"Lordship Salvation"

[Paidion]

Well said, Brian! Thanks for that great post.

[Paidion]

So just punish Joseph for it! He is completely willing to take my punishment and that's the only way I'll get to be a better person.

Hmmmm..... that position seems quite unusual as well as unnatural. Have you ever heard of a father who tried to help one of his sons to become a better person by spanking the other?

I do not think your analogy is any more helpful than mine in determining the truth.

I suspect it IS more helpful, and I know it's more realistic.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

With your paradigm regarding the atonement I am still interested in your answers, and the basis for them, on the following:

I would be interested in how you would counsel a young Christian who inquired "When was I saved?" "How do I know I am saved?" "How do I stay saved?" If justification is dependent on sanctification or, as you say, a process of being saved, it seems we would never know for sure if our sanctification is sufficient because we still sin. What if we progreess a certain way and then plateau? Is continual progress necessary? Is our sanctification, or works, instrumental or evidentiary? So many questions come to mind.

[Paidion]

I would be interested in how you would counsel a young Christian who inquired "When was I saved?" "How do I know I am saved?" "How do I stay saved?" If justification is dependent on sanctification or, as you say, a process of being saved, it seems we would never know for sure if our sanctification is sufficient because we still sin. What if we progreess a certain way and then plateau? Is continual progress necessary? Is our sanctification, or works, instrumental or evidentiary?

We must first consider what Paul meant by “justified” and “justification”. We have been so conditioned by the writings of Luther and other Protestants and current fundamentalist and evangelical writings to think of our “justification” as if it meant our “being counted as righteous” by God because Jesus suffered and died as our substitute so that we don't have to reap God's wrath but are “justified” or counted righteous though His “grace” (which according to these same teachers means “God's unmerited favour”). Because of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice for us, God can no longer see our sin, but only Christ's righteousness. We are shielded from God by a “cloak of righteousness”, not our own righteousness but Christ's. Some go so far as to say that God is blinded to our sin.

So according to this paradigm, to be “saved” (from God's wrath) we don't need to be righteous at all, but only appear to be righteous in His eyes and that will happen because we are wearing Christ's robe of righteousness which shields our sin from His eyes. Oh it's a good thing and pleasing to God to live a good life, but it is unnecessary in order for me to be saved from God's wrath. It is necessary for me only to “accept Christ as my personal Saviour” or “to trust in the finished work of Christ” or to pray, “God be merciful to me a sinner, and save me by Your grace”, or to accept the “four spiritual laws” or to repeat after an evangelist a particular prayer that he prayed such as “Oh Lord, I realize that I am a sinner on my way to hell, and there's nothing I can do about it. I now know, Lord Jesus, that you died for my sin and are the only way for me to be saved from God's wrath. I now repent of my sin (meaning that I am sorry I sinned) and I hereby accept Christ as my personal Saviour (from the wrath of God).

I know this paradigm only too well! As a teenager and a young man, I believed it, taught it, and tried to urge others to “get saved” in the manner I described in the previous paragraph, although I was somewhat confused as to the logistics of getting saved from God's wrath, as there were several somewhat differing ways of doing this according to these teachers. I mention five of them in the previous paragraph.

Because of the influence of Luther and other Protestants, we interpret Romans 3, 4, and 5 in accordance to this paradigm. We cannot even imagine that they could mean anything else.

However, in the New Testament to be “justified” usually means “to be righteousified (a word I coined), that is “to be rendered righteous” — not that God renders us righteous without our coöperation, but that “working together with Him” we do not “receive His grace in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1) but receive His enabling grace to overcome sin in our lives. (Titus 2:11-14). This enabling grace of God is appropriated by faith. When this is understood, Romans 3, 4, and 5 take on a totally different meaning.

Rather than expound in detail this paradigm at this time, I will attempt to answer Homer's questions in accordance with this basis of understanding.

I would be interested in how you would counsel a young Christian who inquired "When was I saved?"

As you know, in this understanding, salvation is not primarily about being "saved from God's wrath” but about “being saved from sin”. I would ask the young Christian to examine himself and see whether he is in the faith — whether he is on the rough road that leads to life.”

"... narrow is the gate and rough is the road which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:14)

If he has indeed begun on this rough road, and God has begun a good work in him, then I would suggest that he can trust God to bring him all the way. I might share with him this verse:

I am persuaded of this, that the one who is beginning a good work in you will continue to be in the process of completing it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6)

"How do I know I am saved?"
"How do I stay saved?"

Since the process is not completed until the day of Jesus Christ, then these questions are meaningless. You can know that you are being saved from sin, and are on the rough road which leads to life, and you can trust God completely as you continue on that road, but if you choose to get off it and live the self-life again, you are in great danger, and may have to undergo severe correction.

If justification is dependent on sanctification or, as you say, a process of being saved, it seems we would never know for sure if our sanctification is sufficient because we still sin.

Yes, justification is being rendered righteous — a life-long process. You don't have to worry about the fact that God's working of righteousness in you (with your coöperation) is still incomplete. For as long as you are on the rough road which leads to life, you are in the will of God.

What if we progress a certain way and then plateau? Is continual progress necessary?

Continual progress is necessary, but not continuous progress. That is, you might plateau for a while, or even go backwards. But the main thing is that, having entered that narrow gate, you stay on that rough road. All progress is like that. As a school teacher, I have seen children's eyes light up as they gain an understanding and have a surge in their progress. Then there may be a plateau, or they may even lose part of what they have. But over the year, their progress is generally such that they will “pass”. Our spiritual progression is like that. We may have a special spiritual experience, or a repentance for something we did not even recognize as wrong. Thus there was a surge in our progress. Other times it may seem we are not getting anywhere (plateau). Or we may even lose something we once had. But if, by God's grace we progress in general toward completion or perfection, then we are in general doing God's will. We have stayed on the rough road. Persistence is necessary.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1Timothy 4:16)

Is our sanctification, or works, instrumental or evidentiary?

Homer, please express this in other terms. I don't want to answer this as I see it, when it might be an answer to a question which you didn't ask.

[jeremiah]

to homer and paidion,

i think i owe you both an apology. maybe more so to you homer but i don't know. it's occurred to me over the last few days while following this discussion that i've interpolated a harsh or grumpy tone into y'alls words towards each other.

after reading the last three or four posts, having not seen what i thought i did before (a harsh tone), it dawned on me that maybe it never was there. i went back and read the conversation from the beginning and considered it entirely possible and very likely that i had indeed misread y'all.

so to homer, sorry man. my first post was mostly a knee jerk reaction imagining some hostility from you towards a view you disagreed with.

and to both of you, i should have considered your words (and my own) more fully before jumping into a conversation that was getting along just fine without my hasty addition. i apologize.

grace and peace to y'all...

[Homer]

Jeremiah,

Thanks for your kind post. I am not easily offended, but I was taken aback somewhat by your first post, but you then did not post in vain. It prompted some self examination - need to watch my words. I do not always do so. So you did good!

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You asked:

Is our sanctification, or works, instrumental or evidentiary?

Homer, please express this in other terms. I don't want to answer this as I see it, when it might be an answer to a question which you didn't ask.

Righteousness, or justification, is either imputed to us or inherent in us. I do not see how it can be both. Are we righteous in God's eyes because we do righteous things or are we righteous because the things we do flow from our faith - they are an expression of our faith? There are unbelievers who (actively) do more good things than some Christians. Are these unbelievers righteous in God's sight?

I believe the Old Covenant has been done away. We are under a new covenant, the Royal Law, the Law of Christ. Are we righteous because we are in compliance with a law that has some new commands and new things to do?

Paul said:

Young's Literal Translation
I do not make void the grace of God, for if righteousness be through law -- then Christ died in vain.

It seems plain enough to me that we can not make ourselves righteous by compliance with God's laws; we never keep them perfectly. It seems to me you believe we are righteous because of our effort to keep them - that is what I mean by "instrumental".

But what about Paul and James on faith and works? Paul wrote:

Romans 4:1-8, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7. “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”

And James wrote:

James 2:14-24, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

14. What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15. If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16. and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

They seem to contradict each other, but in the same letter to the Romans Paul seems to contradict himself:

Romans 2:5-8, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5. But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6. who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7. to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8. but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.

I see no contradiction at all. Paul and James are concerned with different problems. Paul's concern is in regard to how we are justified. Paul does not deny the necessity of good works, nor does he set works in contradiction to faith as a means of justification. They do not exclude each other in practice, but we must be justified (saved) because we deserve it or by grace because we do not. I see no other option.

James does not negate the importance of faith nor does he deny justification by faith. His concern is the person(s) who have (or do) nothing to show they are disciples of our Lord. As I have noted before, the Greek word for faith pistis can legitimately be translated faithfulness. As I recall, the Handbook of Biblical Social Values gives loyalty as the primary meaning of faith. A faith without works is no faith at all.

It is notable that Paul and James both quote the same statement regarding Abraham's faith. The statement made regarding Abraham's faith years before he was called upon to sacrifice his son. That earlier statement was in regard to the exact same faith that motivated Abraham at Moriah. His faith (perhaps the greatest example of faith ever known) motivated his action.

Back to the "when was I saved?" question. As you know the use of the aorist tense in the Greek, particulaly the aorist indicative, points to an event that has occured, a "passing from death to life". There is a point in time when we are "saved" or "justified" when before that point in time we were not.

Hope this clears things up regarding my questions.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

Hoping to see a response from you.

[jriccitelli]

On Mon Oct 22, 2012 Paidion said; The angel who announced to Joseph that Mary would bring forth a son, said, "You shall call his name 'Jesus" [saviour] for he will save his people from the wrath of God" (Matthew 1:21). Hey wait! That's not it. It reads "...for he will save he people from their sins." John 3:36 tells us that the wrath of God is the consequence for those who don't believe. But nowhere is it written that Jesus saves us from the wrath of God. It's all about being saved from SIN.

Paidion, I guess your difficulty is that you do not hear (or believe) Moses and the Prophets.
John 3:36 follows about 700 pages of warnings and of Judgment. It's hard to miss.
I really do not see why this is so difficult.
The wages of sin is death. If sin did not have consequences, what would be the problem with sin after all, or anyways?
Sin has a natural ending - death, and a Righteous ending - Judgment.
God forgives us in Christ, what are we without Christ, unforgiven. Unforgiven of what?
Sin. If there is no consequence to sin, and there is no penalty, then what then is the problem with sin???

On Tue Oct 23, 2012 , Jeremiah wrote; 'in your view how can the holy spirit who dwells in us now be the earnest of the redemption God had promised? If we already posses eternal life, what possible need remains for an earnest?

We already possess the 'Holy Spirit' and 'the Spirit is eternal life', not us.
We possess the Spirit only as a pledge, promised to those who believe. But I do hold that, like some here, that we can decide to quit believing. God does not give up on us but it seems God will not force us to live with Eternal Life if we refuse, or deny Him after the fact. (You might agree, since you asked it as a question)

On Tue Oct 23, 2012 Paidion wrote; 'For emphasis the second clause affirms pretty much what I have just stated. If a person does not go on obeying the Son, that is, is he takes his life back and lives as he pleases, the wrath of God remains on him. To go on obeying the Son does not imply absolute perfection in doing so, but rather that the main focus in life is on obeying the Son rather than serving oneself'. There may also be the sense that even if we slip up in obeying the Son, the wrath of God is upon us in the sense that He will take steps to discipline us'

Jesus said; this is the work of God that you 'believe'. Jesus spoke of believing, then follow, then produce fruit, but first believe. We are saved by Grace through Faith, and we live by faith in that Grace. And you’ve heard it before, our faith will produce works, or alife that shuns sin.
Or, 'being saved from our sins is motivated by love for God' for the Grace He showed us in the Cross, and this is forgiveness is by faith in Him.
Obeying then is a result of belief, faith, gratitude, thanks, seeking, following, desiring (etc.) and communion with God.

[jriccitelli]

I saw something else here I had to address, sorry it's you again Paidion, but you are used to it. (Thanks for being a trooper, and putting up with all the rebuttal)
You said; 'The idea of penal substitution seems ludicrous if we try to place it in any other setting or circumstance. For example, suppose when you were younger, you had two teenage sons, 12 y. old Peter and 10 y. old Joseph'

The difference being that the children in your story are equals, if one child had been the King or Lord, or President or something, and then he decided to die for all the (guilty) people of whom he was king over, this would be completely another story.
And more over and above all else; Jesus and God (The father and the son are one) share the same substance, they are The One God (I know you may not believe this, this is your difficulty). So when the Lord appeased the anger of the Lord, He appeased His own anger by the sacrifice of Himself, appeasing His own Law and His own Word.
And hear O Israel there is Only One Lord.
So the Lord offered Himself to appease His own wrath against us.
But those who do not 'believe' will face the wrath of The Lamb.
(Rev. 6:16, 11:18, 14:19, 15:4, 16:6, 19:1, 19:16)

(Sorry, I don't think the end has already happened, yet)