Lordship necessary for salvation

The fact is if you are going to preach the whole counsel of God and compare scripture with scripture you know the bible teaches fundamental truths about Christ. Just because one passage doesn't say something does not justify a complete omission. Just the same, we know Jesus is High Priest, our Advocate and sitting at the right hand of God. Should one highlight one fundamental truth about Christ to the exclusion of the rest? Peter and Paul both preached that Jesus is Lord of all, its fundamental and ought to be just as important as the preaching of Him being Savior.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Darren

 

I think your understanding of confess is askew. The biblical meaning is not like our English meaning which you have used. To confess biblically one has to be in agreement with God on the issue. To confess Jesus as Lord biblically one has to accept Him as their Lord (One who rule over them completely). It is not simply accepting the fact that He holds the position within God's realm and the individual does not surrender to that authority. It is the absolute surrender to that authority or there is no salvation.
This is not to suggest that the person suddenly becomes without sin. That is a working process seeking to overcome. However the person is surrendered to the Person of Christ as their Lord and Master. It boils down to repentance.
So the saying that if He is not Lord of all He is not Lord at all applies. One cannot be in partial repentance any more then one can be almost pregnant. Repentance is not 50% or 75% or 99%. Repentance is a state in which we surrender to God as God and which is place on Christ which brings faith unto salvation and never turned from.

 

We are not told to make Him Lord, He is Lord. Until we surrender to His Lordship for our lives (by the way that is the change of mind we must accept) he does not become our Savior since no repentance has taken place. :thumbs:.

 

The Gospel seems to me to be both the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus, as well as His whole life.

 

Sometimes its a problem to paint a picture that "accepting Christ" is presented as an "acceptable Christ". This is probably a topic changer so I'll leave it there but only to say that its easier to "believe" for a Savior and drop the Lord part completely, creating some obvious implications.

Darren

 

We are not held responsible for what we cannot know.

James 4:17
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

 

Yes it is easier for now, but it also leaves the person in their sin.

 

Yes, it is sad. Some churches do that just to boost their "numbers" to inflate their conversion sheets. The biggest danger of course is that they are actually not converted.

Darren

 

You yourself tacitly admitted that non-Lordship salvation is not per se antinomianism when you said "most" of non-Lordship people are antinomian. That means that a large percentage are not. Personally, I believe that antinomianism nowadays is limited to certain groups such as R. B. Thieme's people. Would you care to prove your assertion that "most" non-Lordship people are antinomian? Because I think your accusation is patently false. How about giving quotes from non-Lordship theologians (of which there are many)?

Now as to how a non-Lordship position leads to antinomianism, you ask me to prove that it does not. That's like saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" We are thus guilty without proof--of which you've given none. Personally, I think the two issues are completely unconnected. My non-Lordship father (my pastor all my youth) had as his life's verse Gal. 2:20, a sure antidote for antinomianism. He often preached on Rom. 12:1, another sure antidote. I dedicated my life to the Lord at age 16 through that verse, and remember no time when I was taught an antinomian position through all my years of non-Lordship training in college and seminary. So, "Where's the beef?"

Sounds like Lordship to me!

Sounds like Lordship to me!

Sounds like Lordship to me--and to people who were already saved. If you "make Christ Lord" at salvation, would not God then preserve that just as He preserves our salvation? But if you don't have to "make Him" specifically "Lord" at salvation, then continued admonitions to acknowledge Him as Lord make sense.

This is where I've always been puzzled. Why in the world do many Calvinists believe in LS? Someone tried to explain it to me, but it still doesn't make sense. If God is the one Who saves us (and He is, we can't save ourselves), and it is only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit that we become able to respond to God (and it is), then how in the world does some action by the sinner in "making Christ Lord" become necessary for salvation? I thought Calvinists believed that it was all of Christ and none of Man!

 

Okay, I understand now. There was a real disjunct to me between the LS position and a discussion about Christ as King.

Apparantly you believe that Lord and King are synonyms. As I linguist I have to say that is not true. A king may or may not be a lord, and a lord may or may not be a king. So your argument from kingship is a non-sequitur.

The "Emperor" of Japan is acknowledged by all Japanese to be their sovereign, but he has little or no political power. He is not a lord. This was also true sometimes in Bible times. King Herod had only limited power as a puppet king under the Roman empire. Again, in OT days, kings captured by say, Nebuchadnezzar (I love to say that name in Japanese!), were still kings, but ceased to be lords.

 

If you are using the principle in hermeneutics of "first mention," please know that it is considered invalid nowadays. It doesn't matter whether this is the first mention of the Gospel in the NT.

Please see my previous discussion of "king" and "lord." The two words are not synonyms, and you can't force them to be so.

And I disagree with the simplistic definition of repentance as a change of mind. It means more than that. It is a change in fundamental thinking that results in a change in the life.

So, is this the extent of your understanding of the Gospel? Is this what I am to proclaim to the Japanese, that Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? What about sin? What about repentance? What about the atonement? What about the resurrection?

I'm sorry, but you are not dealing here at all with Paul's definition of the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15. Paul specifically states in v. 1 that he was declaring, defining if you will, the Gospel. And he specifically notes in v. 2 that it is this Gospel that saves. Then he defines the Gospel without mentioning Christ's Lordship. In fact, he does not even mention Christ as Lord until verse 31. He mentions it three more times in the chapter, but in none of those four times does he urge the reader to "make Him Lord."

So, according to Paul's definition of the Gospel, "making Christ Lord" is not a part of it.

 

Once again you give me no Scripture to work with, and once again you fail to define the Gospel. You say to "compare scripture with scripture" but you do not do so yourself.

At last, finally, wonderful! You give me Scripture.

True, in this passage Paul mentions Christ as Lord. But he simply proclaims it as a fact. He tells no one to "accept Christ as Lord." So this passage does not prove LS. In fact, when Paul gives his "invitation" in v. 43, he simply says that believing results in remission of sins. He doesn't tell them to "accept Christ as Lord."

But as long as we are in Acts, let's think about that. Wouldn't it make sense that if accepting the Lordship of Christ were part of the Gospel then the apostles in Acts would proclaim that? But they don't. Please show me a sermon or Gospel presentation in Acts where an apostle urges people to accept Him as Lord as well as Christ and Savior.

 

If you want to discuss specific terms, "accept Jesus as Savior" isn't in the bible either. Believe on the Lord Jesus is. Jesus said to believe in Him. Doesn't imply "Savior" without Lord at any time.

Darren

 

May I suggest that you really need to study the Bible more if you are going to debate it. If you don't have good Bible software, I suggest E-Sword, which you can download free at: http://www.e-sword.net/

The reason I say that is that a quick search with good software would have prevented you from making your last statement. Two places (and I haven't made a complete study) where Christ as Savior is discussed without discussing Him as Lord are: when Peter gives the Gospel in Acts 5:29-32, and Titus ch. 2 & 3 ("Lord" appears only one time in Titus--1:4).

Now, concerning receiving Christ as Savior, John 1:12 speaks clearly of receiving Christ. If you want to think that means receiving Him as God's Son but not as Savior, go ahead. I think it means as Savior too, so I'll keep inviting Japanese to receive Christ as their Savior. :type:

 

I very much disagree, the appeal to believe on the Lord Jesus is reason enough. Your claims to simply find a few examples that match your view is far outweighed by the greater evidence of scriptures that point to the person of Christ, whom HE is, what HE did, His authority, His deity, His resurrection - its the trust in Jesus the God man sitting today at the right hand of God whom is Lord of all. Take Acts 5 as your example -

Acts 5:29 - Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

How does this passage omit Christ as Lord? It doesn't, indeed Jesus is also referenced as Prince AND Savior. Should people be told to simply believe in what Jesus did BUT not believe ON Jesus (He is Lord)? Indeed its the other way around, by placing faith on Jesus, the sinner is provided with all that Jesus did do and what Jesus is doing and will do yesterday, today and into eternity.

Darren