Lordship of Christ

A FEW THOUGHTS ON WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED "LORDSHIP SALVATION" 

Just as it says on the tin. A few thoughts put down here on a blog in no particular order as opposed to a polished essay.

* Jesus is both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) at one and the same time. It is not in any one's interest to divide asunder what God has joined together.

OBJECTION! Scripture sometimes uses only His earthly name of Jesus in relation to forgiveness of sins, while on other occasions refers to Him as Christ in the same regard (1 Corinthains 15:3) and then again as the Lord (Romans 10:13).

REPLY: This may be so. Scripture does likewise with faith and repentance, sometimes mentioning faith without any mention of repentance (Acts 16:30-31/John 3:15-18) and then repentance without a mention of faith (Luke 13:3-5) while sometimes  joining them together (Mark 1:15/Matthew 21:31-32/Acts 20:21). Scripture does likewise with the Triune members of the One Godhead. Sometimes the Father is mentioned without the Son or the Spirit (Ephesians 3:14) while both Father and Son are mentioned together to the exclusion  of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:23) while all Three are mentioned together (Ephesians 2:18) 

The Bible in its fuller declarations sets forth salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ - where (if you are going tio nit pick, Jesus as Saviour is not mentioned) Indeed, we are distinctly told that we are to confess the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, or (to give William Tyndale's translation) that "Jesus is the Lord" (Romans 10:9-13). We are expected to take the Bible as a whole. In the similar scenarios above, where one is not actually mentioned, it need not necessarily exclude the other. Certainly, it would be very foolish to build a monumental doctrine on it and also start accusing some great heroes of the faith as preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9) on the basis of it. We do not receive a half Christ in order to be saved. This rampant cherrypicking reminds us of the words of the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16-26) who was told to keep the Commandments in order to have eternal life. Of course, salvation is and always was by faith without the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28) but (as we know) our Lord was teaching him to abandon his somewhat superficial view of his own goodness because of his somewhat superficial view of the Commandments. The amazing thing (other than his claim that he had kept them all from his youth up) was his response to the command of the Saviour to actually keep the commandments. He asked "Which?" You mean there was a choice? An ála carte menu that caters for those who don't like red meat and prefer chicken or fish or a vegetarian substitute?

* No one is looking for nor expecting the fruits of salvation to appear before the soul is ingrafted into Christ. However, the anxious soul needs to be willing to turn away from sin in order to turn to Christ. Even as Saviour, Jesus would save us from our sins (Matthew 1:21). Not only from their their guilt, but also their power. The awakened soul will have been convicted by the Holy Ghost and will want to change his life. He cannot do it in his own strength any more than the Ethiopian can change the colour of his skin or the leopard change the pattern on his skin (Jeremiah 13:23) But if he is not willing to forgo his sin - implicated in the receiving of Jesus as Lord and Saviour - and to live a life of holiness as enabled by the daily grace of God, then he has a wrong and skewed idea of the gospel. It would him no favours to lead him into some kind of profession.

* No one expects the sinner to reform themselves before coming to Christ. It is certainly not a matter of telling a concerned drunkard  that if he keeps himself sober - and gives up lying too and whatever else - for six clear calendar months, then John 3:16 is for him. Not at all. John 3:16 is for him now. There is nothing in John 3:16 that compromises the gospel call to repentance. It is implicit because it offers an alternative to perishing and Jesus offered deliverance from perishing  in Luke 13:3-5 on the condition ("Except") of repentance. In Luke 13, it was taught in the form of a threat or warning, but the fundamental truth is the same. 

* Repentance is not a meritorious work. It is given as a free gift to sinners like faith. (Acts 11:18/Romans 2:4 cp. Acts 18:27/Philippians 1:29) Even giving your life for a lifetime of unbelievable hardship on the mission field or at the martyrs stake for the gospel sake is not meritorious. Nothing that we can do ever merits anything from God. We will never have anything whereof to glory before God (Romans 4:2). Repentance is first and foremost an attitude - a serious change of mind - that leads to determinate action. (See next point)

* Repentance means "a change of mind" and  always leads to action. In itsself, strictly speaking, it does not automatically mean to "turn from sin" although it does in the evangelical sense when the sinner is exhorted to repent in the gospel. God Himself sometimes repented (e.g. Genesis 6:6) and His repentance always led to a change of course, although (obviously) there was nothing sinful to be turned from. When Paul preached the gospel in Thessalonica, he preached both i.e.  "testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21)  When the Thessalonians repented, then they turn to God and in the act of doing so, turned from  their idols. The one supposes the other. Anything less would not have been a true evangelical repentance and would have worked death instead of being repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) We note with sadness that when Paul  reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, that while Felix trembled, he did not turn and we never hear of his salvation. We can only hope that the sovereign and merciful purposes of God ensured that the convenient season was renewed again. 

* Repentance may be illustrated, if not defined, by verses like Isaiah 55:7 where the unregenerate wicked is exhorted to forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Note the  change of mind ("his thoughts") and his change of way - forsaking - because the proof of the one is the other. Another similar verse is Proverbs 28:13 where the observation is worded thus: He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. 
   
* Evangelists are not called upon the measure the depths of someone's repentance. No measurements given in this regard in the Bible. Only God can look into the heart and see. However, it may be induced that while the preacher cannot weigh the spirits, yet someone who (say) was very lighthearted and giggled or examined their fingernails in an enquiry room could hardly claim to be serious about this matter.

* Fruit of preaching salvation without repentance is seen in empty and shallow confessions. It has been astutely suggested that one reason why many professing young folk leave the church when they get to adult age is because they were never saved in the first place. No one doubts that real and genuine Christians can backslide - God's people are often bent towards backsliding from Him (Hosea 11:7) - but many of these professions appear to be have been incredibly empty. The parable of the sower warns of those whose work was not Spirit wrought or deep. 

* Repentance is a life long activity. We are justified by faith - not by repentance, but part of our sanctification process (a life long activity) includes the examining of our heart before God, naming sins and crying out for deliverance on a daily basis from them. We are called upon to be introspective (2 Corinthians 13:5/Romans 7:23-24) yet not excessively so - always looking unto Jesus (Heb 12:2) and rejoicing in the victory that is found in Him alone (Romans 7:25).

INDEXES:



 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX
* YouTube VIDEO INDEX

Glad I got lost?

I must admit, even after 35 years of faithfully attending several thousand Bible based meetings and hearing probably hundreds of soloists and choirs in person plus dozens of records, CD's and DVD's (along with access to the internet), that I never even heard of this old "gospel" song until now. As I warm to my subject here, I think that this is significant. I don't get to pick what soloists or choirs sing. In fact, such are often booked on the sole principle of trust that they will songs that are keeping with the broad beliefs of the Christian church in which they sing. Occasionally, you might hear a song that has very little theological depth to it but (generally speaking) it doesn't introduce anything that would cause you to raise your doctrinal eyebrows. I would like to think that I have never heard this song because its central tenet i.e. that the sinner should be glad that he was lost so that he could be found, has no Scriptural basis. If I had a fine tenor or bass voice, I certainly wouldn't go from pulpit to pulpit clutching a page with these words written on it.

The words of the refrain go like this:

 I'm glad I got lost so I could be saved, under conviction weary of sin, that was my only way to know that I needed to know a Lamb's blood applied. I'm glad I got lost so I could be found one wonderful night.

The internet didn't yield me much on it. Apparently "The story behind it is absolutely wonderful!" but this cannot be our guiding star. BTW: Ignore the fact that #Hamblin is singing it (although I am not surprised) - this is not the reason why I am introducing it here.

Always willing to be corrected, I cannot think of anywhere in the Bible (the guiding star) where anyone rejoiced in their lost estate of sin and misery. Rejoicing in salvation - YES! - but to rejoice that they were lost is another matter. My first thoughts drifted to the Prodigal Son who came to his loving father stinking with the filth of a pig pen. He came in a spirit of deep repentance. Do you think his words "Father, I have sinned against Heaven and before thee" would have been greatly supplemented by the words, "But I'm so glad that I spent all your hard earned money on harlots but it makes this moment of return all the sweeter. I would never have known this kiss and hug and ate the fatted calf, if I had never lived riotously?" 

Or consider a 4 piece acapella group from Corinth singing a little number based on the sentiment here. Each member gets to sing a verse on his own. 

One steps forward and croons: I'm so glad I fornicated and fathered an illegitimate child which we later aborted  - so I could be saved

Another warbles: I'm so glad I extorted your money with menaces and murderous threats that left you a nervous trembling wreck - so I could be saved. 

And so on. (Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 but do rein in your imagination...)  

Hymn singing has been around for a long time. Psalmody even longer. I cannot think of a single Psalm or hymn that takes up this kind of thinking. It's spirit, IMO, is found more in the words of Romans 6:2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Not (to be fair) that it is urging men to sin, but the logic of such thinking would sooner or later lead you into the philosophy which the Apostle vehemently denied. It is hardly the spirit of a Spirit wrought and led repentance that is described here:

For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter. (2 Corinthians 7:8-11)

It is a million miles away from the words of David in Psalm 32 or particularly Psalm 51. 


From a Calvinistic point of view (where we believe that God ordained the Fall (in His permissive will) ultimately for His own glory) - even then we are not to glory in our lost estate. God making the wrath of man to praise Him does not give the wrathful man licence to glory in his wrath. If I can rightly rejoice that I was in a state of depravity and lost - then it would be most unjust of God to punish me as a child of wrath while in that happy estate. 

I don't know the story behind the hymn.  As written above, the circmstances that led to its writing come away down the list of what is acceptable and unacceptable worship.  In some hymnbooks, a helpful verse that captures the main thrust of the hymn is printed. I contend there is no verse in the whole of God's word that provides a basis to sing this sentiment. Let's keep to what may safely be said to be scriptural.


INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX