Talk:Lordship salvation controversy

message: In the bit about how John Piper moved the discussion forward, User:ByGraceAlone added this commentary (I'm moving it from the article to here):
:Upon reading the reference to the above statement regarding Piper, the only work that Piper talked about was to listen to and focus on Jesus so that one would not "neglect such a great salvation" and drift away (Heb 2:1-4). Piper did make it clear that the drifting away in Hebrews 2 will lead to eternal destruction. However, to say that John Piper argues that "works" is necessary for salvation from hell from this sermon alone is a twisting of his words. Of course paying attention to Christ is most definitely necessary for salvation, for who can have faith in him whom he has not known? And how can one know someone whom he has not paid any attention to? Whoever wrote the last sentence of the above paragraph need to either offer better support or delete it from this article!
--Flex (talk/contribs) 00:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Piper's contribution

message: What should be done with this? The article is clearly broken, perhaps beyond repair?
The problem seems to be that this isn't a real theological dispute, just a popular euphemism for certain views that came up in the 1980s. The actual soteriological questions are discussed in much better quality elsewhere.
Perhaps this article should mainly focus in the dispute during the 1980s and the processes that resulted in a term as  oblique as "Lordship salvation".
It appears that "lordship salvation" means that those who lead sinless lives are saved, and those who do not are not. What this has to do with "lordship" and how exactly it is to be placed relative to the Calvinist views on predetermination is completely unclear, at least it isn't made clear in any way in the article. --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ""pro-lordship" claims Christian perfection as a sign of salvation" -- total rubbish.  And the real issue is not what must ensue from salvation, but what must I do to be saved?  Persons continue not to understand that for many Christians, they are neither RCC nor Prot, but regard themselves as in the "Trail of Blood," the traditions of groups that never were under the papacy & did not come out of the papacy either.  To speak of "all of Protestantism" is right off the bat to be wrong, for mainline Protestants have all kinds of doctrines and denials of doctrines, sodomist marriage even now.  All doctrine is up for grabs.   You can believe anything you want and join a protestant church.  (EnochBethany (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:TNT]]

message: It appears to me that the new material just added with this edit  is original research. Although there are some sources, these seem to be examples rather than sources for the statements. I note an older piece of OR remains about the first known use of the term. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to be difficult, but what is the source for "Another idiom becoming pivotal"? Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Have you read WP:NOR by the way? Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in new material 

message: I came to the article hoping to learn what the issue is, and found nothing.  All about circumstances, and not a word on the essence of the debate.
:— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands is really opaque. It reads like it was written by a first-year theology student who wants to sound more sophisticated than he is. For example, the following sentences are virtually unreadable:
"While many Protestants affirm salvation by grace alone received by faith alone, some Protestants use 'accepting Christ as...' language, sometimes 'accepting Christ as Savior,' or 'accepting Christ as Lord', to describe a condition of initial conversion, taking a cue from Colossians 2:6 in the Good News Bible for the 'accept' and in the New International Version, for 'receive' as synonym."
"This idiom, what Christ must "be", was used to derive and discuss the implications for salvation associated with what Christ is."
"One author, Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952), had already associated Christ's Lordship with surrendering to it as a sine qua non at the initial point." 
"Using surrender language in the gospel became not the only issue."
"...sometimes more opposed to it than that, for example, faulting it about not being specific about what degree, quality, and current visibility there must be to the obedience necessary."
It's not clear what the terms "accepting-as phraseology" and "receiving-as phraseology" mean, and phrases like "what manner of receiving this was" are archaic and unclear. The whole introduction reads like it was written by a toddler with a thesaurus in one hand. I don't have a good enough grasp of the facts of the debate to rewrite this, but I hope someone will. The problem is not that it's too complex, but that it's badly written. It must at least conform to the standards of readability on Wikipedia, and should ideally give a clear introduction to the topic for both secular and religious readers. Is anyone up to the task? Sadiemonster (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I can only assume the introduction has been rewritten since this criticism was offered. It states the controversy clearly and succinctly. I don't understand the vitriol of the critic. Likening the introduction to something written by a toddler with a thesaurus betrayed more contempt than helpful criticism. 75.60.247.164 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it was; the 2014 criticism does not concern the current introduction. Veverve (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this about? 

message: If you compare the salvation plan of Lordship Salvation teachers like John F. MacArthur to the ones of Jehovah's Witnesses, you will find some similarities. Overall, I would not view Lordship Salvation as biblical, because there is a seperation between salvation ("come to me") and discipleship ("come after me"). Also, let us not forget, the Greek word for "Lord" is "kurios", which means "Supreme in Authority". MrLW97 (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins in Jehovah's Witnesses 

message: you have added two banners to this article in 2013. I have tried to improve the article. Do you think your banners are to remain here in the present version of the article? Veverve (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have a few problems, eg "By defining salvation by what it produces and what salvation will not fail to produce, (not only glorification, but good works, repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, and obedience" - are any of these what salvation will  not fail to produce? Should "surrender language" be explained more clearly? But frankly I'm too weary and busy to care. So if you think they no longer apply, remove them.. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners 

message: Why hasn't this page been merged with Lordship salvation yet? 178.120.14.106 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger