

When salvation and true repentance in the heart happens, it seems to me that we turn to Jesus and trust in Him for mercy and forgiveness of sins. We are justified by faith.

I would then go on to say that when we are justified by faith that we have turned to Christ in faith and that begs for the surrender to His Lordship alone (simoultaneously).

In other words. Jesus isnt looking for a trade, so to speak. He wants our complete submission, but through the transformation of salvation our hearts submit to His Lordship freely, which is pleasing to God.

Therefore a regenerate person will call Jesus Lord and Jesus will be his/her Lord. It doesnt make sense for me at this point for someone to say that they have seen their sin to a point that makes them cry out for mercy and then get saved only to continue in their sin by denying Christ as Lord. That sounds like self-deception to me to say that you have been saved but still have other lords before God.

 

I agree. :thumbs:

The thing is, these things (title vs. proper name) matter in syntax and semantics. For example, in Japanese a person's title comes right after the person's name. In some cases a word is used as a title that is not normally considered to be one, such as yougisha (suspect), which becomes a title when placed after someone's name, as in Tanaka Yougisha, "Suspect Tanaka." So I believe that Dr. Wallace should take into account the fact that kurios is often a title, do some more of that wonderful research he does and inform us of the role of a title in a double accusative.

Yes, I know that Dr. Wallace said the proper name is the object of the sentence and the other word is the complement. But my point was that Kurios could just as well be considered a proper name, making there two proper names in the double accusative. And Dr. Wallace didn't discuss that. But evidently his research is ongoing (comparing his grammar and his article), so maybe he'll get to that. Or the various usages of Greek titles would make somebody a good dissertation.:type:

 

So then in your illustration the person who trusted the fireman and jumped into his net then made him lord of his life and obeyed him? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me. The person being rescued was desparate. He didn't stop to think about his relationship to the fireman from then on.

Then if you put your money in the bank you are making the bank lord of your life? I'm sorry, that's even a worse illustration. My sister-in-law once pulled all her money out of a bank because they wouldn't let her take out an amount from her savings account. So who was the "lord" there?

Admit it--these are poor illustrations of making Christ Lord of one's life. Either that, or the Lordship of Christ does not mean obedience to you like it does to me. Trust and surrender to lordship are not the same thing.

 

I don't think the gospel in today's contemporary church is being presented well enough for the non elect to reject it.

 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I don't know what you want me to respond to here. You might want to rephrase it to help me understand you. I don't believe in Lordship salvation, and don't believe the Scriptures teach it. If you would like me to respond to specific Scriptures I'd be glad to. I've already given in detail my view of Rom. 10:9.

You've not dealt with the Scripture here, but only given your own opinion and a couple of anecdotes, at least one of which does not apply (the 11 year old).

Consider: the word for "little child" in Matt. 18:3 is the Greek word paidion, not the generic word for child, which is teknon. Here is a definition for paidion from the Anlex Greek dictionary: "(1) literally, of age; (a) as a newborn child infant, babe (HE 11.23); (b) as a small child (young) child (MT 2.8)." In Matthew's usage Jesus as a baby was a paidion, and up to two years old (Matt. 2:8) was a paidion.

So the 11 year old does not fill the bill for Matt. 18:3, and your 5 year old probably does not either (some might debate that); only a baby or toddler does. And a toddler can trust, but not commit. (But apparantly you believe that trust and obedience are synonyms, against all dictionary definitions.) Lordship salvation demands that a person commit their lives to the Lord to obey Him in order to be saved. I don't believe the Bible teaches that in light of Matt. 18:3.

 

John, et al.

I think this is a common, perhaps even a text-book, definition of Lordship Salvation. But, I think this definition is hopelessly wrong.

I whole-heartedly believe in Lordship salvation, but will readily admit that perfect obedience isn't possible. I don't think that is the issue.

Many of the Non-lordship salvation types I've seen and investigated seem to think that you can claim faith in Christ and live like the world. It would seem these people say that a Christian can sin all they want with no problem. I very firmly say: This is heresy and it is a sign that someone is not a Christian. They are, in the words of Ephesians 2, still sons of disobedience.

On the other hand, the Lordship types--such as myself--argue that the heart-attitude of obedience is required (ie. Lordship) while understanding that, because we are sinners, perfect obedience is not possible. Typically, those believing in Lordship salvation will say we sin more than we want to.

Us Lordship-types will rightly say that a person's Christianity (or lack thereof) will necessarily be visible through the fruit of their lives. Part of that fruit is continued confession and repentance when we sin.

That Christians must have Christ be Lord in addition to Savior is as endemic to Christianity as wetness is to water. In other words, just as water is, by definition, wet, the Christian, by definition, has Jesus as his Lord.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Out of curiousity, how do you overcome the problem of the new christian, having been saved by faith and being born again regenerated, not having a full understanding of what their new Lord commands? Surely Lordship involves knowledge. I still think that FAITH has to be the first instant, I can't see any reason otherwise, no one even expects maturity overnight, bottom line.


Yet I will agree that is is becoming a slogon for christians to repeat how Jesus is Lord, yet they don't reflect it themselves.

Darren
Daren

 

Darren,

I don't think we look for maturity overnight. I think maturity is a process. It is right, I think, to refer to "Sanctification" which will never be fully completed until we are in His presence.

Even those of us Lordship-types have very bad moments of utter disobedience. When we say that a believer, by definition, will be obedient to Christ, we understand that we do not mean a Polaroid-type snapshot viewing that moment of disobedience. We mean to say that the life of a true believer will, by definition, be marked by a life of obedience and repentance when we do not obey.

I would expect a new believer to struggle with things that, hopefully, more mature Christians have dealt with. But, in the neophytic believer, it should be the case that obedience improves over the course of his or her walk with Christ.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Come on, Archangel, you're better than this. This is a classic "guilt-by-association" fallacious argument. You're talking about antinomianism, not the doctrine of salvation. Of all my non-LS pastor friends, both American and Japanese, not a single one is antinomian.

What makes the Christian able to obey (even imperfectly) is not making Christ Lord of our life (impossible: He is Lord whether we "make" Him Lord or not). It is being born again. It is man's duty to believe, and it is God who gives fallen man the ability to obey through the new birth.

If it is true that "the Christian, by definition, has Jesus as his Lord," then why does Christ command his disciples (already saved) to take up their cross and follow Him (Matt. 16:24), and Paul command believers in Rome to offer their bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1)?

The truth is the Christ is Lord whether we "have Him as Lord" or not. And He is Lord of all, not just believers. No decision or effort by a believer can make Christ Lord. So the argument should be "acknowledge Christ" as Lord. Check out 1 Cor. 6:19-20, "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." So his argument here is that we should obey because we are bought with a price.

 

This is what I can't understand, all this discussion over whether or not a christian is saved without calling Jesus Lord but the reality is God takes the responsibility upon Himself to save. So wouldn't it be rather counterintuitive to worry that a christian has been saved by the Lord but has only trusted Christ as Savior and not Lord? Well then God must of made a poor judgment, of course not. Aren't we throwing around details of an issue that has no real implications? God saves and God knows what He is doing.

The only issue for us is to teach and admonish all those whom name the name of Jesus, to depart from sin wherever humanly possible, follow Jesus as Lord of all, grow and mature in knowledge of the bible and apply themselves to study and find a place of service..etc Then the only other issue is to live a christian life that is a testimony to the glory of God.

I guess there are a lot of fakers that claim to be christian but are not. Those whom profess Christ but there is zero evidence that they are even saved. I think the standards to allow people to "become" christians, or that allow sinners to think they are saved need an overhaul, that said I guess this topic comes into play. Should a person think they can have Christ as Savior but not Lord? Why would any preacher in their right mind in good conscience even allow that, or preach altar calls that are so easy to answer that hey, anyone will "have a go" just to get some heaven insurance, no commitment, no repentance, nothing other than a show of affirmation that you agree with the invitation to "believe in Jesus" without the message of the gospel and that this is for the rest of your life.

Darren

 

Please think this through more carefully. "All this discussion" has tremendous implications if we are to obey the Great Commission. Do you witness for Christ as you are commanded to by the Lord? Here in Japan, when I give the Gospel to precious Japanese, what do I tell them? Do I tell them that they must accept Christ as Lord as well as Savior? Or is a Savior just what a lost person needs?

No, that is not "the only issue." You're missing a huge issue, that of the Great Commission. It tells believers to give the Gospel to all nations, every single person on earth. What is the Gospel, then? 1 Cor. 15:1-8 tells us what it is, and it does not mention the Lordship of Christ. In fact, the word "Lord" does not appear until v. 31 of that great resurrection discourse.

Let me ask you, should a preacher "in good conscience" (as I strive to be) tell sinners they can't be saved without accepting Christ as Creator? Or King? Or Priest? Or Prophet? These are all His positions, too, just as Lord is. But the important one is Savior. When a person is lost and dying, sinking for the last time, what he needs is a Savior, and it was as our Savior that Christ died for us.

I have a man in my church who within a short time lost his business, lost his wife and found out that his Hepatitis C was active. When I went to his house every week to teach him about Christ, sure I talked about Christ as Lord. But he was sinking fast (the poor man is still depressed) and about to drown. He needed a Savior, not a Lord, Creator, King or any other title of Christ's. And when he trusted Christ as Savior (without consciously trusting Him as Lord), his life changed because he was born again. He has over and over again marvelled how his life changed. This is what the Gospel message is, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose from the grave according to the Scriptures--the atoning work of Christ and the power of His resurrection.

 

Christ would not have died if He was not already Lord, that is fundamental Christology. I am glad his life was changed, so have all our lives been changed. You and I both know that Jesus is Lord, aren't you simply making an omission to inform your new members of this fact; so how long do you wait before giving a new christian part 2, that Jesus is Lord as well as Savior. I honestly can't see why you wouldn't just present the 2 together, what's wrong with that?

Darren

 

First of all, please make no assumptions about my preaching. I certainly do tell people that Christ is Lord--after they are saved. They are lost and incapable of understanding the Lordship of Christ until after salvation.

As to why I don't present the two together, I'm wondering if you actually read my post. So I'll ask you directly. You are commanded to give the Gospel to all people. What do you believe the Gospel is?

 

I don't see your point here at all. The great commission somehow eludes to Christ being Lord AND Savior? Don't you think being the Lord implies Lordship by designation of authority? There's no mystery as to "WHOM" Christ is Lord over is there?

Darren

 

Please, stick to the Scripture. I gave you Scripture. Please deal with it. So I'll ask you again. What does the Bible itself say the Gospel is?

 

I am certainly not meaning that you are guilty by association. If non-Lordship salvation is not antinomianism, please educate me to what it is and how it differs from Lordship salvation (in your view). This is an honest question looking for an honest answer.

OK. I might be able to agree with this.

Matthew 16 is an admonition to the disciples, especially Peter, who rebuked the Lord Himself. It is an admonition to have the things of God forefront in your mind, not the things of man.

Romans 12:1 doesn't stop there! There is a Romans 12:2 and following. The imperatives "don't be conformed" and "be transformed" are highly instructive.

In either case, these passages show us and encourage us to constantly check our lives to make sure we are taking up our crosses and being transformed.

I agree we should obey out of thanksgiving. However, I think your argument (which may be based in your theology) is lacking a very important part--our rebellious nature. Before we come to Christ, we are rebels against the King and we are rebels by nature (Eph 2--by nature children of wrath). But when we come to Christ, this act, by definition, signifies that we are turning from our self-kingship (which is idolatry) to Christ's Kingship.

I'm not sure your particular theology; I'm fairly certain it isn't reformed. But the kingship issue (or lordship issue) shows how there is a divide between reformed and non-reformed and it is based on the nature of man before coming to Christ.

Now, I don't intend this to be a reformed-non-reformed discussion and I certainly don't intend to say that your theology is lacking (since I don't know exactly what your theology is). I am merely attempting to point out that certain theological differences can (and probably do) contribute to the divide between the LS and the nLS types.

Blessings,

The Archangel