# Evangelicalism's Carnal Christian



## Afterthought (Jul 8, 2010)

Hello, I'm new to the forum and was saved out of modern evangelicalism--which included the weak doctrine of eternal security. I recently got into an argument with two people (who were arguing as one person, since I allowed the person I was arguing with to get help from another) about needing to accept Christ as Savior _and_ Lord for salvation. Now, I had come to the conclusion that such was true from what I had read in the Bible, and I thought the Bible was pretty clear about that. Little did I know that some people had advanced the doctrine of eternal security by explaining away certain Bible passages through the idea of being saved at one point and becoming a disciple at another point. =/ I was fortunate to have never come across such an idea until now.

Anyway, I'm a little lost on how to deal with such people. Can you help? I'll give some portions of the conversation to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I found it puzzling that these specific people accepted that you needed to repent. Perhaps I can use that as a contact point (if they mean the same thing by repentance that I meant, that is =/)? Also, as another note, I don't plan on debating these people due to a lack of time, but I wish to have an appropriate reply to them and to others who hold to this doctrine that I will inevitably meet. Now for the portions of our conversation:



*Me*:"God's followers are not devoted. I'm going to go ahead and say that such people are probably _not_ God's followers. The reasoning being that true Christians bear fruit (near the end of John, Galatians, etc). You can know a true Christian by whether they love God and thus obey Him (1 John). You can know a true Christian if you see an increase in holiness--he or she becoming more Christ-like--as time goes on. A true Christian does not live a life of sin but is dead to it (Romans 6). If there is no evidence of this in a Christian's life, you have every reason to doubt whether the person is a Christian or not."
*Person'sReply*:"Were you referring to John 15? It does speak of bearing fruit, but it also clearly indicates that bearing fruit is evidence of discipleship, not evidence of simply being saved (v. 8). When I was saved at about five years of age, I didn't become a disciple of Jesus Christ right away. It took a long battle with the flesh before I finally did become one of His disciples. Other than that, this part looks good."
In reply to something else I say later, this person says something similar to the above:"But you are correct that anyone saved will be transformed by God's power. Their behaviour will change, but it may take some time." (emphasis mine)
(Note: I did mean John 15 though I should have explicitly mentioned "good tree bears good fruit" passages. I did not give exact Bible citations since I was writing this quickly and knew these two knew the Bible pretty well.)


*Me*:"...we only preach half the Gospel when we tell people that praying a certain prayer will save them once for all. People are to believe _and repent of their sins_. You cannot accept Jesus as Savior without accepting Him as Lord. You must do both to be saved. *To say otherwise in a gospel presentation is to preach a false gospel.* Notice how in Peter’s first sermons in Acts the response to the Gospel was to 'repent and be baptized.' Notice also that this was after the people had already accepted his message _by faith_ (they believed what he said to be true and affirmed it as good) and so faith is implicit in 'repent and be baptized.'"
*Person'sReply*:"Correct except for 'You cannot accept Jesus as Savior without accepting Him as Lord. You must do both to be saved. *To say otherwise in a gospel presentation is to preach a false gospel.*' When we accept Jesus as out savior, we are (even if we do not know it) accepting Him as our Lord. A conscious acceptance of Jesus Christ as our Lord is not necessary to salvation."
*OtherPerson'sReply*:"I did not accept Jesus as Lord until quite a few years after I was saved. But I absolutely agree that repenting of sin is necessary. If someone doesn't recognize their need for a saviour from sin, they're probably wanting religion for the sake of belonging to a group or something."

*Me*:"True saving faith gives birth to good deeds. You know a tree by its fruit. A person abiding in Christ will produce good fruit. If there are no good deeds evident, then that person’s 'faith' is no faith at all (James 2). _This was the original meaning of 'Salvation by Faith Alone' as stated by the Reformers!_ As they said, 'Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.' Not to mention that in Jewish thought, belief and action were 'one'--that is, your actions show what you believe--and so all the other verses where only faith is mentioned imply action (i.e., repentance, obedience). It is nonsense to say you trust Christ for salvation if your actions don’t show it."
*Person'sReply*:"Good, except the possibility of a carnal Christian should be noted when looking at a 'Christian's' life."

*Me*:"*Good deeds will always follow true saving faith. Any other kind of faith does not save.* Thus, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a 'fire insurance' Christian--one who simply prays a prayer to be safe for eternity than goes on living however he or she sees fit. Anyone who does that is _not_ a Christian at all and needs to be saved. This also means that the weak version of eternal security that goes around Modern Evangelicalism is a false doctrine. The stronger version of it--'perseverance of the saints'--is much different: people who continue to do good deeds will be saved which shows them to be Christians and true Christians will continue to do good deeds until the end and be saved. It’s easy to see how people have distorted that though, huh?"
*Person'sReply*:"I have some problems with this paragraph. There may be people who do truly accept Jesus as their Savior but are not taught to live a holy life. But I would agree that someone who says they accept Jesus as their Savior but go on to live their life as they please _despite_ what they have heard about holiness probably are not Christians. Also, what portion of the Bible are you using to back up what you said about the perseverance of the saints?" (I believe I can back up the perseverance of the saints, but I left it in the dialogue to show these people's position better)

I then mentioned something about warning "carnal Christians" to repentance (using Ezekiel 33 as evidence) and that we should not admit that such people are saved and so giving them false assurance, but I later edited the paragraph because it sounded like a cold "witch hunt" and needed to be balanced. Thus, the reply to what I said there is not worth mentioning in detail (which was basically saying that if a person accepts Jesus as Savior and so knows from the Bible that he or she is saved, saying that such a person is a Christian isn't wrong), but the final reply to my entire argument is worth mentioning:

*Person'sReply*:"I agree with quite a bit that you said. One of your messages mentioned the verse which says we should make our calling and election sure, which is important to remember because apparently we can know we believe, we can know we are saved. Overall, though, when you consider the possibility of carnal Christians, Christians who haven't become disciples of Jesus yet, your points are important to remember. In other words, these are related to the problem you are focusing on. However, we can't totally count people as unsaved if their lives don't display a bunch of good works, but we should spur them to good works in the Lord." (emphasis mine)



I realize that my way of arguing was...filled with some rhetoric. Besides that though, did they have a point in anything they said in response to me? Was I wrong in anything I said? Perhaps we were simply talking past each other (I plan on asking them to define "repentance")? For future reference too, do you have some suggestions for help and/or resources to deal with such people who do _not_ accept that repentance is necessary so that I'm better prepared to deal with this doctrine in general and not just in this specific situation?

I have done some research already through searching these forums and found some verses I might be able to use, but they will probably be explained away through the "disciple later" idea: "Not everyone who says to me, Lord! Lord! shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 7:21); "Why do you call me Lord! Lord! and do not the things that I say?" (Lk. 6:46); "If you love me keep my commandments." (Jn. 14:15); along with vv. 21, 23) "For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments." (1 Jn. 5:3); I delight in the law of God after the inner man." (Rom. 7:22); (2 Cor 5:17); (Luke 14:27). I had also planned on using the "sowing to the Spirit/reaping eternal life", the "sin lists/not inherit the kingdom of God", and the "good tree/good fruit" verses.


Any help will be appreciated!


----------



## Soonerborn (Jul 8, 2010)

A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy

http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources...Covt Theology/packer_lordship_controversy.htm

You may find these to be interesting reads.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2010)

Here are a few links...
The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching 
by Ernest Reisinger
Pt. 1
Founders Ministries | The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching
Pt. 2
Founders Ministries | The Lordship Controversy and the Carnal Christian Teaching (Part 2)
Pt. 3
Founders Ministries | The Lordship Controversy & the Carnal Christian Teaching

There are also other good articles on this topic.....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 8, 2010)

Well, at least you asked an easy question. 

Seriously, it's sometimes hard to answer what might be a simple question if people didn't distort categories so much. It's sort of like Job's friends who know just enough truth to be dangerous and apply it in ways that dishonor the Lord even as they're trying to honor Him.

The accent to both replies is that faith and lordship are something that the disciple grants to God. That's the fundamental problem. _I_ had faith for years until _I_ made Jesus Lord of _my_ life.

The Lordship controversy is really a controversy because it usually is given in battle by people that think that salvation begins with the decision of man and so does more fully giving of one's self up in sanctification. It's impossible to Biblically side with one or the other fully because one might acknowledge that faith is the only grounds of justification before a Holy God but the kind of faith many are talking about is, in fact, a "work" in their own schema because _they_ produce the faith within themselves and grant it to God. Adding Jesus as Lord to that equation is simply a matter of degree and not kind.

If, however, as the Scriptures state, that faith is born in us by the power of the Spirit working through the Word then we begin to see the real issue. The faith that is born in me lays hold of Christ and by my Spirit-given faith I am united to Christ in His death and resurrection. I am justified by that faith - however strong or weak or assailed - that faith unites me to Christ and I am in Him and clothed in His righteousness. Furthermore, because I am united to Christ, I die to sin and am a slave no longer to it and am united to Christ's indestructible life through His resurrection. I not only can obey but I will obey because God saves all those who cast their trust in Him to the uttermost.

Thus, the real issue is not to be resolved by granting a faith born from within but by seeing that God saves from outside of us by coming to us with the Gospel and claiming us for His own. We who believe do so out of His lifegiving work and that life perfects us and glorifies us. The righteousness we have through sanctification is never the grounds for our justification but it is because we are justified. A person who has true faith that justifies then possesses Christ as Lord because they are united to Him Who is Lord. They do not grant Him anything but He grants everything.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2010)

Rich's answer is very balanced. In fact when this controversy exploded in the 80's over the Carnal Christian / Lordship Controversy there were three main books that came out. Sometimes it just got all muddled up. 

One of the problem's with the Carnal Christian teaching was that someone could walk an isle, raise their hand for salvation, or say a sinner's prayer and they were assured of their eternal salvation because they didn't want to go to Hell. The message of the Gospel was very lacking. The Gospel is about reconciliation to God. It was just being promoted more or less as Fire insurance from Hell and that was how it was being understood. It was very short on the true picture. People would pray the prayer, walk the evangelistic isle, or raise their hand and they were proclaimed righteous before God. It didn't matter how they lived their lives after that point. Sometimes people were given a false insurance and a bad understanding of what being Born Again was. It was being taught that you became Born Again by your receiving Christ. That is so far from the truth. And that lead to a bad understanding of what being Born Again and what the Gospel are. 







> (2Co 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
> 
> (2Co 5:18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
> 
> ...



Romans Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are very important to understanding this reconciliation with God. 



> (Rom 6:1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
> 
> (Rom 6:2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
> 
> ...



Does this mean we don't struggle with being carnal? No, it doesn't. That is why we have 1 John 1:6-10



> (1Jn 1:6) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
> 
> (1Jn 1:7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
> 
> ...


----------



## Skyler (Jul 8, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I typically respond with, "Well, _that's_ dumb."


 
That must be why you have so many peasants.


----------



## Herald (Jul 8, 2010)

An oldie, but a goodie, is John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." JM deals faithfully from scripture with the Lordship Salvation issue.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 8, 2010)

Herald said:


> An oldie, but a goodie, is John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." JM deals faithfully from scripture with the Lordship Salvation issue.


 
Actually I thought this book was a better balance. I read it so long ago. Wow, almost 20 years ago. 

Amazon.com: Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation (Cure Book) (9780801043741): Michael Horton: Books

This booklet was also very good. 

Amazon.com: A Layman's Guide to the Lordship Controversy (9780925703132): Richard P. Belcher: Books

Both were better than Dr. Macs book In my humble opinion. They had a better balance.


----------



## torstar (Jul 8, 2010)

Afterthought said:


> Hello, I'm new to the forum and was saved out of modern evangelicalism--which included the weak doctrine of eternal security. I recently got into an argument with two people (who were arguing as one person, since I allowed the person I was arguing with to get help from another) about needing to accept Christ as Savior _and_ Lord for salvation. Now, I had come to the conclusion that such was true from what I had read in the Bible, and I thought the Bible was pretty clear about that. Little did I know that some people had advanced the doctrine of enternal secuirty by explaining away certain Bible passages through the idea of being saved at one point and becoming a disciple at another point. =/ I was fortunate to have never come across such an idea until now.
> 
> Anyway, I'm a little lost on how to deal with such people. Can you help? I'll give some portions of the conversation to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. I found it puzzling that these specific people accepted that you needed to repent. Perhaps I can use that as a contact point (if they mean the same thing by repentance that I meant, that is =/)? Also, as another note, I don't plan on debating these people due to a lack of time, but I wish to have an appropriate reply to them and to others who hold to this doctrine that I will inevitably meet. Now for the portions of our conversation:




In a nutshell, from past experience:

Bring the person before worldly pagans and have the carnal one explain how they can still be considered a believer before God and they don't have to read the Word, join and serve a church, obey the 10 Commandments, continually repent of sin and seek progressive sanctification and a good witness before the world.

That because they once prayed a prayer, they are allowed to live like demons and are heaven bound, while the worldly pagans aren't. 

Note the response of the worldly pagans to this.


----------



## Don Kistler (Jul 8, 2010)

Accepting Christ as Savior and not yet Lord is not even an option offered in Scripture. Christ is NEVER called Savior and Lord in the Bible, not once. But 631 times He is called Lord and Savior. That cannot be thought of as a coincidence.
According to Romans, we must confess Him as Lord in order to be saved.

A large part of the problem is the lack of biblical preaching on what the gospel is. As Arthur Pink so aptly noted: "If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there wold be fewer people professing to believe it. But we have so watered down the gospel that even the non-elect can't refuse it."


----------



## torstar (Jul 8, 2010)

Don Kistler said:


> Accepting Christ as Savior and not yet Lord is not even an option offered in Scripture. Christ is NEVER called Savior and Lord in the Bible, not once. But 631 times He is called Lord and Savior. That cannot be thought of as a coincidence.
> According to Romans, we must confess Him as Lord in order to be saved.
> 
> A large part of the problem is the lack of biblical preaching on what the gospel is. As Arthur Pink so aptly noted: "If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there wold be fewer people professing to believe it. But we have so watered down the gospel that even the non-elect can't refuse it."




But on the other hand, He was very patient with my carnal stance for decades, until I came to a better hunger, then a better understanding and assurance of repentance and faith.

I won't let myself forget that.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 8, 2010)

Herald said:


> An oldie, but a goodie, is John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." JM deals faithfully from scripture with the Lordship Salvation issue.


 
This was a part of Charlie J's post. I messed it up. This is PuritanCovenanter.....Sorry.....


> I disagree. MacArthur's overblown rhetoric is almost as off-the-mark as his opponents'.



this is my response and I meant to hit another tab. That hasn't happened in a long time. Sorry Charlie J. 

I agree and that is why I made I made recommendations above. But at the same time. It has brought revival. It has made us look more biblically. He was much more biblical than those who are today. This seems to be a part of the RTK theory, many here are are opposed to. I let Dr. Horton who is a supposed R2K buy lay a balance view.


Sorry guys, I just screw up this post. I hit the wrong tab.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 8, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > An oldie, but a goodie, is John MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus." JM deals faithfully from scripture with the Lordship Salvation issue.
> ...


 
Agreed. Read Horton rather than MacArthur, although I think MacArthur has come around to a better position in the years since he wrote that book. 

As others have pointed out, the key is to recognize that the new birth is a work of the Spirit. So it does not depend on us making Christ Lord (since it doesn't depend on us at all), but neither can we be saved without him becoming Lord (since the Spirit doesn't do just half the job). 

This is great comfort to true believers who're struggling with sin, since we don't have to constantly worry if we've done enough yet to make him Lord. At the same time it's a needed warning to false "believers" who have no interest in submitting to Christ. They need to know this cannot be. The truth of the Spirit-controlled new birth is good news indeed, and answers the problems on both sides of the lordship debate.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 9, 2010)

Don Kistler said:


> Accepting Christ as Savior and not yet Lord is not even an option offered in Scripture.


 
Good post Don. I remember hearing Sproul ask something along the line of, "Who is man to find Jesus acceptable?" Quite audacious indeed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 9, 2010)

Don Kistler said:


> Accepting Christ as Savior and not yet Lord is not even an option offered in Scripture. Christ is NEVER called Savior and Lord in the Bible, not once. But 631 times He is called Lord and Savior. That cannot be thought of as a coincidence.
> According to Romans, we must confess Him as Lord in order to be saved.
> 
> A large part of the problem is the lack of biblical preaching on what the gospel is. As Arthur Pink so aptly noted: "If the gospel were more faithfully preached, there wold be fewer people professing to believe it. But we have so watered down the gospel that even the non-elect can't refuse it."


 Well that is a fine fact.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 9, 2010)

Don Kistler said:


> Christ is NEVER called Savior and Lord in the Bible, not once. But 631 times He is called Lord and Savior.



I don't dispute the point that Christ must be Lord, but... How do you figure this?

When I did a check I came up with a count of not 631-0 but rather 4-0, with all four examples coming from a single book (2 Peter).

It's true that Christ is adressed as "Lord" many, many times in the New Testament, more often than as "Savior." But there is also prominence given to the fact that he is the Savior. Luke, for instance, mentions three times in the birth narrative that one who saves is coming without any mention that one who must be obeyed is coming. And we should not forget that the name "Jesus" is itself a reference to his work as Savior. "Jesus" is used way more often than "Lord."

Given this, I think we're on weak ground if we criticize those who refer to Jesus as Savior and Lord. Now, if they claim he is not Lord or that salvation can be had without lordship, that would be a different matter. But merely to give his role as Savior top billing does not seem like an inherently unbiblical way to go.


----------



## baron (Jul 9, 2010)

I just heard on the radio that John MacArthur's has come out with a twenty year anniversary book "The Gospel According to Jesus". Hard to believe it's been twenty years already. The book has new material in it. 

The book by Michael Horton "Christ the Lord" is a great book. One of my all time favorites.


----------



## torstar (Jul 9, 2010)

baron said:


> I just heard on the radio that John MacArthur's has come out with a twenty year anniversary book "The Gospel According to Jesus". Hard to believe it's been twenty years already. The book has new material in it.
> 
> The book by Michael Horton "Christ the Lord" is a great book. One of my all time favorites.


 

Wasn't that a few years ago, and they resurrected the Mac blood hassle all over again. (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 9, 2010)

Joshua said:


> I typically respond with, "Well, that's dumb."


lol, well that was one of the thoughts that crossed my mind.


@Soonerborn and PuritanCovenanter: Thanks a bunch for those links! I read through them already. There's some very interesting stuff in them.



SemperFidelis said:


> Well, at least you asked an easy question.


Oh, I have plenty of tougher ones to ask too! xD

I'm a little confused about what you meant by people distorting categories, but I think I understood the rest of your message. You were saying that this issue is a problem on the fundamental level because it affirms that a person can choose God on his or her own without God intervening. From my reading of the other articles, this problem is the logical outworking of that idea. So it appears you were saying that I would not be able to use the Bible to _directly_ address this issue ("It's impossible to Biblically side with one or the other fully"), but would need to use the Bible to address the root of the issue (where faith comes from) if I want to make any progress in my arguing. Or perhaps show that the logical outworking of their idea leads to a works based salvation with "faith" being the name for a certain work. Did I understand this correctly?


In fact, that seems to be the message I've been getting throughout this thread and which was summarized here:


Jack K said:


> As others have pointed out, the key is to recognize that the new birth is a work of the Spirit. So it does not depend on us making Christ Lord (since it doesn't depend on us at all), but neither can we be saved without him becoming Lord (since the Spirit doesn't do just half the job).


Though I am a little confused about the problems on "both sides of the lordship debate." Both sides do have problems? Or maybe I'm just going to have to read Horton's book to find out since so many people keep recommending it! =p



Jack K said:


> Now, if they claim he is not Lord or that salvation can be had without lordship, that would be a different matter. But merely to give his role as Savior top billing does not seem like an inherently unbiblical way to go.


Well, it is interesting and puzzling that in this case (the one of the OP) they _almost_ say that salvation cannot be had without lordship, since they agree some kind of repentance is necessary and that accepting Jesus as Savior means you implicitly accept Him as Lord--though accepting Him explicitly as Lord isn't necessary (according to them in the case of the OP). I'm still not sure how to respond to that specifically since it is so puzzling in light of everything else they say, but this thread has given me plenty to think about when answering.


@torstar: Thanks for that idea of comparing them to worldly pagans! This is an online debate I'm having so that may be a bit difficult to use in this case, but I'll keep it in mind and may use it anyway.



As for the "Lord and Savior" vs "Savior and Lord" thing, it certainly is an interesting fact if true, but I'll just watch and see what happens concerning that.



Thanks for all the help and replies so far (all in one day!)! I'm loving this place already! =D


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2010)

Afterthought said:


> SemperFidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Well, at least you asked an easy question.
> ...


That's right. In other words, though the guy talking about faith alone being the grounds of Justification apart from any work a man does can be affirmed as far as it goes, what happens is they actually make faith a merit in itself. 

If faith is something I generate, and is the thing that "activates" salvation, then I have contributed to my salvation. Biblically, however, faith is something that God creates in us by making us alive, allowing us to see our need for Christ, and casting ourselves upon Christ.

In the Scriptures, faith is never more than a beggar laying hold of Christ and all His benefits and salvation rests in the person and work of Christ alone. In the "I decided to put my faith from my own decision before God made me alive" schema, it is common for people to view faith as _faithfulness_. That is to say, how can I show myself to be more faithful to God because that's what He ultimately looks at as meritorious within the person He saves in that scheme. No longer is Christ the sole ground of a sinner's righteousness but his faith becomes the ultimate ground.

Consequently, the person who says he has made Jesus his Savior is only adding a little less faithfulness to the equation than the person who has made Jesus Lord but both are making their faithfulness the grounds of their salvation.


----------



## Herald (Jul 9, 2010)

baron said:


> I just heard on the radio that John MacArthur's has come out with a twenty year anniversary book "The Gospel According to Jesus". Hard to believe it's been twenty years already. The book has new material in it.
> 
> The book by Michael Horton "Christ the Lord" is a great book. One of my all time favorites.



The Gospel According to Jesus was not meant for the seminary crowd. It was intended to address the Lordship Salvation controversy so that the average reader could get a handle on it. It accomplished it's purpose. As I look back on my journey towards Reformed Theology I might conclude that reading the Gospel According to Jesus back in 1989 was a seminal moment for me. Having a better understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ opened my heart to receive the doctrines of grace a few years later.


----------



## Don Kistler (Jul 9, 2010)

The actual phrase "Lord and Savior" is used 631 times. The actual phrase "Savior and Lord" is never used once. I counted them myself in a Cruden's Concordance before I had any Bible software to do it for me. My point in all of that was that the Bible never offers Christ to anyone as Savior and Lord. Obviously the Spirit of God was making a point.

In 1926 Georgia Tech beat Cumberland College of KY 222-0. We call that a slaughter! How about 631-0???

We must have all of Christ or we can have none of Christ. We cannot separate His offices. Our realization of all that He is may grow and mature, but there must be some acknowledgement of His lordship for salvation to be genuine.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 9, 2010)

Don Kistler said:


> The actual phrase "Lord and Savior" is used 631 times. The actual phrase "Savior and Lord" is never used once. I counted them myself in a Cruden's Concordance before I had any Bible software to do it for me. My point in all of that was that the Bible never offers Christ to anyone as Savior and Lord. Obviously the Spirit of God was making a point.



A reference or two (outside of the four instances in 2 Peter) would go a long way toward proving your point. I'd let this drop, since I agree with you that lordship is not optional, except that you're claiming a theological position based on Scripture that I suspect does not exist. Please don't take this as a personal attack. I just think we need to check and correct ourselves in such cases, for the sake of integrity. Please recheck your research, and provide some references if I'm wrong.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 10, 2010)

I tried it in the NKJV, ESV and NASB and only get the four from 2 Pet in each version.


----------



## alhembd (Jul 10, 2010)

Soonerborn said:


> A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy
> 
> Packer Lordship Controversy
> 
> ...



That article by J I Packer is really good.

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------




Don Kistler said:


> The actual phrase "Lord and Savior" is used 631 times. The actual phrase "Savior and Lord" is never used once. I counted them myself in a Cruden's Concordance before I had any Bible software to do it for me. My point in all of that was that the Bible never offers Christ to anyone as Savior and Lord. Obviously the Spirit of God was making a point.
> 
> In 1926 Georgia Tech beat Cumberland College of KY 222-0. We call that a slaughter! How about 631-0???
> 
> We must have all of Christ or we can have none of Christ. We cannot separate His offices. Our realization of all that He is may grow and mature, but there must be some acknowledgement of His lordship for salvation to be genuine.


 
Well said. Reverend Kistler's response here is the historic Reformed one.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 10, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That's right. In other words, though the guy talking about faith alone being the grounds of Justification apart from any work a man does can be affirmed as far as it goes, what happens is they actually make faith a merit in itself.


Alright! Thank you very much! It's funny that you should mention faithfulness. That is very much related to another apologetics/theological-related question I have and shall ask when I get some time (related to FV stuff but with a twist--or so I think)...




torstar said:


> But on the other hand, He was very patient with my carnal stance for decades, until I came to a better hunger, then a better understanding and assurance of repentance and faith.
> 
> I won't let myself forget that.


Indeed, I hope I too will never forget that He did that for me too.


----------

