The Narrow Path Ministries

The term "Lordship Salvation" is so misleading to many. It is often construed as meaning one's salvation is based on how well they conduct themselves.

I like the term "Lordship Discipleship" better. Once you're saved, your life should be about being a disciple of your Lord Jesus Christ. That should come first in your life as a result of salvation. You should as a natural result of salvation, take being a disciple of Christ seriously.

Being that you have been saved from sin, you no longer cling to it (or desire for it to cling to you) but rather that you've been saved from it in order to seek righteousness over sin to gain victory from it.

That's my assurance of salvation. Not that I don't sin or have sinful thoughts or desires, but that I seek victory over them through the sanctifying awareness of sin given to me the Holy Spirit. Like everyone else, I constantly sin one way or another. I certainly sin most of the time by way of unclean thoughts. Lust, hate, envy, conceit, passing judgement, selfishness, cursing, grumbling etc. But I don't like that stuff, because of my regeneration. Because of my regeneration I want to rid myself of it. Rather than just having a flippant disregard for what I know to be sin in my life. Whenever I become aware of such sin, as I only could be aware of it though the sanctification process of the Holy Spirit, I automatically apologize to God. Often just a simple on the spot heartfelt, "I'm sorry". The fleshly me isn't sorry. It's the regenerated spirit in me that's sorry. That's how I know I'm saved. Because if I wasn't, most of the time I wouldn't be the least bit sorry. That's what I call Lordship discipleship. And I'm mighty thankful for it.

Once you're saved...

But this is the whole point of Lordship Salvation! How do you "get saved"? By accepting Christ as your personal Saviour? I doubt it. You don't find that anywhere in the bible.

What you do find is that unless you allow Jesus to become the Lord of your life, you cannot be saved. This has nothing to do with "works righteousness" that many people fear so much. Indeed some of them fear it so much that they avoid doing any good works. But God expects good works:

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10)


Jesus said:

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Lu 14:27)

Jesus bore his cross in order to die on it. We, too, must die to the self-life and serve Him as Lord of our lives. He also said:

...so therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Lu 14:33)

It all about becoming Christ's disciples. His first disciples forsook their fishing nets — just dropped them where they were and followed Jesus. We, too, must choose between living our lives for ourselves and submitting to the total authority of Christ in our lives. A partial service will not do. Jesus requires our all. That's what it means to become disciples, and there is no difference between disciples and Christians.

...in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

Somehow in our day, many hold to the idea that we become Christians by "saying the sinner's prayer" or by "accepting Christ" or by "trusting in the finished work of Christ" or some other simple act. It is indeed a simple act to enter the door of salvation, but salvation from sin is a life-long process.

He who began a good work in us will continue to complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phillipians 1:6)

Also Paul taught that good works and well-doing and avoiding evil works are closely related to receiving lasting life (or "everlasting life", if you will):

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well‑doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give lasting life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)

You seem to be politely disagreeing with Brian, Paidion. That it`s not enough to try, you have to succeed. The success is the evidence, not the trying.

This is a more robust stance than a typical christian universalist would take. Perhaps your intention is to impress upon the Homers and Steves on this forum that your theology is not a soft option? Would that be a fair assumption?

I don't know whether or not your assumption is "fair" — but in any case, it doesn't correspond to reality. For I presented the case for true salvation because I think it's of paramount importance for me to do so whenever the opportunity arises.

Since having read about praxeology by Ludwig Von Mises, I have come to understand more or less all human action as being purposeful behavior. Since men have the ability to choose their acts at any given time, it inexorably follows that our actions are representative of what we subjectively value at the time we choose to act. Namely, when I am tempted to sin, there are two possibilities:

A: On those occasions where I am tempted and chose not to sin I demonstrate by my actions that at that moment I valued more highly obeying God that satisfying some desire of the sinful nature.
B: On those occasions where I am tempted and chose to sin I demonstrate by my actions that at that moment I valued more highly some desire of the sinful nature than obeying God.

It seems that the concept of Lordship salvation requires the idea we must value serving God more highly than any alternative. Thus, Lordship salvation teaches that a person whose life is solely characterized by "A" is saved, and one whose life is solely characterized by "B" is not. Yet, speaking from personal experience, life is characterized by some moments of "A" and some moments of "B". If I understand I John 1:8 correctly, it affirms that the "B" is, to a certain extent, a feature of every believers life for at least as long as he lives on this earth.

If so, it follows then a persons values are always in a state of flux: Sometimes one "values more highly obeying God that satisfying some desire of the sinful nature", and at other moments one "values more highly some desire of the sinful nature than obeying God". But surely Christians do not become "saved" and "unsaved" with their responses to each successive temptation that they experience in this life. Given that our values are only truly represented in our actions (Genesis 22:12), how do we know we have really made Jesus Lord in any other way besides observing how it is exemplified in our choices? And if so, does one have to much of "A" vs. "B" does one need to know that they are saved? Hopefully, one does not have to resort to rejecting the action-axiom to resolve this paradox.

Hi Ian,

I agree with Paidion's summary. I am not sure if Paidion believes that sinless perfection of life is the characteristic of the believer, but, if he does, he did not say so in this post. As the scriptures he cited indicate, even if sinless perfection is not necessarily a description of the Christian life, it is nonetheless the determination of the Christian life. A true believer really believes that Jesus is the Lord, and gladly embraces that reality with a determination to actualize and demonstrate that lordship in his/her own conduct.

Peter (thrombomodulin) wrote:

Since men have the ability to choose their acts at any given time, it inexorably follows that our actions are representative of what we subjectively value at the time we choose to act.

As sensible as it sounds, I think this premise cannot be taken as a starting point without question. It seems to me that Paul says that he and we sometimes are found acting against our true desires. Thus Paul can say, "I do what I hate" (Rom.7:15) and "you do not do what you desire" (Galatians 5:17). Paul does not say that he sometimes values obedience to God most, and other times values self-gratification more. When he sins (he says), he is doing what he "will[s] not to do"—not really what he values and wants.

Of course, when we sin, we are doing what some part of us values and wants (the part Paul calls the sarx, or "flesh" in Gal.5:17), but Paul says that the part of us that is wanting this disobedience is not the part that defines who we are, but is actually "at war" with that part of us that defines us (7:23). This part of us that defines who we are (and, thus, whether we are saved or not), Paul calls "the inward man" (Rom.7:22), or the "mind" (Rom.7:23), or "the spirit" (Gal.5:17).

I am "saved," or not, insofar as I have, or have not, truly "changed my mind" (repented, metanoia) from its original inclination. From birth, our minds are set on doing our own thing, gratifying our own lusts, and manipulating all people and circumstances to serve our own interests. The mind must change in this respect. The mind must choose to renounce all this self-interest and embrace Christ's Lordship as the defining paradigm for all of life. When such a change of mind has genuinely occurred, the believer's life will be directed toward obedience and righteousness—but not flawlessly.

In Romans 7:22, Paul affirms that his mind is set favorably toward the law of God (apparently as a settled constant), and that when he acts contrary to this conviction, it is an evidence of a "bondage to sin" that he did not choose to be in and which he despises. However, he professes to have no natural power to overcome it (7:25). When he (twice) concludes: "It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Rom.7:17, 20), he is NOT saying, "I am not responsible for my moral conduct." Nor is he saying, "Sometimes I desire to serve God and sometimes I don't," but, rather, "I have made a life choice to serve God, but something stronger than myself prevents my fulfilling this desire, except as I am enabled by the Spirit of God to do so."

Thus, he makes a case for "walk[ing] according to the Spirit" (Rom.8:4) or "walk[ing] in the Spirit" (Gal.5:16). What this is a topic for another discussion.

Yes, whenever I have presented the salvation stance of Jesus and His apostles, some people have mistakenly thought I was presenting "sinless perfection". The holiness groups who believe in "a second work of grace" are also thought to be claiming "sinless perfection" after they have their second experience. It's true that a few of the extreme holiness groups do hold to that stance, but the main ones such as the Wesleyen Methodists, the Nazarenes, and the Salvation Army, do not.

However, I am not with a holiness group. I simply see our renunciation of the self-life and submission to Christ as Lord of our lives as entering the door of salvation from sin. From then on, we continue to be in the process of being saved from sin throughout our lives, for the one who began a good work in us (when we first had a change of heart and mind and submitted to Christ's Lordship) continues to perfect us until the day of Christ (Philippians 1:6) Finally in the day of Christ, the process of salvation will be complete.

In no way do I believe that if we fall into sin, we immediately lose out. Nor do I believe that we must achieve a certain number of good works in order to be saved. However, I do believe that we must generally persevere in our submission to Christ. (Rom 2:6-11) We will lose out only if we undo what we initially did by God's grace — that is, if we take our lives back into our own hands and live them for ourselves with no concern for Christ or His will.

I agree that there is a "war" between the desires of the flesh and those of the spirit: Indeed there is some part of us that the desires sin, and some part of us desires obedience and righteousness. We can distinguish between desires that are good and those that are evil, but I'm not seeing a valid categorical distinction between our "true desires" and our "[untrue?] desires". My present understanding is that truly "changing the mind" is ranking righteous desires of a higher value to us than the desires of the flesh. I find it very difficult to reject the premise in question: the idea that when we sin it could mean anything other than that we have allowed (at least temporarily) a change in our values. You mentioned:

When he sins (he says), he is doing what he "will[s] not to do"—not really what he values and wants.

This may be right and simply be a point that I have to take on "blind faith", for it doesn't seem to make sense: If Paul could choose between one thing and another, and if he really did value not sinning more highly than sinning then how is it that his actions could be any other way than to not have sinned? When I reflect on moments in life where I have sinned, it seems difficult to honestly evaluated it any other way than admitting that in my "inner man/mind/spirit" I ranked of higher importance the pleasure or convenience of sin than obedience to God. After all, is not the nature of choice the very thing where I actually select whether "A" is more valued the "B" or vice versa (i.e. I rank "A" and "B" a certain order).

In hindsight, I may look back on such decisions and regret them because my normative ranking of the values is reversed from what they were at the moment of a sinful action. Indeed Paul does not say that he "sometimes values obedience to God most, and other times values self-gratification more", but the nature of choice and action, as far as I can see, implies it must be so. I'm not sure that the terse statements in Romans 7:15 and Gal 5:17 would necessarily be incompatible with this perspective, for Paul's description of "hating" his sinful actions could be his normative assessment as he reflects upon upon a period of time in his life which includes some sinful moments.

Peter wrote:If Paul could choose between one thing and another, and if he really did value not sinning more highly than sinning then how is it that his actions could be any other way than to not have sinned?

Because of the ongoing struggle between the self-desire and the desire to serve Christ.

However, I don't think Romans 7 describes Paul's struggle. Paul using the hypothetical "I", that is without Christ I may wish to do the right thing, but I do just the opposite. (Substitute "I" with "a person"). He concludes with, "So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Without Christ a person can serve God only mentally, but not practically. Then having said that, Paul immediately gives the solution:

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."

Hello Paidion,

While I agree with much in your first post. it seems to me "being saved" is confounded with sanctification. We are saved by trusting in Jesus and our works are evidence of this state of salvation. Consider John 3:14-16:

(New American Standard Bible)

14. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15. so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus used the story of the bronze snake lifted up on a pole, Numbers 21, as a type of our salvation through faith in Him. The people bitten by serpents looked in faith upon this bronze serpent, motivated by their self interest (or need) and were saved. Likewise we are saved by our continual belief (present tense) in Jesus. We do not become more saved after our placing our faith in Jesus, but we do become more sanctified.

You wrote:

Jesus said:

Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. (Lu 14:27)

Jesus bore his cross in order to die on it. We, too, must die to the self-life and serve Him as Lord of our lives.

It seems to me doubtful that this statement of Jesus is directly related to sanctification, but rather to denying Jesus in the face of persecution. Looking at the passages of scripture relating Jesus' statement regarding bearing our cross (there are six: Matt. 10:32-39, 16:24-26, Mark 8:34-38, 10:21, Luke 9:23-26, 14:26-33) the following points should be considered:

1. Jesus is going to be put to death, but makes no reference to being executed on a cross. In that day, persons bearing the cross on the way to their execution were subject to abuse from the crowds, who could abuse them with impunity.

2. Following Jesus may cost disciples any relationship with their families. They must choose Him over their family.

3. For the sake of Him and the gospel his followers may lose their lives.

4. The one who wants to save his life (physical) risks losing his life (eternal).

5. Those ashamed of Him (in this life) will find He is ashamed of them in the next.

I see no direct reference in any of the accounts to sanctification in the sense of "putting to death the deeds of the body". It seems John is more to the point regarding that matter:

1 John 2:15-17
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15. Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

And Paul:

Galatians 5:24
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

24. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Seems I do not disagree with you in substance, just on which scriptures make the point. Jesus says we are to bear the cross daily; crucifying the flesh seems to be a one time event, in Paul's mind, as the aorist indicative seems to indicate.

...so therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Lu 14:33)

And here is another one that seems to me to be misunderstood. The word apotassomai, translated "renounce", means to set apart, separate from, or say farewell to. This is what one would have had to do regarding his family and possessions in order to be Jesus' disciple, seeing that Jesus was engaged in an itinerant ministry. Peter left behind his stuff, but after Jesus' crucifixion we find thgat he still had his fishing boat to go back to. And Zaccheus, a wealthy man, pledged half his wealth to the poor and appears to have been pronounced by Jesus to have been saved.

However, I don't think Romans 7 describes Paul's struggle. Paul using the hypothetical "I", that is without Christ I may wish to do the right thing, but I do just the opposite. (Substitute "I" with "a person"). He concludes with, "So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Without Christ a person can serve God only mentally, but not practically. Then having said that, Paul immediately gives the solution:

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."

I completely agree with this. Otherwise, how could Paul have said:

1 Corinthians 9:26-27
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

26. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27. but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

And how could Paul urge others to be an imitator of him, as he was of Christ?

We are agreed that Jesus is both Lord and Saviour - no Lord, no Saviour.