Comments on: A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jodie http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-468 Jodie Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:41 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-468 Sadie, I think you are right that Reformed people should be more receptive to Catholic theology because it is in rapport with their own views. At this point Sproul's position against them seems simply cultural bias. Though I don't think it is, it seems that way. God bless. Sadie, I think you are right that Reformed people should be more receptive to Catholic theology because it is in rapport with their own views. At this point Sproul’s position against them seems simply cultural bias. Though I don’t think it is, it seems that way.

God bless.

]]> By: Sadie http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-387 Sadie Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:56:00 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-387 This brings to mind a belief of mine, which would fall on the Lordship side. I am a conservative Presbyterian, but I think that we are a little too quick to condemn the Catholic position of being saved by faith plus works. I think we should say that we know that true faith and works always live together. You can't have water without both Hydrogen and Oxygen. You don't have a saved person without both faith and good works being present in that person. Evangelicals say that the person is justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Catholics say that the person is justified by faith and good works. I say maybe it is a chicken and egg question, that we can't understand the relationship between the two, except to say that they always live together. Anyone who professes to have faith, but doesn't have good works, does not have faith. Any redeemed person will have faith and good works. I am not saying both are required for redemption, or that only one is necessary for redemption, I am saying we don't know because we can't tease them out, because they are always seen together in nature. This brings to mind a belief of mine, which would fall on the Lordship side. I am a conservative Presbyterian, but I think that we are a little too quick to condemn the Catholic position of being saved by faith plus works. I think we should say that we know that true faith and works always live together. You can’t have water without both Hydrogen and Oxygen. You don’t have a saved person without both faith and good works being present in that person. Evangelicals say that the person is justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Catholics say that the person is justified by faith and good works. I say maybe it is a chicken and egg question, that we can’t understand the relationship between the two, except to say that they always live together. Anyone who professes to have faith, but doesn’t have good works, does not have faith. Any redeemed person will have faith and good works. I am not saying both are required for redemption, or that only one is necessary for redemption, I am saying we don’t know because we can’t tease them out, because they are always seen together in nature.

]]> By: Frank Rollberg http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Frank Rollberg Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:43:13 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-374 Fantastic Book!!! Fantastic Book!!!

]]> By: Dan Thomas http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Dan Thomas Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:36:02 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-368 Antonio, Excellent question Antonio. Answer. He doesn't. His judicial blinding is accomplished by withholding his Grace. In other words they are already in a state of blindness and he allows them to remain that way. But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 1 Cor: chpt 1. Additionally, Romans 9 states it perfectly.... 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. God's mercy cannot demanded, Praise GOD. In verse 18 clearly his Name is what's at stake and the glory of his name is revealed when Moses asks God to attend his going forth with the people...Exodus 34: 18 And he(Moses) said, “Please, show me Your glory.” 19 Then He(God) said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Grace to You, Dan Thomas Antonio,

Excellent question Antonio. Answer. He doesn’t. His
judicial blinding is accomplished by withholding
his Grace. In other words they are already in a state of blindness and he allows them to remain that way.

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor: chpt 1.

Additionally, Romans 9 states it perfectly….

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

God’s mercy cannot demanded, Praise GOD. In verse 18
clearly his Name is what’s at stake and the glory of
his name is revealed when Moses asks God to attend his going forth with the people…Exodus 34:

18 And he(Moses) said, “Please, show me Your glory.”
19 Then He(God) said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Grace to You,
Dan Thomas

]]> By: Antonio da Rosa http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-362 Antonio da Rosa Sat, 30 Sep 2006 04:01:01 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-362 Dan you write: ---------- For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him ---------- If total depravity = total inability, why would God have to judicially blind their eyes if they were blind from birth via depravity? Dan you write:
———-
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him
———-
If total depravity = total inability, why would God have to judicially blind their eyes if they were blind from birth via depravity?

]]> By: Jodie http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-361 Jodie Sat, 30 Sep 2006 03:44:13 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-361 It may not matter what seeker-sen churches say about themselves from your own perspective on their being lordship, but those statements rule out their being Free Grace. Would we all agree that there may be churches with which both sides of the debate are uncomfortable with? I've felt for a while that there is significant commonality between FG and LS in that we both promote a self examination focused theology that puts us at odds with prevailing evangelicalism--a culture which may talk the talk of lordship without the action you need to see. It may not matter what seeker-sen churches say about themselves from your own perspective on their being lordship, but those statements rule out their being Free Grace. Would we all agree that there may be churches with which both sides of the debate are uncomfortable with? I’ve felt for a while that there is significant commonality between FG and LS in that we both promote a self examination focused theology that puts us at odds with prevailing evangelicalism–a culture which may talk the talk of lordship without the action you need to see.

]]> By: Pulpit Magazine » Blog Archive » Wrongly Dividing the Word http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-356 Pulpit Magazine » Blog Archive » Wrongly Dividing the Word Fri, 29 Sep 2006 22:53:05 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-356 [...] Let’s look a little more closely at the dispensationalist tendency to make unwarranted contrasts between related or parallel truths (see yesterday’s post for the background on this). It is important that we delineate carefully between essentially different biblical axioms (2 Tim. 2:15). But it is also possible to go overboard. The unbridled zeal of some dispensationalists for making dichotomies has led to a number of unfortunate impositions on the gospel. [...] [...] Let’s look a little more closely at the dispensationalist tendency to make unwarranted contrasts between related or parallel truths (see yesterday’s post for the background on this). It is important that we delineate carefully between essentially different biblical axioms (2 Tim. 2:15). But it is also possible to go overboard. The unbridled zeal of some dispensationalists for making dichotomies has led to a number of unfortunate impositions on the gospel. [...]

]]> By: DAN THOMAS http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-342 DAN THOMAS Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:03:44 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-342 Dear Antonio, If God does not save me, then I cannot be saved. To think that I could generate belief enough to satisfy God's requirement of faith does not recognize just how woefully depraved I am ("all our righteous acts are as filthy rags"). For that which God requires, (both faith and sanctification) he also freely gives. "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious". The biblical text that supports God's sovereignty in all things are too numerous to review, and Jesus' clear teaching in almost the entire book of John says to the Jews "you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice." John 10:26,27. The sheep hear his voice and believe. It doesn't say "they believed and became a sheep". If you are not a sheep, you don't believe. God's sovereignty in salvation is so plain. John 12:39 "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." Who did the blinding Antonio? Yet in John 9 who made the blind man to see? And did not Jesus say in the beginning of John 9, "this man was born blind that the work of God may be displayed in his life" and at the end of the chapter Jesus puts the blindness into the context of judgment and guilt, and thus the work of salvation(seeing) is God's and his alone. In no place do the scriptures teach self-determination. It is assummed upon the text. Put it this way. If God's glory is the end of all things, how does he get the glory if I generated the believing. He should be thanking me for believing so that he could get the glory. But then I would be getting the glory. I don't think God wants to rely on me for anything, but especially the glory of his name. If there is any good in me at all, it all comes from him, "for of him and through him and to him are all things ROM 11: 36 Blessings. Dan Dear Antonio,

If God does not save me, then I cannot be saved.
To think that I could generate belief enough to satisfy God’s requirement of faith does not recognize just how woefully depraved I am (“all our righteous acts are as filthy rags”). For that which
God requires, (both faith and sanctification) he
also freely gives. “I will be gracious to whom
I will be gracious”. The biblical text that supports
God’s sovereignty in all things are too numerous to
review, and Jesus’ clear teaching in almost the entire book of John says to the Jews “you do not
believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice.” John 10:26,27. The sheep hear his voice and believe. It doesn’t say “they believed and became a sheep”. If you are not a sheep, you don’t believe. God’s sovereignty in
salvation is so plain. John 12:39 “For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.” Who did the blinding Antonio? Yet in John 9 who made the blind man to see? And did not Jesus say in the beginning of John 9, “this man was born blind that the work of God may be displayed in his life” and at the end
of the chapter Jesus puts the blindness into the context of judgment and guilt, and thus the work of salvation(seeing) is God’s and his alone. In no place do the scriptures teach self-determination. It is assummed upon the text. Put it this way. If God’s glory is the end of all things, how does he get the glory if I generated the believing. He should be thanking me for believing so that he could get the glory. But then I would be getting the glory. I don’t think God wants to rely on me for anything, but especially the glory of his name. If there is any good in me at all, it all comes from him, “for of him and through him and to him are all things ROM 11: 36
Blessings. Dan

]]> By: Shazazz http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Shazazz Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:54:03 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-340 I echo Mr. LaPierre's response. Seeker churches, from my exposure to them, have this tendency to make repentance/discipleship a suggestion or an ideal rather than a real essential spiritual discipline. "Take up your cross" is replaced with "take up your gift bag." But that's for a different subject matter... Peace out. -JS I echo Mr. LaPierre’s response. Seeker churches, from my exposure to them, have this tendency to make repentance/discipleship a suggestion or an ideal rather than a real essential spiritual discipline. “Take up your cross” is replaced with “take up your gift bag.”

But that’s for a different subject matter…

Peace out.

-JS

]]> By: Richard LaPierre http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-338 Richard LaPierre Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:31:19 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/09/27/a-15-year-retrospective-on-the-lordship-controversy/#comment-338 It doesn't matter what seeker churches say about themselves or how they label themselves. What really matters is the fruit. It doesn’t matter what seeker churches say about themselves or how they label themselves. What really matters is the fruit.

]]>