A little freaked out

[*Zion*]

 

We are either saved by God or not right? Seems like you could cause a lot of unnecessary soul wrenching trying to figure out if you've 'surrended' enough. We will live with sin (re 1 john for example) until we die.

 

gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

 

Anyway, I still don't get why there should be an extra category introduced here, or what the extra complication is for.

 

 

Regarding the highlighted text, the point is that some people don't want to surrender at all.  There is no complication, the way I see it.  Either Jesus is Lord or He isn't.  Well, He is, and He Himself chose to also be our Saviour.  But many people want to call Him Saviour without regard for His Lordship.  That's all.

[OldSchool2]

I admit I find the discussion here confusing ...

And you're not alone.

The Teaching of Lordship Salvation Confuses Believers (emphasis mine)

"... There is no difference between being saved and 'really saved.' There is no such thing as degrees in salvation. No one is more saved than the other. The Bible says in John 3:36, 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth upon him.' Nothing can be plainer: those who are trusting Jesus Christ are saved, and they have everlasting life. And those who are not trusting Him are not saved, but the wrath of God abideth on them.

"Saying one is 'really saved' is like going to a funeral home, pointing to a casket and saying, 'The person in that casket is dead,' then pointing to another casket and saying, 'The one in that casket is really dead!' There is no such thing as being dead, deader, and deadest.

"One is either dead or alive, saved or lost, guilty or justified, believing or not believing. There is no between. Why do good Christians supposedly get 'really saved' under the preaching of Lordship salvation? Because they believe the preacher. If I believed that one must make Jesus Lord of his life in order to be saved, then I would go forward every time I heard a sermon on the subject and get saved because there have been times when I have been a disobedient child, times when I have yielded to my old carnal nature.

"The problem is, those who go forward and supposedly really get saved will have the same problem again later because they are not going to live a perfect life. There will be times when they will yield to the flesh; then when they hear a preacher say, 'Unless you make Jesus Lord of your life, you are not saved,' they will look back and see that Jesus has not been Lord of their lives and reason that if the preacher is correct, then they must not have been saved. So they will go forward again to trust Christ as Savior, and make Him Lord of their lives so they can really be saved.

"Lordship salvation confuses believers and makes them doubt their salvation. The Bible is very plain: the only way to be saved is by trusting Jesus Christ. In John 3:18 Jesus divides the whole world into two groups: 'He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' The condemned criminal is the one who has been arrested, tried, found guilty, and sentenced. The Bibles says the man who is trusting Jesus Christ is not under the sentence; he is not condemned. And he who is not trusting Jesus Christ is condemned. Why? Because he has 'not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' He is not trusting Jesus Christ fully for salvation."

http://cavaliersonly.com/christian_articles_and_messages/a_perversion_of_the_gospel_lordship_salvation_by_curtis_hutson

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I admit I find the discussion here confusing. IF it is the case that Jesus alone saves us, and through this particular faith, then those are the necessary and sufficient conditions. I don't think anyone would contest that fruits of the Spirit would follow, including repentance from sins over time.

 

But if everyone agrees about that, what is so unique about 'lordship salvation'? Why even invent the term?

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation)

 

grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that.

 

Bonhoeffer wrote the following:

 

“Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

 

 

Cheap grace is the notion that you can get saved and live anyway you want.   But there is no provision made in Scripture for those who think salvation allows them to get their slate cleaned while fully intending to go back out and live in the same mire of sin all over again. 

 

[Sevenseas]

 

alphaparticle, on 19 Feb 2014 - 8:37 PM, said:

I admit I find the discussion here confusing ...

And you're not alone.

The Teaching of Lordship Salvation Confuses Believers (emphasis mine)

 

 

That certainly becomes apparent reading this thread.  

 

 

 

"Lordship salvation confuses believers and makes them doubt their salvation. The Bible is very plain: the only way to be saved is by trusting Jesus Christ. In John 3:18 Jesus divides the whole world into two groups: 'He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' The condemned criminal is the one who has been arrested, tried, found guilty, and sentenced. The Bibles says the man who is trusting Jesus Christ is not under the sentence; he is not condemned. And he who is not trusting Jesus Christ is condemned. Why? Because he has 'not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' He is not trusting Jesus Christ fully for salvation."

 

We can only come to God as we are drawn by His Spirit.  Likewise, the Bible also states we cannot call Jesus Lord EXCEPT by the same Holy Spirit:

 

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.  I Cor 12:3

 

And not to confuse the issue, but the Bible also states this:  Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your

name perform many miracles?'  Matt. 7:22

 

As is posted above by Shiloh's quote, you either are or you are not, saved.  

[OldSchool2]

That certainly becomes apparent reading this thread.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

alphaparticle, on 19 Feb 2014 - 8:37 PM, said:

And you're not alone.

The Teaching of Lordship Salvation Confuses Believers (emphasis mine)

 

"Lordship salvation confuses believers and makes them doubt their salvation. The Bible is very plain: the only way to be saved is by trusting Jesus Christ. In John 3:18 Jesus divides the whole world into two groups: 'He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' The condemned criminal is the one who has been arrested, tried, found guilty, and sentenced. The Bibles says the man who is trusting Jesus Christ is not under the sentence; he is not condemned. And he who is not trusting Jesus Christ is condemned. Why? Because he has 'not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.' He is not trusting Jesus Christ fully for salvation."

 

We can only come to God as we are drawn by His Spirit.  Likewise, the Bible also states we cannot call Jesus Lord EXCEPT by the same Holy Spirit:

 

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.  I Cor 12:3

 

And not to confuse the issue, but the Bible also states this:  Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your

name perform many miracles?'  Matt. 7:22

 

As is posted above by Shiloh's quote, you either are or you are not, saved.  

That is NOT Shiloh's quote: I posted it from "A Perversion Of The Gospel! Lordship Salvation by Curtis Hutson". I also provided the link for it in my post (#32).

Shiloh is the poster inferring that Lordship Salvation was a response to Bonhoeffer's cheap grace concept.

For someone not trying to confuse the issue, you are doing just the opposite.

 

OldSchool2

[Sevenseas]

 

 

That is NOT Shiloh's quote: I posted it from "A Perversion Of The Gospel! Lordship Salvation by Curtis Hutson". I also provided the link for it in my post (#32).

Shiloh is the poster inferring that Lordship Salvation was a response to Bonhoeffer's cheap grace concept.

For someone not trying to confuse the issue, you are doing just the opposite.

 

 

You can sure come across pretty harsh sometimes.

 

Chill.  If you reread what I wrote, you will note I posted Shiloh's quote...as in Shiloh personally did not write it.  I stated it was a quote from his post and not I was quoting him....which anyone, well most people I guess, can see for themselves...what I did get wrong, is the name.  I just saw the cross...you have similar avatars.

 

Please forgive me.  I am so sorry.

 

OK?

 

Take 5...and now 5 people will prob say they saw it the way you did too

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I admit I find the discussion here confusing. IF it is the case that Jesus alone saves us, and through this particular faith, then those are the necessary and sufficient conditions. I don't think anyone would contest that fruits of the Spirit would follow, including repentance from sins over time.

 

But if everyone agrees about that, what is so unique about 'lordship salvation'? Why even invent the term?

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation)

 

grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that.

 

Just because grace is free, that doesn't mean it's cheap.   Grace comes to us at a very heavy price, which Jesus paid for in full.  We cheapen grace by presuming upon it,

[OldSchool2]

That is NOT Shiloh's quote: I posted it from "A Perversion Of The Gospel! Lordship Salvation by Curtis Hutson". I also provided the link for it in my post (#32).

Shiloh is the poster inferring that Lordship Salvation was a response to Bonhoeffer's cheap grace concept.

For someone not trying to confuse the issue, you are doing just the opposite.

 

You can sure come across pretty harsh sometimes ...

If you think that's harsh, look what Paul might have said about anyone preaching "Lordship Salvation".

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed [let him be 'damned']." (Galatians 1:6-9)

According to Curtis Hutson, "Lordship salvation is an unscriptural teaching regarding the doctrine of salvation and is confusing to Christians. Those who teach it claim that one must make Jesus Lord of his life in order to be saved. They use such expressions as, 'You cannot receive Jesus as Saviour without receiving Him as Lord,' or, 'If Jesus Christ is not the Lord of your life, then you are not saved'...

"In verse 6, Paul said, 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.' Paul contrasts the Gospel of the grace of God with 'another gospel' which he does not define ...

"He goes on to say, 'There be some that trouble you' (vs. 7). The preaching of another gospel troubles people. He also calls it a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God.

"Then he says something very strong in verse 8: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [or 'let him be damned'].

"Then he emphasizes it again in verse 9: 'As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach another gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed [or 'let him be damned']."

 

Pretty harsh, huh.

I guess Paul didn't like Galatianists.

http://cavaliersonly.com/christian_articles_and_messages/a_perversion_of_the_gospel_lordship_salvation_by_curtis_hutson

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

I admit I find the discussion here confusing. IF it is the case that Jesus alone saves us, and through this particular faith, then those are the necessary and sufficient conditions. I don't think anyone would contest that fruits of the Spirit would follow, including repentance from sins over time.

 

But if everyone agrees about that, what is so unique about 'lordship salvation'? Why even invent the term?

Did u catch my post, alpha? The term was in response to the amazing glut of cheap grace theology and evangelism that has run amok in recent decades. Unfortunately, we all do NOT agree on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation)

 

grace is free for us though. I don't see how you can make it 'cheap'er than that.

 

Just because grace is free, that doesn't mean it's cheap.   Grace comes to us at a very heavy price, which Jesus paid for in full.  We cheapen grace by presuming upon it,

 

I was pretty careful in the way I stated that, if you reread it, knowing full well this would be the response.

 

Likewise, God tells us there is fruit of the Spirit. I never denied that. I never denied that people who are genuine believers have that show in their lives. My point is that it is from and by God, in God's timing, that these things happen. Insofar as I don't see anybody disagreeing with that either, I have no idea what we are disagreeing about or why there ought to be a separate doctrine spelled out here. Maybe there's a bunch of churches teaching believers to go out and do what they want, but aside from obviously incredibly liberal ones who rejected the fundamentals of the gospel anyway, I have not encountered this.

[alphaparticle]

 

 

We are either saved by God or not right? Seems like you could cause a lot of unnecessary soul wrenching trying to figure out if you've 'surrended' enough. We will live with sin (re 1 john for example) until we die.

 

gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

 

Anyway, I still don't get why there should be an extra category introduced here, or what the extra complication is for.

 

 

Regarding the highlighted text, the point is that some people don't want to surrender at all.  There is no complication, the way I see it.  Either Jesus is Lord or He isn't.  Well, He is, and He Himself chose to also be our Saviour.  But many people want to call Him Saviour without regard for His Lordship.  That's all.

 

Okay... still don't get the content of this. If someone doesn't really 'surrender' they haven't really been saved it would seem to me. Either you are out or in right? And if you are in, the Spirit *will* work on you correct?