Featured Why is lordship Salvation so hard for many to understand?

DHK
thanks for the helpful link in post 99 and your comments on it again I will interact more with it in detail when I stop later on .
I think this is progress and that it's a very important issue and you're showing where you base your beliefs on with the link and impressions you have of it so let me see if I can interact with it and though we can move forward

 

Let's look at the error, and why it could be close to being a works-based salvation:

1. The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship,
Absolutely false. The gospel was never a call to discipleship. It is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospel was not fully defined by Christ. It wasn't until after his death and burial, and resurrection, that one could come to a full understanding of the gospel. Even the disciples were confused until after the resurrection. The "call" to being a "disciple" is not once mentioned in the epistles. That is where NT doctrine is found; not in the historical books of the NT.

2. a call to follow Him in submissive obedience,
The gospel is not a call to follow Christ in submissive obedience. This is works salvation, and why so many others are upset about LS. This has nothing to do with salvation.

3. not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer.
Sarcastic exaggeration is not needed. We don't believe this either.

4. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy.
While this is true, and I don't disagree with it, it is not "Jesus message" by which we are saved. It is the message of the cross which we have after Jesus died, was buried and rose again. Thus his message is false. The pre-cross message of the gospel is a false gospel.

5. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness.
The first part may be true, but it is annulled or cancelled out by the second half of the statement. The gospel is not a rebuke to anyone. It is a message of salvation, an invitation to come to Christ. It is not a rebuke. This again is where LS goes wrong, and it is where LS enters into works-salvation. They are adding to salvation by grace through faith. It should be evident here. It is eternal life AND at the same time... Why add to salvation? Why the works?

6. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness.
This shows a lack of understanding of repentance. Nowhere in the NT does the gospel demand one to "repent from sin." That is not what repentance is. I am not against repentance, but repentance from sin implies immediately a wrong definition.

7. Embracing righteousness is not what an unsaved person needs to know in order to be saved. He is wrong. He doesn't need to become a theologian in order to be saved. Is that the way you talk to a Biblically illiterate young person when telling them about salvation for the first time. "You need to embrace the righteousness of God" in order to be saved. Right!

8. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly.
Jesus was not speaking to unbelievers but to his disciples. He was speaking about discipleship, not salvation.

9. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).
That entire passage in Matthew 7 is speaking of false teachers. He is not speaking of following him. He is teaching his disciples of the danger of the teaching of false teachers. That passage has nothing to do with the cost of following him at all.

 

maybe I spoke to soon

 

DHK

When I posted post 99 I was going to see where we agree and where we have some concerns, but since I read post 102 and the foul post on the other thread...I see now you were only disguising your error, which needs to be exposed each time you post it.

It winds up that the only error is your caricature of the teaching and denial of the work of God in salvation and sanctification... This list of statements is just that...

So when Jesus said count the cost, or whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom...or all the times he explained if your conduct is not upright you cannot be my disciple....there was not any call to discipleship...yeah right:laugh:

:laugh:

Those are the historical facts of..."the Gospel"...the bare historical facts.You ignore the fact that when paul teaches this he adds the words
"according to the scriptures"...you do not have a clue what he means by that...

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

This is as foolish a statement as when the dispy says...the church is not found in the book of rev.after rev4-19....


A disciple is one who simply follows the teaching of a teacher...paul tells the Phillipians....17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample

That is a call to discipleship DHK...


2. a call to follow Him in submissive obedience,
The gospel is not a call to follow Christ in submissive obedience.

really ..people who follow should be disobedient and rebellious:laugh: good one DHK!!!

Good works are ordained for the saved-
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

yet you say good works have nothing to do with salvation...lol

So now you claim unrepentant sinners come to Christ

 

You have never refuted anything I have ever said. You have shown your complete bias and misunderstanding of doctrine. But you have not refuted any doctrine that I have posted.

This is your personal opinion, and as one can see, another personal attack on my character. It is not a refutation of anything that I have said. You rarely do that.

Jesus did not say "count the cost" to any unregenerate or unsaved individual. He said it to his disciples, who already were saved. This is something you guys don't get, and have a hard time drawing the difference between the two. The disciples of Jesus followed him and were trained by him for about 3 and a half years. They were not new believers. They were mature. If they had disobeyed the commands on discipleship they would not have lost their salvation (implied by you), nor would Jesus denounce them as being unsaved (implied by you).

Laugh as you will. The gospel is a call to salvation, not a call to discipleship. Your attitude shows that you are in denial of progressive sanctification. One becomes a disciple by being taught. Not every new believer is a disciple.

When it says "according to the Scriptures" it means exactly what it says. It reinforces what has just been said. It means nothing more should be added. But LS advocates add to the gospel turning it into a works-based gospel.

What is foolish is for you to go on a rabbit trail of dispensationalism and the eschatology of the book of Revelation, when no such reference was made by me. That is foolishness.
What I said was that "discipleship" and its commands to being a discipleship were not found in the epistles, but rather in the gospels. Jesus called his disciples to follow him, and as disciples gave them instructions. You don't find such doctrinal statements in the epistles--letters of doctrine or instruction for the local churches.

No, it isn't. He is writing to believers, not the unsaved. These believers were to learn from the writings of the Apostle Paul. They had already been believers for some time. They didn't become believers and disciples at the same time. They learned from Paul after they became believers didn't they? Your whole argument falls apart here.

The gospel is an invitation to accept the free gift of salvation, the gift of eternal life and be saved. "Submissive obedience" is a part of the sanctification that follows after. You cannot differentiate between sanctification and salvation which leaves you with a false gospel.

Verse 10 is taken from Eph.2:8-10
Verses 8,9 explain salvation: For by grace are ye saved...
Verse 10 speaks of the believer, the one already saved. He is the one created in Christ Jesus unto good works. It does not refer to the unsaved.
The gospel is not for the saved. It is for the unsaved. The unsaved are not ordained for good works. They are dead in trespasses and sins. They cannot do good works. They are unable to be obedient to Christ. Not until they are saved is this possible. Yet you and MacArthur have made saints out of unbelievers by including works in their salvation.

No, I am saying you don't know what repentance is. I have explained this to you before. You didn't accept it then; you don't accept it now. The Bible never commands an unsaved person "to repent of his sins." You have never showed me one verse that commands an unsaved person to repent of his sins in order to be saved. It just isn't there. I never said that repentance is not there. You have a wrong definition of repentance. You don't seem to know what it is.

 

Can one be saved if he does not believe that Jesus Christ is Lord?

Can one be saved and live for many years and never grow an inch in sanctification?

 

I never said that.

That is exactly what Paul said, in 1Cor.3, about the Corinthian believers. They had become carnal after they were saved. He had to go back and feed them with milk once again. He could not feed them with the meat that he wanted to.

That is also what happened to the believers that James was writing to:
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--That is a damning statement of condemnation against these believers.

 

Yes or no?

He didn't say there was NO growth. Slow growth is not no growth.

That was not to believers. An epistle is much like a Sunday morning sermon. Sitting there under the hearing of it IN THE CHURCH are saved people and lost people.

Enemies of God are lost people. There was always plenty of lost people IN THE CHURCH to whom the Apostles wrote. It is the same today.

 

"Believe on the 'Lord' Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Yes, one calls on the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore trusts him as both Lord and Savior at the same time.

I would disagree. I would use the word backslidden. He had to start all over again. The writer of Hebrews was the same way.

Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
--It seems they had not gone forward but rather had gone back. They had to be taught again the "first principles..."

No, it isn't the same. You cannot read your culture back into the first century culture.

The epistle has no chapter divisions. It is a letter. Chapter divisions are put in by translators. Previous to this James writes:
James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
--They are brethren, Christians.

Immediately after 4:4, the verse I quoted to you, James writes:
James 4:5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
--This is not written to unbelievers.
He is writing to believers.

He is talking about worldliness which God hates. Let's look at 21st century example. You are behind your computer now. You are tempted to click on a link that you know you shouldn't, but you do it anyway. It is porn.
Those words in that day would apply to you in this day. You would become the enemy of God for that period of time that you would be committing such a sin. This is what it is speaking about.
"Friendship of the world is the enemy of God."

Check 1John 2:15,16 as well. That also is written to Christians with the same strong message.

 

How does Luke 6:46 fit in this discussion:

Is Luke consistent with James, who wrote in 2:18:

I don't think anybody is advocating works-based salvation, or any kind of works as a component of our salvation. It seems to me that the "works" and obedience demanded by the Lord Jesus are demonstrations of saving faith.

It reminds me of a preacher who asked, "if you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?"

Another thought. I've heard people give testimonies along these lines: "I accepted Jesus as Savior when I was, say, nine years old. But I didn't yield to him as Lord until many years later." Anything wrong with that?

 

Simple question here..

Were we saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, or not?

THAT is the reformation question they stated Rome failed to address...

 

Jesus calls us to become His disciplies AFTER He has saved us though!

that a sinner ONLY need to rfeceive jesus Christ thru faith , and they are saved/sealed/will get delivered unto the father!

Once saved, THEN they start a lifelong process of becoming more into image of jesus, but weill NEVER be 100 % sold out to Jesus, all the time...

Again, will the Lord cut loose children that at times were in rebellion/disobedient?

Like a peter, who denied jesus to his own face?

 

But the test of whether or not we got saved is whether or not we bear fruit.

Those who never become anymore like Christ after they "get saved" did not get it.

The Bible could not be plainer about this. James said, "Can faith save a man?" His answer was, "Faith without works is dead."

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. LS says that that fruit must be immediate, even at the time of salvation.
Thus the erroneous statement for the new believer: "If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all."
That denies progressive sanctification. A new believer has much to learn. He no doubt will be struggling with many things in his new life as a Christian. To say that Christ is Lord of absolutely every area of his life the moment he is saved is ludicrous.
If he was a lifetime smoker, is it a process or immediately he stops once he is saved, for example? All of us struggle with the old nature. LS advocates deny the old nature, deny the existence of a carnal Christian, and some even deny the existence of sin residing in a believer. LS leads to all types of erroneous and non-biblical doctrine.

 

Can you quote anybody besides Washer who says that it has to be visible immediately?

But that statement is true in the proper sense. A man is not saved unless he believes King Jesus has the right to rule over every part of his life. Now, he may be far too immature spiritually to even know that there are parts of his own life which are rebellious to his Lordship, but he believes that Jesus is Lord of ALL.

If he doesn't believe that Jesus should rule over every part of his life, then he is not saved.

I don't think ANY lordshipper, not even Washer, believes in Entire Sanctification.

You don't believe that. You just said yesterday that Jesus IS Lord of all therefore no one can make him Lord of all. I agreed.

If Jesus is Lord of ALL then he is Lord of every part of everyone's life, whether they assent to it or not.

I recognize I hold a softer, and I believe more biblical, view of lordship than some, but I don't think the HARDEST of them thinks that a man has to immediately stop smoking in order to go to heaven.

Respectfully, DHK, I think you are building straw men.

 

The question is what does God require other than Faith in jesus to save a sinner?

bible states that its faith in jesus alone...

 

Exactly:thumbsup:

 

ALL of us would agree that once saved, we should obey the commands of the Lord, butbasic question is what does God require to save us?

 

MacArthur is fairly close to the same position. There are actually quite a few. It is not hard to find in a search.

I don't believe it is true:
"If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all."
--Not everyone grows up in a Christian family and knows the implications of becoming a Christian. I didn't. When I got saved I knew that Christ was my Savior and that my sins were eternally forgiven, and that is about it. So, do you sit in condemnation of my salvation, then?
I had to grow as a Christian (a process I knew much later in life called sanctification) that Christ needed to be Lord of every area. That wasn't immediate. It isn't for most people in my experience. To make it so is to make salvation a works-based salvation IMO.
It goes like this: You must trust Christ as your Saviour on the condition that you make him Lord of every area of your life.
I consider that a heretical teaching. It is works-based salvation.

So now you question my salvation, and the salvation of many others. You ought to be ashamed. That is what is wrong of this erroneous doctrine. You appear to be judge, jury and executioner (in the place of God) as to who is saved and who is not), a position that God never gave you.

That is the natural and logical conclusion of this doctrine. If you have been following the discussion with Icon, that is where it has led him.

He is Lord of all for he is our Creator. Nothing can escape him.
If you wanted to be a citizen of the Netherlands, you would have to forsake your American citizenship, submit to the King of the Netherlands, and to all the laws of the government of the Netherlands. The King would be your sovereign lord. As a good citizen you would obey your lord. But you could choose to disobey him. Depending on how much you disobey him you would face a penalty--fines, jail time, etc. But you would still be a citizen. The king expects obedience. He is Lord over all--all of Netherlands and over you. Whether you obey him in all things is your choice. If you don't, you may face certain consequences.
The same is true in Christianity.
--We are citizens of his kingdom. If we disobey our king we don't lose our salvation, but we will be chastised. He is our Lord whether we obey him or not.

That is true, and oft times they don't obey. We obey out of love.

A citizen must learn the laws of the country first. It may take him some time before he has mastered all the laws.

 

Those holding to LS doctrine do mean well, and they are correct to regard being a Christian is much more than someone saying they "gave their heart to jesus" tears ago and stayed the same though, BUT..

Still see the logical conclusion that ONLY ones with full assurance are those who achieved the 'sinless perfection" that wesley spoke about!