Is it possible to have Jesus only as Saviour and not also as Lord ?

[cygnusx1]

There is a doctrine held by a member of CF who posts here , that indicates Repenting from sin is not part of the salvation process , this doctrine implies salvation is simply by faith , therefore no sinful lifestyle is any barrier to salvation because it is not the deal.

But is that not a bunch of lies ?

Can a Christian have Christ as a savior only , without also having him as Lord ?

Just because "sinless perfection" is unattainable in this life does that give us a free pass to avoid repentance from sin ?

Are we to sin that Grace , cheap forgiveness , may abound ?

how can grace be abounding when it is used to enjoy more sin ?

when Paul asked "how can we who died to sin still live in it" ? was he not aware of the impossibility of sinless perfection in this life ? , of course , then how can freegracer's deny Repentance from sin , living a holy life is the calling and design of all saved Christians?

why do some turn the grace of God into a free to sin philosophy ?

Is Christ not both Lord and Savior ?

The New Testament uses the word for “Lord” (kurios) 748 times, and 667 of those times it is used in reference to God or Jesus (e.g., “Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 1:4). In contrast, the New Testament uses the word for “savior” (soter) only 24 times.

​

 

[nobdysfool]

In a word, no. If Jesus is one's Saviour, then He is also that man's Lord. The Lord is the Saviour. Therefore, those whom He saves, He is Lord over them as well.

 

[NannaNae]

I see it like this.

Mat 7:23
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


as david says it all..

Psa 139:23
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

Psa 139:24
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

David knew .... that this has always been the only way to get to that " everlasting" part .

We have to allow God to have knowledge of us . and only if we give him permission to both, search , know and lead us , do we get to the ' the way everlasting " parts .

 

[sdowney717]

Thomas when he saw the risen Christ with the holes in hands and side, exclaimed, my Lord and my God.

Take it for truth that Jesus when He reveals who He is, people will know he is the Christ of God, as Peter spoke. And then Jesus tells Peter that flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, My Father in heaven revealed this to you.

For some reason people think they can know God with no help from God. But that is a lie of Satan. If your following after Satan, believing his lies then you will not know the truth as that can only come from God revealing Himself to each one on an individual basis.

 

[Hillsage]

There is a doctrine held by a member of CF who posts here , that indicates Repenting from sin is not part of the salvation process , this doctrine implies salvation is simply by faith , therefore no sinful lifestyle is any barrier to salvation because it is not the deal.

You are very correct to say "PART" above. For it indicates a complexity to the "process" simply not held by most.

Can a Christian have Christ as a savior only , without also having him as Lord ?

Is He savior/Lord as an 'either/or', or is he one only as a 'both/and'?
For me he is wholly savior and wholly Lord, but only partially 'my Lord'. For as oft as the spirit of conviction does speak to me and I do not obey, he is not 'my Lord', even though he is still 'The Lord'. For Christ to be wholly 'my Lord' I must be wholly committed to his commandments.

Just because "sinless perfection" is unattainable in this life does that give us a free pass to avoid repentance from sin ?

This is an opinion based belief IMO. Either provision is made to overcome all or it is made to overcome nothing IMO.

Are we to sin that Grace , cheap forgiveness , may abound ?

Grace is not "forgiveness", let alone "cheap" IMO. It is as expensive as the pride of man for whom it is intended, as well as the Lord who earned it, for us. And Grace is not, as orthodoxy defines...a cover up for sin, nor is it forgiveness of sin. Grace is the power of God to accomplish the purposes of God.

how can grace be abounding when it is used to enjoy more sin ?

It cannot, for that would be contrary to its very definition IMO.

when Paul asked "how can we who died to sin still live in it" ? was he not aware of the impossibility of sinless perfection in this life ?

On the contrary, he very much was aware of 'its' possibility, that why he declared that even though he knew he wasn't perfect 'yet' he strove for that goal. A goal you say is unattainable, but Paul did not, nor did Jesus when he said "Be perfect".

of course , then how can freegracer's deny Repentance from sin , living a holy life is the calling and design of all saved Christians?

why do some turn the grace of God into a free to sin philosophy ?

They don't, and they can't. They can only forsake it that they might not avail themselves to God's provision to 'overcome' all things by the power of Christ which is available to/in them.

 

[hedrick]

The OP oversimplifies. I would say that repentance is part of faith. It is turning away from self to God, which is certainly necessary for faith.

However, as to “sinful lifestyle,” I’m not aware of any Christian who doesn’t have a sinful lifestyle. We are all still sinners. This debate can easily turn into the position of the Pharisee, with definitions cleverly set up so that my sin isn’t mortal but the sin of those lowlifes over there is.

Jesus’ own teaching is clear that we are expected to show fruit. If you look at his statements about judgement, I think you’ll find that the people who are in trouble are those who don’t show signs of God’s love, not those who have some sin left. We can’t ignore the call to following Jesus as Lord, but we also can’t judge others because we think they aren’t good enough.

On "cheap grace," Bonhoeffer's book "The Cost of Discipleship" is worth reading.

 

[Rajni]

Is Christ not both Lord and Savior ?

The way I see it, God is both Lord and Savior, whether one acknowledges
that He is or not.

It's like the ruckus over whether or not "under God" should be in the
Pledge of Allegiance. It goes without saying that the nation (as well as
the entire universe) is "under God", as well as permeated by Him and in
Him. So whether it articulates it or not doesn't change God's status as
being over all, imo.

-

 

[hedrick]

Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?...

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

 

[cygnusx1]

The OP oversimplifies. I would say that repentance is part of faith. It is turning away from self to God, which is certainly necessary for faith.

However, as to “sinful lifestyle,” I’m not aware of any Christian who doesn’t have a sinful lifestyle. We are all still sinners. This debate can easily turn into the position of the Pharisee, with definitions cleverly set up so that my sin isn’t mortal but the sin of those lowlifes over there is.

Jesus’ own teaching is clear that we are expected to show fruit. If you look at his statements about judgement, I think you’ll find that the people who are in trouble are those who don’t show signs of God’s love, not those who have some sin left. We can’t ignore the call to following Jesus as Lord, but we also can’t judge others because we think they aren’t good enough.

On "cheap grace," Bonhoeffer's book "The Cost of Discipleship" is worth reading.

So living in sin , in a sinful lifestyle is necessary for all Christians ?

That is fatalism and way below the expected fruit bearing that God expects .

Hundreds of times the Israelites were called upon to turn away from sinning , to forsake their sins and repent , are Christians any less Expected to forsake sin ?

Just because sinless perfection is unattainable in this life , in this body , does it follow that holiness is not required as part of salvation process ?

Can you not see how fear of being a Pharisee binds all effort to be obedient in repenting of sin . Shall a thief or a liar , or a adulterer or a hater of brethren who remain in these sins expect to be saved ?

Not according to Gods word :


Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (ESV)

So those who teach or believe salvation is simply by faith , and repentance from sin isn't necessary are making a nonsense of this scripture ?

FreeGracers , cheapgracers set the bar way too low , easy believism is the enemy of true saving faith because it is a pale imitation of the real thing.


How many Christians quote , "Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against Thee" ? Which is at best wishful thinking if a sinful lifestyle is inevitable .


The answer to legalism isn't antinomianism , but Biblical holiness , without which no one shall see The Lord .

Can a Christian have Christ as a savior only , without also having him as Lord ?

Just because "sinless perfection" is unattainable in this life does that give us a free pass to live in sin ?

Are we to sin that Grace may abound ?

how can grace be abounding when it is used to enjoy more sin ?

when Paul asked "how can we who died to sin still live in it" ? was he not aware of the impossibility of sinless perfection in this life ? , of course , then how can freegracer's deny Repentance from sin , living a holy life is the calling and design of all saved Christians?

 

[FreeGrace2]

There is a doctrine held by a member of CF who posts here , that indicates Repenting from sin is not part of the salvation process , this doctrine implies salvation is simply by faith , therefore no sinful lifestyle is any barrier to salvation because it is not the deal.

But is that not a bunch of lies ?

Can a Christian have Christ as a savior only , without also having him as Lord?

The sad answer is yes, according to Scripture. How so, one might ask?

The issue of making Christ Lord is involved with one's spiritual life and growth.

Let's consider what Peter wrote to those he described as "elect":

1 Peter 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen

1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

OK, this establishes to whom Peter was writing; the elect. The OP is from the reformed tradition, which holds that Christ died ONLY for the elect.

Now consider what Peter commanded these elect ones:

1 Peter 3:15
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

This is quite clear; he was telling the elect to sanctify or set apart Jesus Christ AS Lord in their hearts. The word for "sanctify" is in the imperative mood, the mood of command. He was basically ordering his audience to do something; to sanctify Christ AS Lord.
hagiazō: sanctify

1) to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
2a) consecrate things to God
2b) dedicate people to God
3) to purify
3a) to cleanse externally
3b) to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin
3c) to purify internally by renewing of the soul

Those he wrote to were believers, not unsaved pre-believing elect. Nor was his command related to the way to get saved either.

If making Christ Lord of one's life is necessary for salvation, then the apostle John failed miserably in the only evangelistic gospel, and Paul also got it totaly wrong in his answer to the jailer who asked him what he MUST DO to be saved.

The OP is in error.

Just because "sinless perfection" is unattainable in this life does that give us a free pass to avoid repentance from sin ?

This is irrelevant, as there is no free pass from sin. The Bible is clear about God's hand of discipline for those of His children who are disobedient. And believers, NOT unbelievers, are commanded to turn from sin, obviously.

Are we to sin that Grace , cheap forgiveness , may abound ?

Sounds as though the poster believes that grace = cheap forgiveness. Or that forgiveness costs the sinner something. Sure smells likes a works salvation.

how can grace be abounding when it is used to enjoy more sin ?

It doesn't. But the OP is about salvation, not Christian living. Focus.

when Paul asked "how can we who died to sin still live in it" ? was he not aware of the impossibility of sinless perfection in this life ? , of course , then how can freegracer's deny Repentance from sin , living a holy life is the calling and design of all saved Christians?

Those from the FG movement have NEVER denied the duty of all believers to turn from sin.

why do some turn the grace of God into a free to sin philosophy ?

They are idiots who know nothing of the Truth of God's Word. And they aren't from the FG movement.

Is Christ not both Lord and Savior ?

Of course He is. But obedience FOR salvation is works, period. And rejected as heresy.

The New Testament uses the word for “Lord” (kurios) 748 times, and 667 of those times it is used in reference to God or Jesus (e.g., “Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 1:4). In contrast, the New Testament uses the word for “savior” (soter) only 24 times.

​

One must wonder what these stats prove.

The Bible also gives evidence of those who DID recognize Christ as Lord, yet were denied kingdom entrance.

Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
Matthew 7:22
“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
Matthew 7:23
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

What is clear in this passage is that there are people who acknowledge Christ as Lord, and even do great works in His Name, yet are refused kingdom entrance.

Why? They based their faith on their works, not on the Savior. Recognizing Christ as Lord doesn't save. Accepting Him as Savior saves.

Me thinks the OP is just another cheap shot at a movement that the poster detests.

 

[com7fy8]

As far as cooking is concerned, you might say I am a "failure" because at times I mess up what I cook. But even a chef can mess up what he or she cooks; but you do not call a chef a "failure". When people identify me, they do not call me a "failure" . . . even though I can be, as a cook

Like this, I might say I am a "sinner", because I do fail to love the way God wants. But my Biblical identity is "child of God" (1 John 3:1); so, if I am Biblical, I say I am a "child of God" and not always say I am "a sinner", I would say. Paul calls Christians "saints", when he is writing to Christians. Nowhere does he write to the "sinners" in Christ, anywhere!

But our main failure is in how we do not love and forgive, not only in how we may do things that are no-no's.

So, are we "sinners"? Yes. Do we defecate, at times? Yes. But do we tell people we are "squatters"? We are; so why don't we go around telling people we are "squatters"?

So . . . about if Jesus can be our Savior without being our Lord >

Well, Jesus is "the Son of God" (1 John 4:15). Jesus is family with our Father; and Jesus is our Groom. So, Jesus wants us for intimate love and sharing as family, with Him and with each other > to love one another as Jesus has loved us > John 13:34, 15:9-17. So, Jesus is not interested in "only" saving us and forgiving us, or only controlling us as our Lord. Jesus is our Groom Are we relating with Him, like this?

Or, are we decoying ourselves away to arguing and criticizing others in comparison with our imperfect ideas and outward standards?

Our Groom Jesus has saved us. This means we are safe, if we are saved. We are more and more safe from sinning, if we are growing and being corrected (Hebrews 12:4-17). But, yes, we are not perfect. "Even" Barnabas a greatly esteemed brother in Jesus was able to go along with the hypocrisy of Peter's bad leadership example > Galatians 2:11-13. So, ones might argue that Barnabas had Jesus as Savior but not Lord.

But I would say "sinner" was not the main identity of Barnabas. He was called the "son of comfort"; Barnabas was known for how he was very loving, not only for how he did fail, at times. He nowhere is called a "sinner", in the Bible.

So, Jesus being our Lord has a lot to do with not only stopping sinning, but Jesus being our Lord has to do with how Jesus is our Groom and we have family love with Jesus and one another - - "tenderhearted" caring and sharing (Ephesians 4:32, 1 Peter 3:8-9).

We are ruled in His love.

Plus, God "crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies," we have in Psalm 103:4. Our crown of power and authority is our Father's loving and tender affection; our authority and power in Jesus' lordship is in God's love and how we can live and rule with Him in love > "Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

And Jesus rules us by His example, not only by orders about what is a sin to do or not a sin. And we obey this example by being examples, also > "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And we benefit from Jesus ruling us, by obeying how He rules us in God's very own peace in our "hearts" > "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[FreeGrace2]

As far as cooking is concerned, you might say I am a "failure" because at times I mess up what I cook. But even a chef can mess up what he or she cooks; but you do not call a chef a "failure". When people identify me, they do not call me a "failure" . . . even though I can be, as a cook

Like this, I might say I am a "sinner", because I do fail to love the way God wants. But my Biblical identity is "child of God" (1 John 3:1); so, if I am Biblical, I say I am a "child of God" and not always say I am "a sinner", I would say. Paul calls Christians "saints", when he is writing to Christians. Nowhere does he write to the "sinners" in Christ, anywhere!

But our main failure is in how we do not love and forgive, not only in how we may do things that are no-no's.

So, are we "sinners"? Yes. Do we defecate, at times? Yes. But do we tell people we are "squatters"? We are; so why don't we go around telling people we are "squatters"?

So . . . about if Jesus can be our Savior without being our Lord >

Well, Jesus is "the Son of God" (1 John 4:15). Jesus is family with our Father; and Jesus is our Groom. So, Jesus wants us for intimate love and sharing as family, with Him and with each other > to love one another as Jesus has loved us > John 13:34, 15:9-17. So, Jesus is not interested in "only" saving us and forgiving us, or only controlling us as our Lord. Jesus is our Groom Are we relating with Him, like this?

Or, are we decoying ourselves away to arguing and criticizing others in comparison with our imperfect ideas and outward standards?

Our Groom Jesus has saved us. This means we are safe, if we are saved. We are more and more safe from sinning, if we are growing and being corrected (Hebrews 12:4-17). But, yes, we are not perfect. "Even" Barnabas a greatly esteemed brother in Jesus was able to go along with the hypocrisy of Peter's bad leadership example > Galatians 2:11-13. So, ones might argue that Barnabas had Jesus as Savior but not Lord.

But I would say "sinner" was not the main identity of Barnabas. He was called the "son of comfort"; Barnabas was known for how he was very loving, not only for how he did fail, at times. He nowhere is called a "sinner", in the Bible.

So, Jesus being our Lord has a lot to do with not only stopping sinning, but Jesus being our Lord has to do with how Jesus is our Groom and we have family love with Jesus and one another - - "tenderhearted" caring and sharing (Ephesians 4:32, 1 Peter 3:8-9).

We are ruled in His love.

Plus, God "crowns you with lovingkindness and tender mercies," we have in Psalm 103:4. Our crown of power and authority is our Father's loving and tender affection; our authority and power in Jesus' lordship is in God's love and how we can live and rule with Him in love > "Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

And Jesus rules us by His example, not only by orders about what is a sin to do or not a sin. And we obey this example by being examples, also > "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And we benefit from Jesus ruling us, by obeying how He rules us in God's very own peace in our "hearts" > "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[Hillsage]

The sad answer is yes, according to Scripture. How so, one might ask?
The issue of making Christ Lord is involved with one's spiritual life and growth.

1 Peter 3:15
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

This is quite clear; he was telling the elect to sanctify or set apart Jesus Christ AS Lord in their hearts. The word for "sanctify" is in the imperative mood, the mood of command. He was basically ordering his audience to do something; to sanctify Christ AS Lord.

Those he wrote to were believers, not unsaved pre-believing elect. Nor was his command related to the way to get saved either.

But obedience FOR salvation is works, period. And rejected as heresy.

But only is it 'error' ("heresy" is too harsh IMO) if one is talking about the salvation of the spirit, and not the salvation of the soul.

One must wonder what these stats prove.

The Bible also gives evidence of those who DID recognize Christ as Lord, yet were denied kingdom entrance.

A scripture which is often used in error IMO. It speaks not to the entrance into some eternal celestial castle wherein lies our cabin in glory. Read the verse in a translation that opens it up for a more indepth interpretation/application.

MAT 7:21 'Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the reign of the heavens; but he who is doing (present tense) the will of my Father who is in the heavens.

Matthew 7:23
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
What is clear in this passage is that there are people who acknowledge Christ as Lord, and even do great works in His Name, yet are refused kingdom entrance.

And what is not so clear, is that this is a judgment based upon people on 'this side of glory'. I say that because this judgment is based upon what they are doing ("practice(present tense)") and not just upon what they had done/ 'practiced'.

Why? They based their faith on their works, not on the Savior. Recognizing Christ as Lord doesn't save.

It does when 'Lordship' is in the "heart" as you and scripture pointed out earlier in 1Pet 3:15. They were working for the 'kingdom of the heavens' that are available to us who are 'in Christed' and not just "in Christ"

Accepting Him as Savior saves.

Accepting him as our savior saves our spirit, but not your soul. Subsequent to 'spirit' new birth/salvation, is the salvation of your soul which you 'work' on as you make him Lord of this life...and become seated 'more and more', in the heavens.

 

[hedrick]

Jesus was pretty clear that following him means loving God and neighbor, and that this is shown through fruit. Where Jesus places love and repentance at the center, Paul places faith. I think in the end they’re equivalent. But in his passage about Abraham, Paul judges faith by what Abraham did, and 1 Cor talks a lot about actions as well. NT scholars often speak of being justified by faith but judged by works, which I think is consistent with both Jesus and Paul.

Where things get difficult is the fact that although our lives are expected to show newness of life, we’re all mixed bags, simultaneously saints and sinners, as Luther said. My only question here is Cygnusx1’s use of “sinful lifestyle” as impossible. What is a sinful lifestyle? Most Christians have besetting sins, anything from overeating to participating in professions or companies that make money off of stimulating greed. Most people also have moral blind spots, things that others can see as harmful but which they justify. So who doesn’t have a sinful lifestyle? I don’t know how God will make his decision. About all Jesus says is that despite all of that, his followers will show fruit. He seems to expect that the world is a better place because of our presence.

This is in contrast to the Pharisees, whose ideal was purity. For them the question was whether you had violated rules designed to set off the Jewish people, and to separate the saved people from the “sinners.” Was the world a better place because of them? Not particularly: their goal wasn’t fruit, but avoiding moral contamination.

What I’ve found in practice that most people who think Christians can’t have sinful lifestyles pick out certain specific sins (usually sexual) and ignore others. And their ideals tend to be closer to that the Pharisees. They tend to emphasize violations of purity, redefining fruit as purity rather than the way Jesus used it in parables such as the sheep and the goats, which is things that help others. But maybe I’m accusing Cygnusx1 unfairly. Until he tells us which things constitute a “sinful lifestyle” and which are the besetting sins and blindness that we all have, we won’t be able to tell.

But contrary to grace alone, while I think we are put right with God by faith, Jesus expected that to show in our lives, and so he says we will be judged by fruit, though of course with the provision that repentance and willingness to forgive others will make that a pretty forgiving judgement. Perhaps I Cor 3:12 should be used as a description of it.

 

[Reformationist]

No. One may have Jesus as Lord only, for He is Lord of all, but He is the Savior of all that believe, and them only. True faith, a living faith, is that which submits to Him in will and body.

 

[cygnusx1]

Jesus was pretty clear that following him means loving God and neighbor, and that this is shown through fruit. Where Jesus places love and repentance at the center, Paul places faith. I think in the end they’re equivalent. But in his passage about Abraham, Paul judges faith by what Abraham did, and 1 Cor talks a lot about actions as well. NT scholars often speak of being justified by faith but judged by works, which I think is consistent with both Jesus and Paul.

Where things get difficult is the fact that although our lives are expected to show newness of life, we’re all mixed bags, simultaneously saints and sinners, as Luther said. My only question here is Cygnusx1’s use of “sinful lifestyle” as impossible. What is a sinful lifestyle? Most Christians have besetting sins, anything from overeating to participating in professions or companies that make money off of stimulating greed. Most people also have moral blind spots, things that others can see as harmful but which they justify. So who doesn’t have a sinful lifestyle? I don’t know how God will make his decision. About all Jesus says is that despite all of that, his followers will show fruit. He seems to expect that the world is a better place because of our presence.

This is in contrast to the Pharisees, whose ideal was purity. For them the question was whether you had violated rules designed to set off the Jewish people, and to separate the saved people from the “sinners.” Was the world a better place because of them? Not particularly: their goal wasn’t fruit, but avoiding moral contamination.

What I’ve found in practice that most people who think Christians can’t have sinful lifestyles pick out certain specific sins (usually sexual) and ignore others. And their ideals tend to be closer to that the Pharisees. They tend to emphasize violations of purity, redefining fruit as purity rather than the way Jesus used it in parables such as the sheep and the goats, which is things that help others. But maybe I’m accusing Cygnusx1 unfairly. Until he tells us which things constitute a “sinful lifestyle” and which are the besetting sins and blindness that we all have, we won’t be able to tell.

But contrary to grace alone, while I think we are put right with God by faith, Jesus expected that to show in our lives, and so he says we will be judged by fruit, though of course with the provision that repentance and willingness to forgive others will make that a pretty forgiving judgement. Perhaps I Cor 3:12 should be used as a description of it.

A sinful lifestyle is not to be understood as a sin one is prone to or a sin one struggles with , but a fatalistic submission to sin , converging , flirting and welcoming sin into our heart with either no repentance , sorrow or fleeing of such

Can a Christian be saved in sin ? What type of salvation is it which leaves one an unholy wretch ?

I say without holiness no one shall see The Lord , those who deny that are deceived

 

[Hillsage]

A sinful lifestyle is not to be understood as a sin one is prone to or a sin one struggles with , but a fatalistic submission to sin , converging , flirting and welcoming sin into our heart with either no repentance , sorrow or fleeing of such

Then I know unbelievers who don't live up to your defined 'opinon' of "sinful lifestyle". A standard which you back with what? Not that we aren't all entitled to 'an opinion', but if you want us to at least see where you are coming from, let alone agree, you just might offer more IMO.

Can a Christian be saved in sin ?

I believe unbelievers are "saved in sin" every single time someone gets 'born again'. No one quits sinning to come to the cross for the first time. And upon accepting are you still 'in your sins' even though they are forgiven? What is your definition of "a Christian". I believe I became a Christian after accepting Jesus as my savior. And that didn't stop when I immediately lit up a joint and drove off (details in 'my profile' under 'testimony').

What type of salvation is it which leaves one an unholy wretch ?

The salvation that avails you to the salvation of your soul by working in obedience to the Holy Spirit, who continues to lead and convict you of the sins you must overcome by availing yourself to the power of Christ within.

I say without holiness no one shall see The Lord , those who deny that are deceived.

Your only deception is the denial that, before that happens, even "Christians'" will go through the purgative fires of God...even sinning Christians. That is the message taught in Corinthians.

1CO 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw -- 13 each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Only after 'the fire' will all be 'as holy as he is holy'. Truly nothing 'unholy' will be allowed.

 

[cygnusx1]

"Shallow preaching that does not grapple with the terrible fact of man's sinfulness and guilt, calling on ‘all men everywhere to repent,' results in shallow conversions; and so we have a myriad of glib-tongued professors today who give no evidence of regeneration. Prating of salvation by grace, they manifest no grace in their lives. Loudly declaring they are justified by faith alone, they fail to remember that ‘faith without works is dead.'"
- Harry Ironside, Except Ye Repent

.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I say without holiness no one shall see The Lord , those who deny that are deceived

OK, and the Bible also says it. So who is denying it?

 

[cygnusx1]

"Just now some professedly Christian teachers are misleading many by saying that ‘repentance is only a change of mind.' It is true that the original word does convey the idea of a change of mind; but the whole teaching of Scripture concerning the repentance which is not to be repented of is that it is a much more radical and complete change than is implied by our common phrase about changing one's mind. The repentance that does not include sincere sorrow for sin is not the saving grace that is wrought by the Holy Spirit."
- Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Royal Saviour