A little freaked out

[nebula]

My contention is that a person might be saved with far less understanding then some of Christianity assumes, but once saved, the person will learn the rest.

True, but what you understood about Messiah is actually even more than the rudimentary understanding of sin and surrender.

Interesting take. I had no real understanding of sin and surrender. I did not confess to sin or being a sinner, and that is the main issues presented by many Christians when they give the gospel presentation and question. That seems to be the measuring stick of some, but I know many Christians who did not come from a Christian style religion, who would flunk that 'test'.

 

I understand, but for someone who has no concept of "the Messiah", what do they have to go on?

[Qnts2]

 

My contention is that a person might be saved with far less understanding then some of Christianity assumes, but once saved, the person will learn the rest.

True, but what you understood about Messiah is actually even more than the rudimentary understanding of sin and surrender.

Interesting take. I had no real understanding of sin and surrender. I did not confess to sin or being a sinner, and that is the main issues presented by many Christians when they give the gospel presentation and question. That seems to be the measuring stick of some, but I know many Christians who did not come from a Christian style religion, who would flunk that 'test'.

 

I understand, but for someone who has no concept of "the Messiah", what do they have to go on?

 

 

I have either read about or talked to variety people who work as missionaries to a variety of cultures. To explain Jesus to these variety of cultures, there are explanations in scripture which tie into the variety of cultures. Jesus being the Messiah is pretty straight forward, as the foundations are blatantly in the OT, and repeated in the NT, yet many raised in a western Christian home, do not usually use the term 'Messiah' or really relate to the term, but have had sin, being a sinner, etc, emphasized over and over.

 

From my experience, someone raised as a Roman Catholic, does not need to have 'sin' explained as their religion is very sin conscious and centered. But a person raised Muslim does not have the same training or thought process. Some Muslims connect with the idea of being unclean, as that is emphasized by some Muslim groups.

 

I read a story about a missionary who worked among a very violent tribe, who held high values of deception to defeat the enemy. This tribe applauded Judas for his deception. Try as he might, the missionary was getting absolutely no where in explaining the gospel. Until, there was a really bad year which created a severe food shortage and risked the tribe. The chief needed to end the war with the neighboring tribe in order to give his people time to gather what food they could find, for survival. There was a tribal tradition that to get a time of peace, the chief had to give his son to the other tribes chief, as his son, never to see him again. Of course the chief was deeply grieved as he loved his son and had to give him up. Then, that chief understood what it meant for God to give His only begotten son, so the people would not perish.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

My contention is that a person might be saved with far less understanding then some of Christianity assumes, but once saved, the person will learn the rest.

 

True, but what you understood about Messiah is actually even more than the rudimentary understanding of sin and surrender.

 

 

Interesting take. I had no real understanding of sin and surrender. I did not confess to sin or being a sinner, and that is the main issues presented by many Christians when they give the gospel presentation and question. That seems to be the measuring stick of some, but I know many Christians who did not come from a Christian style religion, who would flunk that 'test'.

 

 

Lordship Salvation demands that one not only confess their sins, but forsake them, make amends and change their ways as a prerequisite to salvation.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

I

 

Lordship Salvation demands that one not only confess their sins, but forsake them, make amends and change their ways as a prerequisite to salvation.

 

"Lordship Salvation demands that one not only confess their sins, but forsake them, make amends and change their ways as a prerequisite to salvation."

 

Who teaches this?

And are you saying that some who teach that, call it "Lordship Salvation"?

The most famous person I know of who seems to teach LS, is John MacArthur, who last I knew was on the Board of Moody Bible Institute.  Are you saying that JM teaches that?  If so, do you have proof?

 

Actually your def of LS is a new one to me.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

I have repeatedly told you and others where I stood on so-called Lordship Salvation, which is what this thread has supposedly been about since post #1.

This thread is not about me, or my beliefs.

I am not on trial here -- Lordship Salvation is.

Seriously.

 

But we're also talking about what salvation is and is not ...

... salvation is not "faith plus," at least not according to the Apostle Paul who has already refuted what he believed wasn't true in his letter to the Galatians.

Having begun in the Spirit, are we now perfected in the flesh? The truth is that for orthodox Christians, this is a rhetorical question!

What could possibly be unclear about that?

 

What is not clear is that it sounds as if you believe one does not need to confess that they have a sin problem. And also, you never explained what you do about Romans 10:9-10 mentioning the part about confessing Jesus as Lord.

 

 

 

Romans 10:9-10 mentioning the part about confessing Jesus as Lord.

 

What I think is a common misunderstanding among LS advocates is what the word "Lord" means in the NT.  One of its meanings is YHWH, as is seen by the fact that the NT renders YHWH from the OT with kyrios "lord."  In such contexts the word Lord does not mean boss or master, but YHWH.  Over & over salvation is offered on only 1 condition, that of faith or belief in the Lord Jesus.  So all the passages need to be harmonized with that.

 

Thus "confessing Jesus as YHWH" is an important condition to salvation. It is not separate from trusting Jesus as Savior.  It is defining who the Jesus is in whom one trusts.  Clearly when one trusts Jesus as Savior, one has to have "Jesus" adequately defined.  You will not be saved for trusting Jesus the Mexican mechanic as your savior.  The only Jesus who can be trusted for salvation is YHWH.  Part of an adequate definition of Jesus is that He is YHWH.  Confess, homologeo:  homo = same, log = saying; thus homologeo, IMHO, means to agree with; one must agree that Jesus is YHWH to be saved.

 

Whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be saved.  In context Lord = Jesus; but it is an OT quote from Joel where LORD = YHWH.  Thus the Jesus one calls on the be saved is YHWH.

 

Moreover, if there seems to be a list of things to do to be saved, like if A, B, C, & D, you will be saved; but also the text says over & over, "If A, you will be saved."  The only logical conclusion is that B, C, & D are not essential. 

[OldSchool2]

I

 

Lordship Salvation demands that one not only confess their sins, but forsake them, make amends and change their ways as a prerequisite to salvation.

"Lordship Salvation demands that one not only confess their sins, but forsake them, make amends and change their ways as a prerequisite to salvation."

 

Who teaches this?

And are you saying that some who teach that, call it "Lordship Salvation"?

The most famous person I know of who seems to teach LS, is John MacArthur, who last I knew was on the Board of Moody Bible Institute.  Are you saying that JM teaches that?  If so, do you have proof?

 

Actually your def of LS is a new one to me.

It's not new to David J. Stewart.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Lordship%20Salvation/ls.htm

And note his six additional links at the end of the page.

BTW, MacArthur only popularized LS, which goes back to the early 1900's.

[nebula]

Romans 10:9-10 mentioning the part about confessing Jesus as Lord.

 

What I think is a common misunderstanding among LS advocates is what the word "Lord" means in the NT.  One of its meanings is YHWH, as is seen by the fact that the NT renders YHWH from the OT with kyrios "lord."  In such contexts the word Lord does not mean boss or master, but YHWH.  Over & over salvation is offered on only 1 condition, that of faith or belief in the Lord Jesus.  So all the passages need to be harmonized with that.

 

Thus "confessing Jesus as YHWH" is an important condition to salvation. It is not separate from trusting Jesus as Savior.  It is defining who the Jesus is in whom one trusts.  Clearly when one trusts Jesus as Savior, one has to have "Jesus" adequately defined.  You will not be saved for trusting Jesus the Mexican mechanic as your savior.  The only Jesus who can be trusted for salvation is YHWH.  Part of an adequate definition of Jesus is that He is YHWH.  Confess, homologeo:  homo = same, log = saying; thus homologeo, IMHO, means to agree with; one must agree that Jesus is YHWH to be saved.

 

Whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be saved.  In context Lord = Jesus; but it is an OT quote from Joel where LORD = YHWH.  Thus the Jesus one calls on the be saved is YHWH.

 

Moreover, if there seems to be a list of things to do to be saved, like if A, B, C, & D, you will be saved; but also the text says over & over, "If A, you will be saved."  The only logical conclusion is that B, C, & D are not essential. 

 

I'm cool with that.

 

What I have a problem with is anyone who claims accepting Jesus as nothing more than a safeguard against facing the consequences of their sin with no acknowledgement in their heart of who HE IS.

 

 

I think of a quote I heard:

 

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians

Who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door

And deny Him by their lifestyle

That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

 

 

Is such a person as mentioned above "saved"?

[EnochBethany]

Thanks for the link.  My guess is that there may be varieties of LS

[EnochBethany]

 

Romans 10:9-10 mentioning the part about confessing Jesus as Lord.

 

What I think is a common misunderstanding among LS advocates is what the word "Lord" means in the NT.  One of its meanings is YHWH, as is seen by the fact that the NT renders YHWH from the OT with kyrios "lord."  In such contexts the word Lord does not mean boss or master, but YHWH.  Over & over salvation is offered on only 1 condition, that of faith or belief in the Lord Jesus.  So all the passages need to be harmonized with that.

 

Thus "confessing Jesus as YHWH" is an important condition to salvation. It is not separate from trusting Jesus as Savior.  It is defining who the Jesus is in whom one trusts.  Clearly when one trusts Jesus as Savior, one has to have "Jesus" adequately defined.  You will not be saved for trusting Jesus the Mexican mechanic as your savior.  The only Jesus who can be trusted for salvation is YHWH.  Part of an adequate definition of Jesus is that He is YHWH.  Confess, homologeo:  homo = same, log = saying; thus homologeo, IMHO, means to agree with; one must agree that Jesus is YHWH to be saved.

 

Whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be saved.  In context Lord = Jesus; but it is an OT quote from Joel where LORD = YHWH.  Thus the Jesus one calls on the be saved is YHWH.

 

Moreover, if there seems to be a list of things to do to be saved, like if A, B, C, & D, you will be saved; but also the text says over & over, "If A, you will be saved."  The only logical conclusion is that B, C, & D are not essential. 

 

I'm cool with that.

 

What I have a problem with is anyone who claims accepting Jesus as nothing more than a safeguard against facing the consequences of their sin with no acknowledgement in their heart of who HE IS.

 

 

I think of a quote I heard:

 

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians

Who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door

And deny Him by their lifestyle

That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."

 

 

Is such a person as mentioned above "saved"?

 

As to who is saved, anyone who trusts the Lord Jesus as Savior (having "Jesus" adequately defined) is a born again Christian, regardless of anything else; though certain behaviors cause us to know people by their fruit & reject any claim they make about "Jesus."

 

Well, IMHO, I came to this following opinion from my debates on YouTube:

 

There were a bunch of supposed Christians posting YouTube (not to deny that they are, nor to affirm it) who seem to make a practice of acting superior, barging into debates that Chrs have w/ the ungodly -- but instead of joining the debate, they want to correct the Christian for how he is debating!  There are ever the meta-intruders who want to criticize the debaters, instead of establishing the truth discussed.  Such persons are wont to blame the Church for the sin of the sinners:  Well, if only the Church acted more sensitive & yumsy-wumsy-sugar-plumsy with the atheist, then he would not be an atheist.  It is only the hypocrisy of the Church & the failure to sympathize that causes their sins.  And such persons may upload videos trying to schmooze with the ungodly while they take the brethren to task.  And they were wont to get all these complements posted under the video for rightly putting Christians in their place. (I speak in past tense since Google has about killed the discussions on YouTube now.)

[nebula]

So what about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses with regards to salvation?