So, what is wrong with Lordship salvation?

Kiffen,

Your Statement:

"Incorrect. MacArthur admits that believers can and will have sinful habits though we must be carefull in using MacArthur only for LS salvation and would be better to use Baptist and Reformed Confessions (1s and Second London Baptist, New Hampshire Confession, Westminister). LS Salvation advocates believe that we all commit sins everyday and will until we die because of our unredeemed flesh. Sinless perfection view is a Holiness Arminian Wesleyan View."

Kiffen,

I know you going on vacation, so I will try not to pounce on you here. I just wanted to acknowledge that I have read(many times) the confessions that you have spoken of. I do realize that both the General Baptists(Arminian) and Particular Baptists(Calvinists) believed that if someone fell into sin after salvation and does not repent before they die they go to hell.

The General Baptists just explained it as the Arminians did that the person was saved, but lose their salvation due to unrepentant sin.

The Particular Baptists explained it as the person was never truly saved, because a truly saved person could not die in a backslidden state. So in this way LS advocates are very close to the Historic Baptist tradition(specifically the particular Baptists).

Having said that, just becauses Baptists in the past thought that way that does not make them right. I hold no tradition as sacred except the Word of God(I am not saying that you do either, but appealing to the historic belief can sometimes give people that impression).

Here is what I believe happened. We know from the Scriptures that even while the Apostles were alive and still writing the Scriptures false doctrine and practices had krept into the church.

It would be nieve to think that false doctrine would'nt have flooded in after they died(which it did) and then you have the Catholic church forming a few hundred years later with all this false doctrine that had been accumulated.

I believe the true Gospel has always been out there from the time of Christ, but many times it had rubble all over the top if it. Christians throughout the years have had to clear that rubble to get down to the purest form of the Gospel.

I have read much on the reformation, and while I rejoice that a heap of "rubble" was removed by great reformers like Calvin and Luther, they did not remove all of it.

It was not until in the last 150 years or so, that the Gospel was completely clear of the rubble that had been placed on it.

You see the reformers knew and understood that in their day the church was interwoven in society. The church was what helped keep the peace to a certain extent. If men did not feel that they would perish and go to hell for their sins, society would run wild.

That is why it would have been untenable to speak, even in their own mind to say that salvation by grace through faith eliminates works from the equation, that our works after salvation are for rewards and blessings in this life alone. That they are pleasing to God as token of our love and gratitude.

They had to keep them in the equation, but they simply removed them from being meritorious as the Catholic church stated they were. The General Baptist said works maintained your salvation. The Particular Baptists said works prove your salvation. Unfortuneatly they could not see past their time and culture.

That is why I rejoice to live the age I do, even with seeing the world becoming more and more evil each day. You know why? The gloves are off, and the true Gospel can be shouted from the hill tops. There are no govermental or cultural concerns to hold it back, we can preach the true, free Gospel of Christ.

Do we still preach against sin? Absolutely. Too many churches have stopped preaching against sin and they should be ashamed. But do we tell people that living as Christ would have them in a God honoring fashion is necessary to maintain or prove their salvation? Absolutely no. It is love for Christ that compels us, not fear.

IFBReformer

 

Certainly the New Testament commands us to examine whether we are in the faith. When I have taught Sunday school I have explain this passage as follows, the scripture tell us we have to believe in our "heart"(Romans 10:9-10) that Christ is our savior.

I would ask my students, have you and do you believe these things in your heart? If you do then it will knaw at you when you are not doing as the Lord would have you to do, even though we can sometimes block the Spirit out.

Have you really believed these things in your heart and thus are you really in Christ?

You see you or other LS or means advocates would jump right in and say if you are doing this, this or this then you probably were never saved. If you have a repetitous sin that you have never been able to overcome then you probably were never saved.

I just would tell my students to examine their own hearts, for only they know what they have believed in their hearts.

What about Romans 4, certainly assurance is an undeniable fact of salvation. The moment I trust Christ and believe in my heart that is my Savior and God I have complete assurance of my glorfacation to come. I even have assurance of sanctification in this life. And before you fall out of you chair let me explain.

I believe that all believers will be are justified, will be sanctified and eventually glorfied just as you do. I just don't think we all reach the same point of sanctifaction. I think the process can stall, and yes even go backwards in some believers, but there will be some kind of sanctifaction.

As far as Romans 4 goes, it contains one of my most favorite passage in all the scriptures:

Romans 4:4-8(NIV)
"4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7“Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

I am glad my faith is credited as righteousness and not my works, else I would come up short and never enter the kingdom of God. Its neat though, that God gives me rewards for my feeble attempt at pleasing him in this life. Why does he give us rewards? It not like we really deserve them, after all he empowers to to the good we do(you and I agree on that). So why rewards for deeds after salvation that he empowers us to do? The answer to that is that we will never for one moment think that our works have one iota to do with our salvation. It is all of him, from first to last.

IFBReformer

 

How many times did Peter deny Jesus?

 

Which is what He said He would do:

Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

It doesn't say that He might conform believers if they are willing. It says they are predestined to it. Verse 28 provides the context and precludes the possibility that this verse is talking only about our final salvation (glorification).

I wouldn't either.

To every other LS person here: Would you do this?

OTOH, the seed that sprang up quickly died because it had no root.

I went through a period of drought in my life like yours. Both before and after there was evidence of salvation. I think DD mentioned that even these disobedient times have a purpose towards our sanctification. Mine did. I am more aware of the dangers my children face and can hopefully help them avoid pitfalls. My experience, as shameful as much of it is, will provide perspective and wisdom.

Belief always effects attitude and ultimately behavior. If there is no change in attitude and eventually behavior then there was never a change of belief.

 

It makes for good religion, but only one
problem...That`s not what the Bible teaches.
What about growth and babes in christ.

 

Tim, would you kindly give Scripture to support your position (since I ain't sure what you're saying?) Thanx.

 

Actually, it says to believe in the LORD. You see, it is the cheap grace advocates that want to divide who Jesus is.

Paul told the Philippian jailor to believe in the LORD Jesus Christ.

Paul said to call upon the name of the LORD, not savior.

Don't change the text because it is convenient. </font>[/QUOTE]Daniel,

Romans 10:9-10
"9That 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. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

What does this passage specificly say about what we must "believe in your heart" - it is "that God raised him from the dead" this is refering to Christ office as Savior. I do agree with you though that the whole passage is refering to both his office as Lord and Savior and I do not seperate the two.

I simple say that when it says we must believe Jesus is Lord, that means we believe he is God in the flesh, and our supreme master. The difference is I think it is possible for people to believe Jesus is Lord(God and Master) and also Savior but not obey him as much as other Christians do.

You don't. Like I have said before, I believe Disciples can range from 1(worst) to 10(best) - that they come in all shapes and sizes. You on the other hand as well as LS guys believe they only come in one size - and thats the best I would say ranging from 7 to 10 but there is not such thing as a Christian who is a 1.

But then you have to explain how a Christian can get to heaven and have no rewards? If all Christians will be pretty good. As you believe.

IFBReformer

 

That is the most judgmental thing I've seen on the BB in quite a while (outside the versions forum). For someone who espouses cheap grace it sure seems absent from this paragraph. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bob,

I am sorry you understood it that way. I was not trying to be judgmental, I was only giving my observations from listening to MacArthur's radio program and someone interviewing him.

He came right out and said he never had any major rebellions against the Lord so that is why he does not know when he was converted. He said he knows there must have been a time, but that is was transparent because thats just the way he has always been.

When I said he never confronted a sin where he desperately needed God's forgiveness, I was refering to the fact that the way he presents himself both in his personal testimony and his preaching is that he has never had a major falling out with the Lord, never had a "big" sin to overcome and never had to run desperately to the Lord for forgiveness.

So this makes it difficult for him to understand how Christians can indeed fall into great sins, the same sins as unbelievers and sometimes to their own detrement, don't repent before they die.

You see there are two kinds of preachers, one who shows his humanity, and one that does not. When I say humanity, I mean they acknowledge failures in their lives, I have yet to read from him or hear one time where he does this. Sure you don't have to get into great detail, but a Preacher like MacAthur while acknowledging he is a sinner does not reveal his humanity.

What is amazing to me, is that Christ understood our temptations even though he was without sin:

Hebrews 4:15
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin."

Yet we have John MacArthur, who himself acknowledges he is a sinner, but is unable to "sympathize with our weaknesses".

Yes preachers need to preach hard against sin, yet in the same breath they need to acknowledge the reality of it in our day to day walk until the day we die. They need not errect a false doctrine that says any one who claims to be a Christian and who falls into sin and does not repent before they die simply proves they were never saved.

We needed God's forgiveness before we were saved, and we need it ever so much more as we try to walk closer with Christ.

I think many fundamentalist preachers feel that if they acknowledge their own failing and weakness to their congregations, or if they acknowledge the real battle we will continue to wage till we die, then some how they are going soft on sin or excusing it. Preaching against sin, and yet acknowledging the reality of it in the life a beliver is the only was to preach the full, and balanced counsel of God.

IFBReformer

 

Just for all my LS and Means buddies:

I know "cheap grace" sounds nice for you to use to attack our "free grace" position. But I don't think you would like it if I or other free grace advocates called your position "unfree grace" or "works to get grace" position would you?

So how about you just refer to our position as the "free grace" position and lets just discuss the issues.

Sound like a plan?

IFBReformer

 

I'm a believer of Lordship salvation and I didn't even know it.

 

I'm a believer of Lordship salvation and I didn't even know it. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, it's things like this that make me wonder what Daniel David is arguing about.
Murph

 

DD I went back to that thread and found that Sue discussed the fact that if a true follower must leave everything including a dead father (before the funeral) and follow Christ that she must not be a follower. She surmised by this that in some areas in her life she was not yet a follower but she has always been (since conversion} a believer. I did find this quote by her :
--------------------------------------------------
We don't 'die to self' all at once. That too, is a process. We are to strive for perfection; but none of us will reach that state until we meet Him 'face to face'.
-------------------------------------------------

If the position expressed by Sue above has led to all this then I am perplexed as to what you intend to gain by your stance. I must point out that in her thread about followers and believers you branded her as a Hyles follower(she may be) and began to attack the "cheap grace" as you call it doctrine. Here is part of your quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Sue, you know all those times when Jack Hyles rightfully takes another beat down because of his horific theology of easy believism and other such, and you always defend him?
--------------------------------------------------
DD you don't owe me anything but if you honestly differ with Sue's views expressed in her quote above I would love for you to plainly and simply explain your stance.

Trying to understand
Murph

 

I'm a believer of Lordship salvation and I didn't even know it. </font>[/QUOTE]Wiedertaufen,

Do you believe it is impossible for a true believer to die in a backslidden state, if so then you believe in the LS position, else you don't.

IFBReformer

 

Let me just clarify Daniel's statement for those obsservers who may be new to this discussion.

"Lordship salvation is the belief that saving faith includes repentance from sin[turning from known sins at point of salvation, turning from other sins as they are later revealed, if only turn from some sins and not others one does not get salvation] and faith in Christ for salvation.Bottom line for a Lordship advocate: no repentance, no salvation."

Daniel, feel free to correct my elaboration at any point you fell is wrong about your position.

IFBReformer

 

Now once again I look at the first part of your quote and say that I agree 100%, whatever you call our experience every Christian should turn from sin and pursue Jesus. But I differ with the latter part, I agree that a person will not overcome every sin immediately, I must also add that I believe most never master everything. The last sentence is what I really dissagree with. In this entire discussion you state that a christian cannot go backward but always forward but by saying they have turned from pursuing sin I am at a loss to understand how they find this sin. According to you they cannot fall or go backward but only forward, combine this with your view that the true christian will cease from pursuing sin. I know I am going in circles but according to you the true christian cannot go backward (which is where sin is) and they have also stopped pursuing sin so how did they attain this sin. Please explain.
Murph