A little freaked out

[nebula]

This is fitting:

 

People confuse morality with religion, saying things like, "if I do good, the rest will take care of itself," but Yeshua did not come to simply teach (or reinforce) moral truth, but to die for our sins and to transform our nature. The message of the cross is not that we should reform ourselves with renewed hope, but rather that our old nature must die and be replaced with something far greater... When King David cried out to the Lord, "Create in me a clean heart, O God," he did not use the Hebrew word yatzar (יָצַר), which means to "fashion" or "form" something from pre-existing material (Gen. 2:7), but he instead used the word bara (בָּרָא), a verb exclusively used in the Torah to refer to God's direct creation of the cosmos (Gen 1:1). In other words, David understood that no amount of reformation of his character would be enough, and therefore he appealed to the very power of God that alone could create yesh me'ayin, or "out of nothing." Such was the nature of the remedy required that was fulfilled in the cross of Messiah.

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hebrew-for-Christians/56347292809

That inner transformation is only possible is Jesus is submitted to as Lord.

I wasn't denying this.

 

But is salvation about what you do or what Jesus does? Yes, we have to walk in agreement with him. But if my obedience depends on me and my effort, I'm screwed.

 

Conversely, those who play around with "cheap grace" are not putting their old nature to death, which means they haven't really put their faith in Jesus to begin with.

I agree.

 

 

 

That inner transformation is only possible is Jesus is submitted to as Lord.

 

I wasn't denying this.

 

But is salvation about what you do or what Jesus does? Yes, we have to walk in agreement with him. But if my obedience depends on me and my effort, I'm screwed.

 

Conversely, those who play around with "cheap grace" are not putting their old nature to death, which means they haven't really put their faith in Jesus to begin with.

best post I've read all day neb..

 

Thanks!

[nebula]

Then why is Lordship Salvation called Lordship Salvation.

The proximity of these two words certainly indicates an attachment.

 

I am thinking the term was coined because of people who come to Jesus for "fire insurance" (escape from Hell) but have no desire to love of serve Him, to have a changed heart, to pass from death to life on this earth (which is what it means to make Jesus your Lord).

 

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...."

 

There are those that want the latter without the former. And that's not good.

[OldSchool2]

Oldschool2,

I am not a follower of Curtis Hutson, whoever he is. One thing I can say is that Galatians has NOTHING to do with lordship salvation, but about Judaising. The Galatians were trying to be sanctified by following the Law instead of continuing in the grace of Jesus Christ, and the resulting empowering of the Spirit. Lordship salvation is simply a matter of defining the terms "belief", and "trust" according to the teaching of Jesus Himself. Nowhere have you answered even close to sufficiently the real questions raised by Jesus' defining of the terms and requirements to become his disciple and enter the Kingdom ...

If grace comes with "terms and requirements" then grace is no longer grace and Lordship Salvation is not its gospel.

So what "other" gospel(s) does that leave?

You utterly contradict and oppose yourself on this one. "You must believe on Christ Jesus" is a term and condition of itself ...

The "ability" to both believe on Christ and receive Him is a God-given Grace in and of itself, not a term and/or condition.

And Hutson was quoting and expounding Paul from Galatians: "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 ..." (1:8)

So if Paul never preached "Lordship Salvation" -- and I don't know how Paul could have possibly preached it since it was first popularized by John F. MacArthur in the 1980's -- then it's another gospel, period.

Actually the Lordship of Jesus was a major feature of Paul's epistles.   If Jesus isn't your Lord, He isn't your Savior.  He doesn't offer one without the other.  If ahyone is presenting a false gospel, it is you ...

You and the rest of the "Jesus Plus" clique on this thread are the ones presenting the "gospel" of Lordship Salvation, along with all its "terms and requirements to become his disciple and enter the Kingdom ..." This sounds like the cart before the horse, and for the record, "terms and requirements" are the basis of the contract law of the Old Testament, not the New Testament in which this forum is set.

IMO, Lordship Salvation blurs the line between salvation and sanctification by adding conditions of the latter to the former.

[OldSchool2]

Oldschool2,

I am not a follower of Curtis Hutson, whoever he is. One thing I can say is that Galatians has NOTHING to do with lordship salvation, but about Judaising. The Galatians were trying to be sanctified by following the Law instead of continuing in the grace of Jesus Christ, and the resulting empowering of the Spirit. Lordship salvation is simply a matter of defining the terms "belief", and "trust" according to the teaching of Jesus Himself. Nowhere have you answered even close to sufficiently the real questions raised by Jesus' defining of the terms and requirements to become his disciple and enter the Kingdom ...

If grace comes with "terms and requirements" then grace is no longer grace and Lordship Salvation is not its gospel.

So what "other" gospel(s) does that leave?

You utterly contradict and oppose yourself on this one. "You must believe on Christ Jesus" is a term and condition of itself ...

The "ability" to both believe on Christ and receive Him is a God-given Grace in and of itself, not a term and/or condition.

And Hutson was quoting and expounding Paul from Galatians: "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 ..." (1:8)

So if Paul never preached "Lordship Salvation" -- and I don't know how Paul could have possibly preached it since it was first popularized by John F. MacArthur in the 1980's -- then it's another gospel, period.

lordship salvation is just a clarifying term for an existing obvious doctrine ...

Which was so "obvious" that it was never clarified until the Twentieth Century?

[OldSchool2]

 

Then why is Lordship Salvation called Lordship Salvation.

The proximity of these two words certainly indicates an attachment.

 

I am thinking the term was coined because of people who come to Jesus for "fire insurance" (escape from Hell) but have no desire to love of serve Him, to have a changed heart, to pass from death to life on this earth (which is what it means to make Jesus your Lord).

 

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...."

 

There are those that want the latter without the former. And that's not good.

 

Declaring sanctification to be a prerequisite for salvation can't be good either; doesn't the former follow the latter?

Maybe Lordship Sanctification?

[ajchurney]

 

 

Then why is Lordship Salvation called Lordship Salvation.

The proximity of these two words certainly indicates an attachment.

 

I am thinking the term was coined because of people who come to Jesus for "fire insurance" (escape from Hell) but have no desire to love of serve Him, to have a changed heart, to pass from death to life on this earth (which is what it means to make Jesus your Lord).

 

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...."

 

There are those that want the latter without the former. And that's not good.

 

Declaring sanctification to be a prerequisite for salvation can't be good either; doesn't the former follow the latter?

Maybe Lordship Sanctification?

 

oldschool2,

Instead of getting frustrated with your dogmatism, I want to at least try to understand why you argue these points in the manner you do. Are you a 5 or 4 point calvanist? Nebula just quoted a verse that you should not be able to simply ignore, because it is in the context of salvation, not sanctification, yet you try to bring an artificial split here and you should explain yourself. explain the verse in its context, without any of your rhetoric please.

[nebula]

Then why is Lordship Salvation called Lordship Salvation.

The proximity of these two words certainly indicates an attachment.

I am thinking the term was coined because of people who come to Jesus for "fire insurance" (escape from Hell) but have no desire to love of serve Him, to have a changed heart, to pass from death to life on this earth (which is what it means to make Jesus your Lord).

 

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...."

 

There are those that want the latter without the former. And that's not good.

Declaring sanctification to be a prerequisite for salvation can't be good either; doesn't the former follow the latter?

Maybe Lordship Sanctification?

 

Hi Old School - you need to balance this out with the other things I posted in this thread. ( and )

 

But can a person be saved without confessing Jesus as Lord? (Rom. 10:9,10)

[nebula]

I just came upon a site trying to attack a man of God because he preaches Lordship Salvation:

 

LORDSHIP SALVATION is the false doctrine that a sinner MUST be willing to stop living a sinful lifestyle or to give up the sinful world to be saved.  In sharp contrast, the Bible, God's Word, teaches that a sinner's faith in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation.  Salvation is receiving, not giving.  Eternal life is a gift.

 

I could post the site link but I don't know if it'll do any good.  If people want it then I will.  Clearly this person hsa not read through the four gospels enough.  What do people expect the gospel to be???  Except:  Repent!  For the Kingdom of God is at hand!  If that isn't God declaring His Lordship and demanding we submit to it in order to be saved, then what else is it?  Why would we not accept that the Lord is God if we truly believe in Him?

 

Let me try to re-clarify this.

 

There is a battle between extremes, and I believe they both miss the boat.

 

One side says: "By grace you are saved through faith . . . not of works" as if Jesus died just for us to get into Heaven, not to save us from Sin, and as if God doesn't care about us doing things that hurt others, hurt ourselves, and poke Him in the eye.

 

The other side says, "Faith without works is dead" as if following strict rules and regulations and beating your body into submission will increase faith, that while Jesus paved the way, salvation is still up to us and our effort.

 

Neither of these are the Gospel.

 

It may be that the "man of God" posted in the OP was arguing the first extreme, or maybe he was just speaking against the second extreme (but not necessarily advocating the first extreme).

 

 

What is the better focus? Perhaps this:

 

 14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died ; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. 16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh ; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature ; the old things passed away ; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor. 5)

 

 

If you've encountered the love of Christ, your desires and attitude will change - not because you tried, but because His love is just that powerful. When you are consumed by His love, you are not going to want to do those things which grieve His heart, whether deed or attitude.

 

And that's why both extremes miss the boat.

 

The first extreme bypasses reconciliation. We are the ones who offended God. While the offendee needs to extend forgiveness, which God freely does, the offender needs to offer remorse and confession of the offense. They are like the child who begs the parent for escape from the punishment without acknowledgment nor remorse for their deed. Is that what grace is about?

 

The second extreme bypasses that in Christ we are new creatures and not to be recognized according to the flesh. Righteousness comes from His new nature in us, not our effort to make ourselves righteous. We are controlled by His love, not by rules and regulations.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

Then why is Lordship Salvation called Lordship Salvation.

The proximity of these two words certainly indicates an attachment.

I am thinking the term was coined because of people who come to Jesus for "fire insurance" (escape from Hell) but have no desire to love of serve Him, to have a changed heart, to pass from death to life on this earth (which is what it means to make Jesus your Lord).

 

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead...."

 

There are those that want the latter without the former. And that's not good.

 

Declaring sanctification to be a prerequisite for salvation can't be good either; doesn't the former follow the latter?

Maybe Lordship Sanctification?

 

 

Hi Old School - you need to balance this out with the other things I posted in this thread. ( and )

 

But can a person be saved without confessing Jesus as Lord? (Rom. 10:9,10)

 

Are you equating the terms and conditions of so-called Lordship Salvation with a confession of faith?

If so, then is becoming a disciple now a prerequisite for salvation?

 

If I must make Christ Lord of my life in order to be saved, then I'm in a Catch 22: I must make Christ Lord to be saved, but I must be saved in order to make Christ Lord. And how is it possible for anyone to make Christ Lord since He already is Lord regardless of what anyone believes to the contrary?

Further, no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). Paul asked the Galatians (3:2) how they received that Spirit: by obeying the works of law, or hearing and believing the Gospel?

Lordship Salvation is based on works described by the acronym of COP: Commitment, Obedience and Perseverance. IMO, that's salvation by works, and anyone who works for their salvation will never know if they have been committed, obedient  or perseverant enough.

The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary states what Lordship Salvation advocates just don't seem to grasp: "While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation."

[nebula]

 

Hi Old School - you need to balance this out with the other things I posted in this thread. ( and )

 

But can a person be saved without confessing Jesus as Lord? (Rom. 10:9,10)

Are you equating the terms and conditions of so-called Lordship Salvation with a confession of faith?

If so, then is becoming a disciple now a prerequisite for salvation?

 

 

Old School - What do you do with the bolded parts of Romans 10:9,10?

 

9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved ; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

 

 

 

If I must make Christ Lord of my life in order to be saved, then I'm in a Catch 22: I must make Christ Lord to be saved, but I must be saved in order to make Christ Lord. And how is it possible for anyone to make Christ Lord since He already is Lord regardless of what anyone believes to the contrary?

Further, no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).

 

Are you saying that an unsaved person can even come to Jesus without the Holy Spirit?

 

If He can convict their hearts to bring them to Jesus to begin with, why can't He likewise stir in their hearts to confess their sinful state and give their lives to Jesus as their Lord as well as their Savior?

 

 

 

 

Paul asked the Galatians (3:2) how they received that Spirit: by obeying the works of law, or hearing and believing the Gospel?

 

Lordship Salvation is based on works described by the acronym of COP: Commitment, Obedience and Perseverance. IMO, that's salvation by works, and anyone who works for their salvation will never know if they have been committed, obedient  or perseverant enough.

The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary states what Lordship Salvation advocates just don't seem to grasp: "While transformation of life is not the ground for salvation, it is the evidence of salvation."

 

I do not perceive anyone here to be advocating what you are expressing here.

 

Can you sign a lease with a person you do not acknowledge as your landlord to whom you must be submitted to?

Can a woman marry a man and not acknowledge him as her husband even during the marriage vows?

Can a person vow citizenship to a new country without confessing submission to the government of the country?

Can a child be adopted and not regard the adopting person of couple as their parent(s)?

 

I do not perceive the others here advocating that one has to "clean up to take a bath", cease from any sin, have a changed attitude, etc. to come to salvation.

 

But to ask Jesus to save you without following Him is like letting Him cut your chains but then remaining in the prison cell rather than following Him out of it.

 

See the difference?