RE: Lordship salvation and no other (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Salvation Issues



Message

Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/15/2007 1:05:27 AM)

quote:

With regard to repentance. I note that three books of the Bible dealing with evangelism almost totally omit the word. But you would say that any presentation of the gospel that omits that doesn't present the gospel. You don't find that strange?


Graham:

As to judging people, is that what you think this is all about is me trying to find a way to judge them? Well, that not it. I am learning so that I may present the gospel message completely and coherently. I am learning how others present it and why some such as Free gracers consider my presentation false. To me thats a serious allegation and it deserves my attention.
Since I attended to it, I have found nothing amiss, instead I have found a movement called free
grace that has springboarded off of several theologians works and ended up skewing the gospel message instead of bringing a corrective to Lordship teachings.


quote:

But you would say that any presentation of the gospel that omits that doesn't present the gospel. You don't find that strange?


I dont find it strange because I am not trying to write a narrative of Jesus. I am seeking to present a gospel message that is inclusive of all aspects of Christ's message. I am dealing with evangelism, not gospel narratives.

Im surprised that your basing your doctrines on omissions of words, instead of coherent systematizing of them.

I suppose that Christ's return will be a sad day for us, John is the only one that told us that Jesus was going to prepare a place for us, the other apostles left that out, so I suppose according to your bible reconing Jesus isnt really preparing a place for us since only John mentions it. I suppose the omission of that act of Jesus by the other apostles cancels the action altogether?

Cults use this kind of rationale, counting words in books and validating the doctrine based on numbers? Do you really want to base your doctrine of faith upon omission?

That fact that mat-acts use repentance 16 times or repent 14 times means nothing?

Or maybe you dont believe Christ is an advocate with the Father for us? Only John mentions that once in 1 john, its found no where else. Does this draw Jesus advocacy into question because Paul, Peter, Jude etc didnt mention it?
The idea that repentance is not essential to gospel preaching because John didnt mention it holds no merit at all. What it shows is some theologians efforts to inject his own reasonings into the gospel message and therein skew that message.

And yes I believe those believers in John 2:23 are no more saved than Nicodemus was when he came to Christ at night. Their belief was insufficient to obtain the salvation we preach.

It appears that any resistance you have towards Lordship salvation is purely bias and not based upon any falsehood that you have shown me.

Thanks for the responses.

John



Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/15/2007 1:19:38 AM)

Graham:

Since you dont have the time or inclination to present your own views of Salvation by grace in the form of a rebuttal to Lordship salvation, Ill defer to someone else who can state their views and lay themselves out for examination.

I agree a long winded post is hard to read if your in a hurry to check sound bites. I am not in a hurry and I appreciate a complete thought presented and not the anecdotal kind posting that leaves everyone wondering what position they hold.

I put myself out there, I quote the text, interpret the text, comment on the text to show my connection to the subject at hand and subject myself to anyone to blast away.

You mentioned John 3:16, John 5:24, 11:26-27, Acts 16:31, go ahead and handle the texts so I can make a fair judgment, right or wrong at least Im not mis-stating your position.
If you decide to forego it, thats fine. We can drop it.

John



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/15/2007 6:52:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

Graham:

As to judging people, is that what you think this is all about is me trying to find a way to judge them? Well, that not it. I am learning so that I may present the gospel message completely and coherently. I am learning how others present it and why some such as Free gracers consider my presentation false. To me thats a serious allegation and it deserves my attention.

Well, John M. thinks that this is about judging the salvation of other people. Even though he denies it, that's what he does.

quote:

Since I attended to it, I have found nothing amiss, instead I have found a movement called free
grace that has springboarded off of several theologians works and ended up skewing the gospel message instead of bringing a corrective to Lordship teachings.

The Lordship camp has created the confusion!!

quote:

I dont find it strange because I am not trying to write a narrative of Jesus. I am seeking to present a gospel message that is inclusive of all aspects of Christ's message. I am dealing with evangelism, not gospel narratives.

I'm not either.

quote:

Im surprised that your basing your doctrines on omissions of words, instead of coherent systematizing of them.

Think about what you are saying. You and Ezra seem to be saying that if repentance AND faith aren't both being taught, then it's not the gospel. And that's not dealing with omission of words?

quote:

That fact that mat-acts use repentance 16 times or repent 14 times means nothing?

Now who's counting words? I have tried to clarify what the word means in its contexts. You seem to understand but won't say.

quote:

The idea that repentance is not essential to gospel preaching because John didnt mention it holds no merit at all. What it shows is some theologians efforts to inject his own reasonings into the gospel message and therein skew that message.

And Romans and Galatians too?



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/15/2007 7:30:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

You mentioned John 3:16, John 5:24, 11:26-27, Acts 16:31, go ahead and handle the texts so I can make a fair judgment, right or wrong at least Im not mis-stating your position.
If you decide to forego it, thats fine. We can drop it.

John

I believe that when Jesus is talking about believe, He is talking about investing our trust in Him. A similar concept would be that if someone decides to risk his life on a surgeon of known skill, but of unknown outcome. It's like: "Believe in me, I know what I am doing." The people coming to Jesus were placing their eternal futures in the hands of Jesus. That eternal judgment was coming was a certainty to them. No one had to tell them that they were sinners, they already knew it. I am not saying everyone was willing to come to terms with it. Some, like the Pharisees denied it. In John (8?), Jesus told them that because they denied their spiritual blindness, their sin remained.

These days, people often want to escape that concept. I always check to make sure they know it and that certain judgment awaits them if it is not dealt with. Death in hell is certain. Occasionally, there is judgment in this life.

Since they/we are all sinners, we should certainly see the need to renounce it. If people insist on holding onto to it, then I have a problem. In such a case, I cannot see how they have any reason to be saved. If they have no reason to be, then I do not believe they can.

People who claim to be Christians and who have known sin should not only renounce it, they should quit.

Recently, I had a conversation with a gay man on the telephone. He felt that he lack "a connection" with God. I explained the concept of sin. Then he explained to me what I already suspected, that he was gay. I told him that God disapproved of that and that was unacceptable to God.

He wanted a gospel message that included acceptance of his gay lifestyle. I don't think there is one.

With regard to repentance. The meaning of repentance is relative, depending on its context. It just so happens that most of the time in the NT, that context just happens to be with reference to sin. Often, when a word is used in the same context dozens of times, its context reference becomes attached to it almost by default--but, IMHO, not inherently.

That's why it's so hard to pin down. And may explain why John's gospel doesn't use it (and Romans and Galatians). He speaks of the condemnation of sin. You keep your sin, you keep your judgment too. Coming to Christ means rejecting the sin that made us needy creatures to begin with. So, we have to hate sin and loyalty to Christ means hating what He hated.

The synoptic gospels were more explicit with reference to the word repent, which I think is synonymous with renounce. But in renouncing sin, the particulars may have been a little sketchy. That, I think, is some of the penatants asked John the Baptist, "What shall we do?" And John filled in the details with regard to what their sin was.



Ezra -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/15/2007 11:05:44 PM)

quote:

quote:


The idea that repentance is not essential to gospel preaching because John didnt mention it holds no merit at all. What it shows is some theologians efforts to inject his own reasonings into the gospel message and therein skew that message.


And Romans and Galatians too?


To suggest that Romans and Galatians do not teach repentance is to misrepresent these epistles:

Romans 1:32; 2:2-4

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them... But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despiset thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; NOT KNOWING THAT THE GOODNESS OF GOD LEADETH THEE TO REPENTANCE?"

Here Paul gives us a clear connection between sin and God's judgment upon the sinner, as well as between God's longsuffering and His desire that all sinners repent in order to escape that judgment. What Paul is saying is that God is good to sinners even though He hates their sins because He is giving them opportunity after opportunity to repent.

Furthermore, we read "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under grace? God forbid... But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, BUT YE HAVE OBEYED FROM THE HEART that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:15,17,18).

The doctrine they had obeyed from the heart was that of repentance -- turning from sin and turning to righteousness. That is precisely what Paul describes, and thanks God for.

Therefore to claim that the book of Romans omits the critical need for repentance is clearly false.

Galatians 2:20

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh [body] I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me".

To be crucified with Christ is to be dead to "the flesh" -- the sinful nature. To reckon oneself dead to the flesh is to have repented of one's old sinful ways, and to have embraced the righteousness of Christ. To die to the flesh (or be crucified with Christ) is a metaphor to renounce sin and it's enticements -- the sinful desires to which we were slaves, but are no longer such because Christ dwells within.

The one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and is properly taught the true meaning of water baptism symbolically dies to the old sinful ways when immersed, and rises out of that "grave" a new creature in Christ, who "walks in newness of life". That is the essence of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Then Paul reminds the Galatians that since they had indeed repented, "how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage" (Gal. 4:9). The use of "turn ye again" speaks of returning to that from which they had already repented, since repentance is a turning away from sin and evil.

Once again, to represent Galatians as devoid of the teaching of repentance is to take a very superficial view of this powerful book.



growingseed -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/16/2007 2:34:50 AM)

quote:

What say you? Can you have salvation and not be "Lorded over" by Jesus Christ? Can you know the assurance of the forgiveness of sins and make the commandment to crucify the flesh optional?

In the day of judgement when we all are before the throne of God, the angels will seperate tares from wheat, and the fish in the nets shall be separated. Jesus told the Pharisees that he would deliver them from bondage, and they said that we are not in bondage, yet their bondage was that of unbelief. Unless Jesus is Lord in your life you will be under bondage of unbelief. You can not climb the stairway to heaven without the eyes of faith to reveal to you where the steps are. That only through the blood of Jesus.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/16/2007 7:18:56 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

And Romans and Galatians too?


To suggest that Romans and Galatians do not teach repentance is to misrepresent these epistles:


And to say that I said that is to misrepresent me.

Please show me any statement where I have said any of the following:
1) Where I have said the Bible or the NT doesn't teach repentance.
2) Where I have said that I do not think the Bible teaches the Lordship of Christ or where I have said the Lordship of Christ is unimportant.

quote:

Once again, to represent Galatians as devoid of the teaching of repentance is to take a very superficial view of this powerful book.


ONCE AGAIN: To represent my statements in that fashion is has to be either negligence or intentional. I deny that the statement above represents anything I have tried to say.



HisbyHischoice -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/16/2007 9:24:41 PM)

Letter to a Friend Concerning the So-Called "Lordship Salvation", by John Piper

Includes plenty of scripture toward the end. It is a long read, but well worth it.
HBHC



Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/18/2007 12:54:29 AM)

Taking a cue from John Piper, Lordship salvation is that biblical salvation spoken of in scripture.
Its not adding works, adding self-righteousness or adding the law.

Saviorship salvation is Lordship salvation, they both are one and the same gift from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Denial of Christ's Lordship after one is supposedly saved, then some theologian coming along and validating that denial is false to the biblical witness as they revealed the grace of God.
The apostles preached no such grace of God devoid of the Lordship that rules that disciple under grace. When a disciple poses a refusal of Christ's Lordship based upon some perceived infringement of their rights is outright deception. It appears Hodges and others have gone so far as to validate that rebellion and form philosophies that encompass a security for such a person based upon their handling of scripture.

It is this falsehandling, false hope and false doctrine that Lordship salvation and John M have resisted in the numerous books and articles written by himself and other biblical leaders.

I believe that scripture holds out no security for those who deny the Lordship of Christ. It is sad that some are ignorant of that Lordship, it is abominable that others are able to entrench themselves in their rebellions because some theologians have turned the grace of God into lasciviousness. Not in their own lives, but the handing out of rebel-free cards to those whom classify themselves as believers whom will not be ruled by Christ.

Divorcing the believers behavior from their confession is the work of a cult. The ability to say with some supposed credibility that they believe while in works they deny Christ is hypocrisy in its purest form.

Every doctrine bears fruit, its shows itself in the lives of those whom live according to that principle preached. What will be the end of discipleship that is born of doctrines which are slowly but surely divorcing the reality of biblically commanded behavior from confessions and statements of faith which contradict the necessity of proper and biblical imitation and representation of Christ and the teachings of the Apostles? The end will be openly compromising people whom have made a god of their bellies and like the jews of old come to the temple of the Lord and say.
Jer 7:2 Stand in the gate of the LORD's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the LORD.
Jer 7:3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Jer 7:5 For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor;

But listen to what the Jews of old said..

Jer 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;
Jer 7:10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?
Jer 7:11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.

Trusting in lying words is no new concept for the working of the spirit of wickedness in the church.

John



Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/18/2007 1:11:06 AM)

Johns gospel and the missing word repentance.

I suppose some could build a doctrine of anti-repentance in the form of 'grace alone' teaching
that presumes John had an anti-repentance theme which he built into his gospel. I also suppose that anyone can believe whatever they want for any unwarranted reason at all.

Johns gospel is not about man and mans repentance, or about mans change of mind, change of direction or turning from sin. Johns gospel is about Jesus Christ being the prime mover. Jesus is the author of salvation, The Father God the great teacher of sinful men, the Spirit of God the great revealer of Gods intentions. Johns emphasis is entirely What the Father is doing and what the Son was sent to do and what the Spirit will continue to do. Jesus is everything to John He is the first and last, the only begotten and the Word with God. The light of the world and the good shepherd of the sheep and on and on I could go with the chapters that depict Jesus Christ.

When Jesus prayed it was not about repentance it was about what the Father was going to do to glorify himself through His Son and all the future sons and daughters are connected by that Word to the Father. Keeping the sons and daughters of faith by the power of the Fathers promises and indwelling Spirit are the basis for repentance, repentance doesnt place power in Gods hands.

Just a fast read through John shows such and abundance of reasons to tell the truth about Jesus Christ without mentioning repentance, because the emphasis was not about man turning but about God sending.

John



whisperingwaters -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/18/2007 1:41:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisbyHischoice

Letter to a Friend Concerning the So-Called "Lordship Salvation", by John Piper

Includes plenty of scripture toward the end. It is a long read, but well worth it.
HBHC




That was a good article and a recommended read.



Ezra -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/18/2007 6:42:50 AM)

quote:

Johns gospel is not about man and mans repentance, or about mans change of mind, change of direction or turning from sin.


In the Bible there are times when truth is taught explicitly, and times when it is taught implicitly. In the Gospel of John, repentance is taught implicitly whereas the New Birth is taught explicitly.

Within the truth of the New Birth is the fact of a new heart and a new spirit operating within a new kingdom -- the Kingdom of God. This implies that the old heart (with it's sinful desires) and the old spirit (which is in fact dead) are no longer operative, and have been abandoned. Thus a turning from sins and idols to the living God and to Christ is implied.

And John also reveals that the one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ and receives Him is born again. While John does not add that one must repent in order to be born again and enter the Kingdom of God, Christ already made that plain in the other Gospels, and we were given four Gospels in order to understand all the facets of salvation (and not isolate one Gospel from all the others).

Christ said "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". He also said "Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God".

Both teachings must be held and taught simultaneoulsly, since they show the close connection between repentance and the New Birth.



Gloryandgrace -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/18/2007 11:50:05 AM)

Hi Ezra;

I should increase my vocabulary to include implicit and explict.

I fully agree with your conclusions on John. Im saying to the readers that Johns intent was different than the other apostles and therefore carried a different theme overall.

Many verses are implicitly speaking of repentance...such as driving out the money changers, asking the woman to bring her husband, sin no more lest a worse thing come upon thee and go and sin no more or maybe, because you say you see your sin remaineth and much more.

But it cant be helped in John that you feel these are only peripheral issues that John is speaking of. John's main thrust is introducing us to the Son and His explicit declarations about "the Father".

Thanks for the balancing post Ezra.

John



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 9:49:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gloryandgrace

Johns gospel and the missing word repentance.

I suppose some could build a doctrine of anti-repentance in the form of 'grace alone' teaching
that presumes John had an anti-repentance theme which he built into his gospel. I also suppose that anyone can believe whatever they want for any unwarranted reason at all.


Did you miss my comment when I said I am not anti-repentance?

Note:

Post #44

quote:

We are not opposed to repentance. But wrongly defined it makes an addition to the gospel.


Post #47

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I am not "anti-repentance," lest anyone mischaracterize what I am saying.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 9:51:44 PM)

quote:

Just a fast read through John shows such and abundance of reasons to tell the truth about Jesus Christ without mentioning repentance, because the emphasis was not about man turning but about God sending.

No problem there.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 9:55:09 PM)

quote:

Within the truth of the New Birth is the fact of a new heart and a new spirit operating within a new kingdom -- the Kingdom of God. This implies that the old heart (with it's sinful desires) and the old spirit (which is in fact dead) are no longer operative, and have been abandoned. Thus a turning from sins and idols to the living God and to Christ is implied.


I think you are suggesting I said that one need not be conscious of sins and hate them to be saved. It is unfortunate that you permit John to do things that you do not permit me to do.



Aphobos -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 9:58:25 PM)

I am an advocate of Lordship salvation to the extent that Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord. We do not "make" him either; he simply *is*. And the Spirit will work in the believer's heart to live a way that affirms both.

~Aphobos



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 10:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aphobos

I am an advocate of Lordship salvation to the extent that Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord. We do not "make" him either; he simply *is*. And the Spirit will work in the believer's heart to live a way that affirms both.

~Aphobos

No disagreement there. BUT, John M. teaches that the call to discipleship is identical to the call to salvation. IOW, it is not just giving up sin and trusting in Christ, it would also have meant giving up one's employment to be saved. In today's thinking, it would be equivalent to accepting a call to preach as a precondition for salvation.

THAT is how I understand him.



Aphobos -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/20/2007 11:49:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker

No disagreement there. BUT, John M. teaches that the call to discipleship is identical to the call to salvation. IOW, it is not just giving up sin and trusting in Christ, it would also have meant giving up one's employment to be saved. In today's thinking, it would be equivalent to accepting a call to preach as a precondition for salvation.



A number of years ago (1994), I visited the Master's seminary as a prospective student. For a week, I met with students and staff, audited classes, and attended church at Grace Community (twice). I studied, prayed, ate, and slept with the students. It was a wonderful experience, and I even met briefly with Dr. MacArthur.

I own and have read many of MacArthur's works, including his commentary series (current as of 1995). I very much enjoyed his two-part series on Lorsdhip Salvation (The Gospel According to Jesus, and Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles). I found nothing wrong with his position, though it has been more than 10 years since I read those books. Perhaps I should read them again.

I must admit that he sometimes sounds legalistic. That would be my impression if I didn't know him better. But I can assure you that John MacArthur believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sometimes, in his effort to combat "easy-believism," he appears very legalistic. But the same is said of James, whose words are so often twisted to support rank legalism.

Surely, MacArthur does not believe one must give-up his vocation to be a Christian. In addition to the seminary, he is also the president of Master's College, where students can pursue careers in law, medicine, information technology, and accounting (to name a few). This would hardly make sense if he expected Christians to abandon their vocation upon being saved.

I would suggest reading his works on Lordship Salvation for yourself (if you haven't done so already). Don't rely on the harsh criticism of his detractors. How you would like to be heard and understood? By your own words, or by those of people who can't stand you?

In Him,

~Aphobos



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/21/2007 5:58:17 AM)

quote:

I must admit that he sometimes sounds legalistic. That would be my impression if I didn't know him better. But I can assure you that John MacArthur believes in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Sometimes, in his effort to combat "easy-believism," he appears very legalistic. But the same is said of James, whose words are so often twisted to support rank legalism.


I would not say and have not said that he is legalistic. I cannot remember anyone who has said that he is legalistic.

quote:

Surely, MacArthur does not believe one must give-up his vocation to be a Christian...
Of course not. But would anyone deny here that Christ sometimes called people to give up their vocation? When Jesus said, "come follow me," was there any option for them but to leave their nets and follow Christ? And shouldn't "come follow me" be interpreted as a call for discipleship? Or, was it a call for salvation AND discipleship?

There is some confusion about the FreeGrace movement that I have had great difficulty in dislodging. There is the belief that there is no consideration of sin, repentance or fruit. It is true that people often do not always abandon all sins and we do not always observe fruit as we expect. That often may be attributed to failure of the person's follow-through of their good initial intentions. But John McArthur's statements seem to indicate he believes such people were never saved to begin with.
quote:

I would suggest reading his works on Lordship Salvation for yourself (if you haven't done so already). Don't rely on the harsh criticism of his detractors. How you would like to be heard and understood? By your own words, or by those of people who can't stand you?
I have a copy from my church library. Part of the difficulty is getting through the first chapter without seeing him take some scriptures out of context. Sometimes, he writes strongly about the context of certain scriptures and then moves on without exegesis.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/21/2007 6:05:28 AM)

From Ezra, post 80

quote:

The doctrine they had obeyed from the heart was that of repentance -- turning from sin and turning to righteousness. That is precisely what Paul describes, and thanks God for.

Therefore to claim that the book of Romans omits the critical need for repentance is clearly false.


Who has said that?? I certainly didn't.



Aphobos -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/21/2007 12:02:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
There is some confusion about the FreeGrace movement that I have had great difficulty in dislodging. There is the belief that there is no consideration of sin, repentance or fruit. It is true that people often do not always abandon all sins and we do not always observe fruit as we expect. That often may be attributed to failure of the person's follow-through of their good initial intentions. But John McArthur's statements seem to indicate he believes such people were never saved to begin with.


MacArthur would say, and I would agree, that a lack of works may indicate that a person isn't really saved. It's not true 100% of the time, and only the person whose works are in question is qualified to judge. As Paul commands:

"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?" (2 Cor 13:5)

A lack of good works, being barren of the Spirit's fruit, is an indication that one might not be saved. For such people, self-examination is in order. Maybe the person will pass the test; maybe she will not. According to Peter, it is the one way that a person may be assured of her election (2 Peter 1:5-11).

Again, this is a self-examination. No one else (save God alone) is qualified to judge. When our lives are stagnant and we are living in disobedience, pursuing our own ends instead of advancing the Kingdom of God, we have every right to question our salvation. That is part of the design, and it's meant to bring us back on-track when we stray.

A profession of faith that is not evidenced in works may not be true faith at all. Really, this is all that James is saying in chapter 2 of his epistle. The legalists refuse to see it, but it is evident to all who earnestly seek to interpret the text (not simply use it as a proof-text for their works-based righteousness). But that, I believe, is another thread.

In Christ,

~Aphobos



Ezra -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/22/2007 4:39:30 AM)

quote:

And shouldn't "come follow me" be interpreted as a call for discipleship? Or, was it a call for salvation AND discipleship?


A call to salvation is automatically a call to discipleship. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is a good example. For some, the discipleship is a matter of time and growth, for others it is not. But the two are inseparable (Mt. 28:18-20) because Jesus is both Christ and Lord.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/23/2007 9:05:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ezra

quote:

And shouldn't "come follow me" be interpreted as a call for discipleship? Or, was it a call for salvation AND discipleship?


A call to salvation is automatically a call to discipleship. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus is a good example. For some, the discipleship is a matter of time and growth, for others it is not. But the two are inseparable (Mt. 28:18-20) because Jesus is both Christ and Lord.

Discipleship is a matter of self-sacrifice, self-denial and a process of time. That is not salvation by faith alone.



GrahamCracker -> RE: Lordship salvation and no other (7/23/2007 9:15:13 PM)

And logically, while one can say one say they are saved tomorrow, from such a perspective, they cannot say they will be saved tomorrow. That is because while salvation is by faith alone, discipleship is not.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI