I believe what is termed, "Lordship salvation," and don't believe there is any other kind. I've read articles meant to expose Lordship salvation as false, that say that it was a false version of salvation that proceeded from 16th century Calvinism in its form of 17th century Post-Reformation Puritanism, which resulted in the Westminster Confession of Faith. When I think of the five points of TULIP, I don't get the connection. Lordship salvation is what I read in the Bible. Before I dig into that, I want to clarify some points.
No one is saved by works. Scripture not only does not teach salvation by works, but it teaches against salvation by works (Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16). The Bible does teach salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). It is not a grace or a faith like the Mormons, their vital doctrine of salvation found in the Book of Mormon, a man-made, uninspired book, says (2 Nephi 25:23):
For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
The Bible not only teaches nothing like that statement, but it teaches that if one adds one work to grace, Christ becomes of no effect unto him and he then becomes a debtor to do the whole law (Galatians 5:2-4).
On the other hand, even though salvation comes by believing in Jesus Christ, that means "believing" must be what scripture shows is "believing" and "Jesus Christ" must be who scripture shows is the Jesus Christ someone is to believe in. These aren't arbitrary, "believing" and "Jesus Christ." Both must be what scripture teaches. When I write this, I'm not attempting to be difficult or wanting truly saved people to think they're not saved. "Believing" and "Jesus Christ" are both simple to understand. They go wrong when someone adds to or takes away from what the Bible says.
Also, when someone professes to believe in Jesus Christ does that mean he is truly saved? Is that what scripture teaches about the assurance of salvation? It doesn't. The Bible teaches the opposite. Someone merely professing he believes in Jesus Christ does not mean that he has believed in Jesus Christ. Just because someone continues to profess faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that he is saved.
The ones that I have read that critique Lordship salvation as Calvinist or Reformed, say that the original Reformers, Calvin and Luther, said faith was only acceptance of the Word of God. I could agree with faith being acceptance of the Word of God if it really was acceptance of the Word of God, which means that someone truly accepted in a genuine fashion what the Bible said about Jesus Christ.
As a matter of history, Melancthon in the 16th century defined faith with three Latin words in his Loci Communes Theologici: Notitia, Assensus, and Fiducia. Those three in order bring in intellectual, emotional, and volitional. From that, I would argue that the volitional aspect of faith arose before the 17th century. Among writers, these three divided into two, notitia and assensus representing the mind and fiducia, the heart, so that genuine faith involved the head and the heart, not just the head.
I'm not going to do this here, but if one were to follow through with a study of faith in all theological literature, one can see that this volitional or heart aspect goes back very far as an understanding of faith. As an example and before the printing press, Irenaeus in the early 3rd century wrote:
The Law which was given to bondmen formed men's souls by outward corporeal work, for it coerced men by a curse to obey the commandments in order that they might learn to obey God. But the Word, the Logos who frees the soul, and through it the body, teaches a voluntary surrender.
Clement in the early second century writes:
Called by the will of God in Christ, we can be justified, not by ourselves, not by our own wisdom and piety, but only by faith, by which God has justified all in all ages. But shall we, on this account cease from doing good, and give up charity? No, we shall labor with unwearied zeal as God, who has called us, always works, and rejoices in his works.
This is how men have understood faith not to be mere intellectual assent to facts.
As I always do and as I presented above, I divide the issue into two parts, "believing in" and "Jesus Christ." "Faith in Christ" is four times, "faith in the Lord Jesus" once, some form of "believe on" Christ, fifteen times, and "believe in" Christ, eleven times. There are more examples than these, but "believing" must be believing, and we know that some faith does not save (James 2:17-26; John 2:23-24). It reads as only intellectual, which means something must be added. It is easy to see that repentance must be something more than just sorrow (2 Corinthian 7:8-11). If you add intellect and sorrow without volition, you are falling short of believing.
Taking in all the parallel passages, saving faith must include repentance. One could say that saving repentance must include faith. Jesus said that if anyone comes unto Him, salvation language, he must deny himself, which means losing his life or his soul (Luke 9:23-25). Salvation is described as the restoring of the soul (Psalm 23:3) and the converting of the soul (Psalm 19:7). To be restored or converted, the soul must be relinquished to the Lord. This is repentance. Jesus said, I am the way (John 14:6). Someone relinquishes his own way, if he believes in Jesus Christ.
The second half says, "Lord Jesus Christ." If someone believes Jesus is the Christ, which is necessary for eternal life (John 20:31), then he believes Jesus is King. This fits with Jesus' and John the Baptist's preaching to "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." One could say the meaning of this is "repent because the King is here." The New Testament presents Jesus as King. Someone does not believe in Jesus as the Christ, as the King, and remain in rebellion against Him. He relinquishes His will. This can be proven over and over in the New Testament.
Just as an example, one should read the parable taught in Luke 20:1-19. It's obvious, Jesus the Son was sent to people, having authority over them, and they were to receive His authority and ownership, Lordship, if they believed in Him. They didn't. They killed him, so they were in big trouble. This kind of teaching is all over the New Testament. I understand that the non-Lordship teaching would be more popular, since the biggest problem men have is that they are walking after their own lusts and they don't want someone as a Boss (2 Peter 3:1-4).
Everything that I've written about believing in Jesus Christ does not require being a Calvinist or Reformed. I haven't read anything that makes that connection. It's an assertion without proof. Just because Calvinists did believe that doesn't mean it originated with them. It is what the Bible teaches.
When one reads the early Baptist confession, the Schleitheim Confession (1527), written by Michael Sattler, not a Protestant confession, he reads something that doesn't give a full confession of faith or explanation of the Baptist doctrine. It reveals the distinctions between the Baptists and those not Baptists, who claim salvation by faith. It doesn't show disagreement on what "faith in Christ" is from what others were saying. One of the few statements in the Confession, however, is the following:
Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves.
This is how these men viewed those who believed in Jesus Christ. They were not Calvinists. Repentance and true faith in Christ, which includes Lordship, did not arise from Calvinism.