The Error of Lordship Salvation?

[Humble_Disciple]

Lordship salvation says no such thing. Now please, for a third time, please answer the question. What is the eternal consequences of a "christian" who refuses to be baptized? Don't think I have not noticed you have been evading.

Quakers and the Salvation Army have never practiced water baptism. Does that mean they are unsaved?

What really matters is baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is just symbolic of it.

 

[Clare73]

< smile >
So what do the Scriptures actually mean that I presented and am misinterpreting to contradict the word of God.

Explain them for me, being true to their words, how they "harmonize" with the word of God.

Luther already had.
Please harmonize. Romans 4:3-4, Romans 3:21-28, Titus 3:5-7.

So you are not going to answer my question?

Not surprising. . .it shows you have doubts in your own dogma.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Quakers and the Salvation Army have never practiced water baptism. Does that mean they are unsaved?

Exactly! Just like how the thief on the cross wasn't baptized but was saved regardless.
What really matters is baptism of the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is just symbolic of it.

 

[GraceInChrist]

So you are not going to answer my question?

Im a lutheran, everything that Luther believed I also do. If you have points againts Luthers theology give me your thoughts. Nevetheless, I ask the same question. Harmonized them.

You talk a lot about fruits, yet being condescending is a work of the flesh. You shouldnt strife.

 

[Clare73]

So you are not going to answer my question?

Im a lutheran, everything that Luther believed I also do. If you have points againts Luthers theology give me your thoughts. Nevetheless,
I ask the same question. Harmonized them.

You have not answered my question.

 

[GraceInChrist]

QJOTE=Clare73]So you are not going to answer my question?

You have not answered my question.[/QUOTE]

So you know nothing about Lutheranism, and you refuse to edify a brethren by not answering that same question.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Im a lutheran, everything that Luther believed I also do.

The primary reason why I don't believe in Lordship salvation is because Martin Luther himself never taught it. I would be really interested to see if he ever taught it.

 

[GraceInChrist]

The primary reason why I don't believe in Lordship salvation is because Martin Luther himself never taught it. I would be really interested to see if he ever taught it.

He didnt. But we do teach the sacraments are means of grace, not just a symbol. We truly believe our hearts are circuncide through holy baptism and we indeed participate in his death burial and resurrection, we also believe we eat the blood and flesh of our lord in holy communion.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

He didnt. But we do teach the sacraments are means of grace, not just a symbol. We truly believe our hearts are circuncide through holy baptism and we indeed participate in his death burial and resurrection, we also believe we eat the blood and flesh of our lord in holy communion.

What do Lutherans believe about the salvation of members in denominations that teach the Lord's supper and baptism are only symbolic?

 

[GraceInChrist]

What do Lutherans believe about the salvation of members in denominations that teach the Lord's supper and baptism are only symbolic?

We believe the grace of God is also in his word. They can be save, but they miss a lot of healing and edifying through Gods sacraments. It is not healthy to rely in ourselves. This is why every Christian should always seek Gods grace whenever is posible. Because sometimes our faith is weak and we may need our lord strengthening.

Also many people fall into lordship and bondage of the law, becuase they misunderstand bible verses are easily explain by the sacraments.

 

[Clare73]

Im a lutheran, everything that Luther believed I also do. If you have points againts Luthers theology give me your thoughts. Nevetheless, I ask the same question. Harmonized them.

You talk a lot about fruits, yet being condescending is a work of the flesh. You shouldnt strife.

I do? . . .changing the subject rather than answering my question?

Perhaps you could point out where I have even mentioned "fruits."

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

 

[GraceInChrist]

I do? . . .changing the subject rather than answering my question?

Perhaps you could point out where I have even mentioned "fruits."
There are only a few of my posts here for you to review.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

Im the one in need of edifying, am I not. Please harmonized them for me.

 

[Clare73]

You have not answered my question.

So you know nothing about Lutheranism, and you refuse to edify a brethren by not answering that same question.[/QUOTE]
Do you refuse to edify a brethren by not answering his question?

 

[Clare73]

Im the one in need of edifying, am I not. Please harmonized them for me.

You want me to harmonize the Scriptures I posted?

 

[GraceInChrist]

You want me to harmonize the Scriptures I posted?

If you are so kindly. Harmonized every verse that speaks about grace through faith, and how the sacraments save us. Such as Christ saying, everyone who eats from my body will have everlasting life, and why did our church father believe the eucharist was his flesh and blood.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, this is totally against. Colossians 2:12. Galatians 3:27

Suggesting that baptism is a requirement for salvation is "works based salvation". Either you are wrong in your interpretation or you are ironically defending works based salvation. You are saying that the cross wasn't enough. It is the cross and getting shoved under water. Also not the same author that wrote Colossians and Galations also wrote Romans 10:9-10 which is absent of any mention of baptism.

 

[Clare73]

If you are so kindly

Well, it starts with accepting all that Scripture presents as from God and not setting any of them against themselves.

And what I find in the NT is two things:

1) the Scriptures you favor regarding being declared sanctified/holy through faith in Christ,
2) as well as Scriptures that command engagement in the action of a process of sanctification/holiness.

From those differences, I understand two different things from the Scriptures that are going on regarding sanctification/holiness.

There is an initial event called justification in which by faith God declares one "not guilty," in permanent right standing with his justice, righteous, sanctified (set apart from sin and for him). That is 1) above.

And then there is a life-long on-going "event" that operates in the believer, a process through obedience in the Holy Spirit, whereby he grows and matures in this initial righteousness/sanctification declared of him at his justification. That is 2) above.

In addition to being declared sanctified/holy in justification,
the NT likewise teaches being made sanctified/holy by the work of the Holy Spirit through obedience in the lives of the justified.

They are not opposed to one another, the second is the fulfillment and completion of the first.
The first is a legal declaration permanently setting one on right footing with God's justice, where there can be no claim made against one for sin.
The second is a growth process whereby one is transformed into the image of Christ, becoming more and more like one's heavenly Father, who has commanded us to be holy, because he is holy. (1 Peter 1:16)

This growth process does not determine our salvation, that has already been determined and settled.
But it will determine our fellowship with God, our closeness to him, our peace and joy in the Spirit and of our salvation, our effectiveness in ministry and service, etc.

This growth process is the natural spiritual evolvement only of the born again.
And where it is not taking place, there is no assurance that there has actually been a new birth; i.e., that one is saved.

Hope this helps.

 

[Clare73]

The primary reason why I don't believe in Lordship salvation is because Martin Luther himself never taught it.
I would be really interested to see if he ever taught it.

He would not have used those words: Lordship Salvation.

He would have taught that obedience is a necessary part of the Christian life.

 

[Clare73]

If you are so kindly. Harmonized every verse that speaks about grace through faith, and how the sacraments save us.

I harmonize Scripture with Scripture, not with church doctrine.

Such as Christ saying, everyone who eats from my body will have everlasting life, and
why did our church father believe the eucharist was his flesh and blood.

Because that is what the NT clearly teaches.

It's based on the OT sacrificial system, where they ate the flesh/body of the sacrifice in a sacrificial meal, thereby taking into themselves the benefits of the sacrifice.

We do the same in the Lord's Supper, where we thereby take into ourselves the benefits of Christ's atonement.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

He would have taught that obedience is a necessary part of the Christian life.

Martin Luther wrote that the only sin which can cause us to lose our salvation is unbelief:

Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins, so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you confess him and faithfully cling to him in his promise. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction, along with all those carefully devised exercises of men: if you rely on them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is clone without faith in God’s truth is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther vs. Reformed Theology: On Losing Salvation and the Sin of Unbelief