Would there needs be another level to categorise whose definition of Lordship is "real" Lordship? And what does one mean when they refer to "submission" to that form of Lordship. I'm sure that even some here when they think of "Lordship Salvation" have something different in mind to another.
Darren
Lordship necessary for salvation
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Aug 13, 2010.
Page 5 of 7
-
Darren -
This is the all or none argument. If nobody fully obeys Jesus 100% of the time, then how often do you have to obey? Who decides how often you have to obey? Are you really sure you are obedient enough to Jesus to be saved?
So, there is a multitude of problems with this doctrine. -
I'm not addressing your understanding of Lordship (as it relates to your objections), certainly not from an acticle written by someone with their own view and not mine. As far as I'm concerned there are multiple problems trying to explain what Lordship Salvation means, from everyone's different points of view. Does the bible teach Jesus is Lord? Yes. Should that be an important fact as one comes to Christ? I know so. The fact is people on this thread in favor of Lordship Salvation would equally say that salvation is a free gift by faith and faith alone. They would also say no one can obey God unless they are regenerated/born again/saved, they would also argue that no one obeys God with 100% perfect obedience, so there is at least 3 lines of evidence to suggest that that man's view of Lordship Salvation does not represent the views on this thread.
My former Baptist church had a Lordship Salvation booklet in the back of the church refuting Lordship Salvation. The entire booklet was "Lordship Salvation teaches this" but "the bible says this". Most points were in the form of strawmen. Let's just say this did not present the doctrine responsibly enough to really make a geniune case against it.
Darren -
In the words of one author (it might have been MacArthur), Salvation is not easy. It's not hard. It's impossible. But what is impossible with man is possible with God. Christ commands people to do precisely what they cannot do. To the man with a withered hand, He says "Stretch out your hand." To the lame, He says, "Get up and walk." To the blind, He commands, "See!" To lost sinners enslaved in sin and in rebellion against God, He commands, "Repent and Believe." He commands them to do the very thing they cannot do so that it will be to the praise of His glory. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
While I'm still waiting for answers LS defenders to my conundrums from (1. Why doesn't Paul include Lordship in his Gospel, and 2. How can a toddler confess Christ as Lord?), here is another one.
What book of the Bible specifically declares itself to be the book to teach how to believe, and in spite of that why does it never command anyone to believe in the Lord or accept Christ as Lord or acknowledge Him as Lord? (Hint: it's not Romans.) -
If needed replace the word "king" with the word "lord" in the illustration. "Lord of the World John".
The point is that when you confess the Lord Jesus you are confessing that Jesus is the supreme ruler of all including you since you are part of "all" over which he rules.
This is essential to salvation. -
But let's take a strict view of this passage for just a moment. Do you believe that one must believe Jesus was buried? If they believe that he died and rose again but are unclear on the whole burial thing- can they go to heaven?
What about the third day? If you present the Gospel to a sinner in Japan and fail to leave out that thing about it being the third day that he arose and he prays to "accept" Christ- is he saved? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑Okay, Bro. John. I could argue that, though the term "king" is watered down in many cultures, it ideally means "ruler" just as the term "lord" does. I would point out that "sovereign" is a synonym for "king" and since "sovereign" means "ruler" then "lord" and "king" are basically the same thing. I did not specialize in linguistics for my degree but I have a friend who earned here who earned his doctorate majoring in Bible languages and he agrees that they are essentially the same in the Bible even though cultures in Bible times weakened the office. But that would be a distraction from the core of this debate and it is not necessary to make my point.
If needed replace the word "king" with the word "lord" in the illustration. "Lord of the World John".
The point is that when you confess the Lord Jesus you are confessing that Jesus is the supreme ruler of all including you since you are part of "all" over which he rules.
This is essential to salvation.Click to expand... -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Why is it that I often experience more mutual respect among Buddhists than I am sensing from you LS advocates on this thread (the exception being the always gracious Archangel)?
Until this post I have enjoyed our interaction. But now you are proclaiming what you think I believe without ever asking me.
Luke2427 said: ↑This is always the favorite passage of non-lordshippers. But your interpretation of it ignores the consistent teaching of the Gospel throughout the Scripture. You pretend like this passage is the complete exposition of the Gospel and that there are no aspects of it to be found anywhere else in the whole Bible- that we all must limit ourselves to this one passage. That of course in poor hermeneutics.Click to expand...
Yet the fact that the King, which means ruler in heaven I don't care how you slice it, has come to rule in the hearts of men in the person of Jesus Christ is the Gospel. Not just a mere acknowledgment of some historical facts such as the resurrection.Click to expand...
It IS what you are to proclaim to EVERYONE. But it is not limited to just that. You preach that sin is rebellion against the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. You teach that he is Lord and master of all including the grave. You preach that he is a Ruler of infinite love who could not ignore the rebellion of sinners so he paid the price for their sins on the cross. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.Click to expand...
But let's take a strict view of this passage for just a moment. Do you believe that one must believe Jesus was buried? If they believe that he died and rose again but are unclear on the whole burial thing- can they go to heaven?Click to expand...
What about the third day? If you present the Gospel to a sinner in Japan and fail to leave out that thing about it being the third day that he arose and he prays to "accept" Christ- is he saved?Click to expand...
And once again you are presuming to know my doctrine and getting it wrong. I do not, repeat not, believe that a prayer to "accept" Christ is what saves. It is faith from the heart, whether or not one prays. Prayer is a work that may or may not show the faith of the heart.
My wife and I have terrible colds, I have to go to the church to prepare for tomorrow, and I have great burdens about some of my church people right now. I am truly not enjoying this discussion any more. But I will get back to it as the Lord leads. -
John of Japan said: ↑So when the Apostle Paul tells me he is about to explain the Gospel, am I to disbelieve him and ignore his explanation? That is not good hermeneutics, either.Click to expand...
This is the only place in the entire Bible where you can argue that the Gospel is the burial and resurrection of Christ. At least "Gospel of the Kingdom" is mentioned four times. That's four times more than your proof text.
You are guessing at what I believe and getting it wrong. I do not, repeat not, believe what you say here about "a mere acknowledgement." I am by no means a follower of Zane Hodges and his views.Click to expand...
The term "gospel of the kingdom" occurs only four times in the Bible: Matt. 4:23, 9:35 and 24:14, and Mark 1:14. In which context are you finding this detailed explanation?Click to expand...
I follow the view here of John Stott, who wrote, "He actually mentions four events--the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus. Yet it is clear that his emphasis is on two, namely that Christ died (and was buried in order to prove it) and that Christ rose (and was seen in order to prove it). The appearance attested the reality of his resurrection, as the burial attested the reality of his death" (Christian Mission in the Modern World, p. 44). The burial is proof of the death of Christ, and I mention it as appropriate when I give the Gospel.Click to expand...
I also mention the third day as appropriate. Preaching the resurrection is very vital in Japan, where they worship their ancestors. Preaching a dead Christ without the resurrection results in the attitude, "So what, I already worship dead people."Click to expand...
And once again you are presuming to know my doctrine and getting it wrong. I do not, repeat not, believe that a prayer to "accept" Christ is what saves. It is faith from the heart, whether or not one prays. Prayer is a work that may or may not show the faith of the heart.Click to expand...
My wife and I have terrible colds, I have to go to the church to prepare for tomorrow, and I have great burdens about some of my church people right now. I am truly not enjoying this discussion any more. But I will get back to it as the Lord leads.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Luke2427 said: ↑It seems the debate on this hinges upon a misunderstanding of biblical Lordship. This does not mean that one must be in perfect submission. It does not mean as the tired old unbiblical phrase indicates: Jesus is Lord of all or not Lord at all.
But the Bible does clearly teach that one must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to be saved. He must recognize Christ's right to rule him and confess that. He must humble himself to the Lordship of Jesus.
Romans 10:9 among numerous other Scriptures teaches this. That IF thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus... thou shalt be saved."
You must confess that he is Lord- supreme ruler. This is the essence of repentance and faith.Click to expand...
Good Post by the way. A men
MB -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite SupporterLuke2427 said: ↑It certainly IS the Gospel. But these aspects in this singular passage do not represent everything in the whole bible about the Gospel.Click to expand...
This is the only place in the entire Bible where you can argue that the Gospel is the burial and resurrection of Christ. At least "Gospel of the Kingdom" is mentioned four times. That's four times more than your proof text.Click to expand...
Please, by all means, find a single passage in Acts where the apostles urged people to make Christ their Lord.
Then explain what "true faith" is in your estimation.Click to expand...
A. H. Strong's Systematic Theology (1907) puts it this way: "The three constituents of faith may be illustrated gfrom the thought, feeling and action of a person who stands by a boat, upon a little island which the rising stream threatens to submerge. He first regards the boat from a purely intellectual point of view,--it is merely an actually existing boat. (Emphasis in the original--JoJ.)As the stream rises, he looks at it, secondly, with some accession of emotion,--his prospective danger awakens in him the conviction that it is a good boat for a time of need, though he is not yet ready to make use of it. But, thirdly, when he feels that the rushing tide must otherwise sweep him away, a volitional element is added,--he gets into the boat, trusts himself to it, accepts it as his present, and only, means of safety" (p. 839).
I was educated at Tennessee Temple and other schools and have preached the Gospel for 40 years and never preached the LS doctrine. My father was educated at Wheaton in the 1940s and preached the Gospel for 60 years, but never preached the LS doctrine. My grandfather (mother's side) was educated at SBC schools in the 1920's, preached the Gospel for 60 years and never preached the LS doctrine.
That brings me to say that the LS doctrine is a fairly recent one. You won't find it delineated in the old systematic theologies, sermon books, doctrine books, etc. The first I know who presented it as a doctrine that you must consciously accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved is Arend Ten Pas, my old prof in the early '70's. Then the one who popularized it was John MacArthur, of course. (Tozer and others preached it before then but never systematized it.)
Note this quote from R. A. Torrey (I could give you many more like it from other evangelical authors): "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ will show itself by a surrender of the entire life to His control" (Revival Addresses, 1903, p. 147; emphasis in the original). So to Torrey (and the other evangelicals of his day), surrender came after salvation.
I am very glad to hear that. It does seem to me that the only alternative is some form of Lordship however.Click to expand...
My prayers are with you. I pray that God will touch your bodies and fill you with his spirit that you might magnify Christ in the hearts of those you minster to there in Japan this weekend. God bless!Click to expand... -
That brings me to say that the LS doctrine is a fairly recent one. You won't find it delineated in the old systematic theologies, sermon books, doctrine books, etc. The first I know who presented it as a doctrine that you must consciously accept Christ as Lord in order to be saved is Arend Ten Pas, my old prof in the early '70's. Then the one who popularized it was John MacArthur, of course. (Tozer and others preached it before then but never systematized it.)Click to expand...
KJB
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
NIV
Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Just goes to show that the KJB and NIV do not convey the same understanding. -
Winman said: ↑Many attribute the rise of Lordship Salvation to the MVs, and Romans 10:9 in particular.
KJB
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
NIV
Rom 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Just goes to show that the KJB and NIV do not convey the same understanding.Click to expand... -
jbh28 said: ↑Wouldn't giving Jesus the title of Lord "Lord Jesus" be saying that Jesus is Lord?Click to expand...
But there is a difference between saying you must trust Jesus for salvation and saying you must become obedient to Jesus for salvation. Trusting on Jesus is relying on him only to save you, being obedient is dependent on your works.
As John from Japan pointed out, trusting Jesus is like a person jumping out of a burning building to fireman holding a net below. I myself have used this analogy to describe saving faith. It is a complete ceasing of trying to save one's self through self effort or works and placing your life in someone else's hands. This is the trust that is shown in the scriptures. Jesus himself commended or trusted his life into his Father's hands.
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
I will say this, trusting Jesus is an act of obedience, and not trusting Jesus is an act of disobedience. The scriptures speak of us who have "obeyed the gospel" (Rom 10:16).
But nowhere do the scriptures require a person to make a promise to obey Jesus as a condition of salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be a free gift, but a reward for fulfilling a required condition.
And it is so with the firemen. We don't have to promise the firemen that we will obey them to be saved by them. We simply jump, completely trusting our life into their hands. This is all Jesus is asking us to do, cease from attempting to save ourselves and depend upon him only to save us. And if a person truly trusts Christ they will be born again and receive a new nature by the Holy Spirit that naturally obeys God, in fact it is impossible to disobey God while being led of the Spirit.
If a person reads the NIV, they could be impressed that they have to "submit" to Jesus as Lord to be saved. The verse does not say that, it says we must "confess", not submit or obey. Reading the KJB gives a very subtle, but different meaning as John of Japan explained in posts #7, 11, 14, and several others in this thread. -
jbh28 said: ↑Wouldn't giving Jesus the title of Lord "Lord Jesus" be saying that Jesus is Lord?Click to expand...
-
Winman said: ↑First of all, I believe everyone who trusts Jesus believes Jesus is Lord. We do not believe Jesus an ordinary man, he was God made flesh.
But there is a difference between saying you must trust Jesus for salvation and saying you must become obedient to Jesus for salvation. Trusting on Jesus is relying on him only to save you, being obedient is dependent on your works.
As John from Japan pointed out, trusting Jesus is like a person jumping out of a burning building to fireman holding a net below. I myself have used this analogy to describe saving faith. It is a complete ceasing of trying to save one's self through self effort or works and placing your life in someone else's hands. This is the trust that is shown in the scriptures. Jesus himself commended or trusted his life into his Father's hands.
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
I will say this, trusting Jesus is an act of obedience, and not trusting Jesus is an act of disobedience. The scriptures speak of us who have "obeyed the gospel" (Rom 10:16).
But nowhere do the scriptures require a person to make a promise to obey Jesus as a condition of salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be a free gift, but a reward for fulfilling a required condition.
And it is so with the firemen. We don't have to promise the firemen that we will obey them to be saved by them. We simply jump, completely trusting our life into their hands. This is all Jesus is asking us to do, cease from attempting to save ourselves and depend upon him only to save us. And if a person truly trusts Christ they will be born again and receive a new nature by the Holy Spirit that naturally obeys God, in fact it is impossible to disobey God while being led of the Spirit.
If a person reads the NIV, they could be impressed that they have to "submit" to Jesus as Lord to be saved. The verse does not say that, it says we must "confess", not submit or obey. Reading the KJB gives a very subtle, but different meaning as John of Japan explained in posts #7, 11, 14, and several others in this thread.Click to expand...
The Bible does teach one must surrender.
Take my fireman illustration you cited above.
The fireman is saying, "JUMP!"
This is an imperative. The fireman in essence is saying the following: I command you not to perish in those flames (He commandeth all men everywhere to repent). I care about you and demand that you surrender your life into my hands. While it is in your hands you are destined to perish. Take your hands off of that window seal and stop trusting it and you to preserve your life. Trust me! I will catch you! I will save you!
When the person ins peril jumps he is saying-
"I surrender my life into your care. When I leave this window seal I am not in control of what happens to me. You, the fireman, are in complete control of my life. I am not in charge. You are. There is nothing I can do to save myself. I have surrendered all my hope for salvation, I have surrendered my entire life into your hands. You are now the Lord of my life- not me."
Now don't take the illustration further than it can stretch. He is not saying, "You rule my life after I get out of the safety net." the illustration breaks down immediately when the person in danger is caught. But while he is falling he is completely surrendered to the fireman.
This is why trust and surrender are the same thing.
When a sinner believes that Christ can save him he is still lost so long as he controls part of his salvation by clinging to the window seal. Believing it is not enough. Trust is necessary. Trust does not occur until you leap. The leap is the trust and it is the essence of surrender. -
Winman said: ↑First of all, I believe everyone who trusts Jesus believes Jesus is Lord. We do not believe Jesus an ordinary man, he was God made flesh.
But there is a difference between saying you must trust Jesus for salvation and saying you must become obedient to Jesus for salvation. Trusting on Jesus is relying on him only to save you, being obedient is dependent on your works.Click to expand...
But nowhere do the scriptures require a person to make a promise to obey Jesus as a condition of salvation. If it did, then salvation would not be a free gift, but a reward for fulfilling a required condition. [/quote]I would say a result in a way. Not that we have to promise to never sin again(which we know we cannot fulfull) but that we repent(turning, change of mind) of our sins which will result in a changing of our actions.
And it is so with the firemen. We don't have to promise the firemen that we will obey them to be saved by them. We simply jump, completely trusting our life into their hands. This is all Jesus is asking us to do, cease from attempting to save ourselves and depend upon him only to save us. And if a person truly trusts Christ they will be born again and receive a new nature by the Holy Spirit that naturally obeys God, in fact it is impossible to disobey God while being led of the Spirit.
If a person reads the NIV, they could be impressed that they have to "submit" to Jesus as Lord to be saved. The verse does not say that, it says we must "confess", not submit or obey. Reading the KJB gives a very subtle, but different meaning as John of Japan explained in posts #7, 11, 14, and several others in this thread.Click to expand... -
Luke2427 said: ↑Absolutely. That's as clear as day. I do not comprehend why some cannot seem to see this.Click to expand...
Randy
Page 5 of 7