Salvation: What Man Must Do or What Jesus has Done?
My blog partner Kev wrote an article titled, The Power of God to Salvation that appears at his On My Walk blog. He is carrying on much the same Lordship Salvation discussion with Bridget (bp) there as we are here under: Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?
This morning I read a comment by Kevl to Bridget that really gets to the heart of Lordship Salvation’s erroneous interpretation of the Gospel. Kev was addressing a question/comment from Bridget about the state of one of her family member’s spiritual condition.
Following is Kev’s comment for your benefit and blessing followed by some closing thoughts I’d like to share.
Would selling the man a false gospel have helped the situation? Would he be any more of a Christian if he were told he had to work for his salvation? Would he be any more saved if he had been told he had to forsake all or not be saved? Is telling him he’s got to be willing to work going to save him now if he is not already saved? Will changing the Gospel help the situation?Please note how Kev correctly identified the core of Lordship’s plan of salvation and crux of the doctrinal controversy, which is a message of commitment to behavior expected of a born again Christian to become a born again Christian. Lordship Salvation is a message that conditions the reception of eternal life on the lost man’s upfront commitment to perform the “good works” (Eph. 2:10) expected of the Christian.
Instead of telling him what he must do, why do you tell him he must believe and then tell him about Jesus. Not about what Jesus expects of you - that is MAN CENTERED (telling him what HE CAN DO to be saved instead of what JESUS DID so he can be saved.)
That’s what the Apostles did. What must I do to be saved? Believe. This is what Jesus did so you can be saved.
Not “this is what you must be willing to do. This is true faith. This is how you should act... .”
The Apostles didn’t try to force or ensure “true faith” the Apostles spoke the true testimony of Jesus.
This will be harsh but you must hear it. Maybe if people didn’t spend so much time telling your (loved one) how to act like a Christian he wouldn’t have been able to pretend for so long. Maybe someone ought to have been concerned with presenting him something to trust, instead of something to do.
If someone were preaching faith to him instead of works, maybe he might be able to clearly articulate and know if he’s trusting or not. Instead of being in a position where he has to prove the quality he might be able to just say “yes” or “no.”
Kev’s comment is as powerful and penetrating an exposure of Lordship Salvation’s works based message as any I have read in recent memory. His comment reminds me of D. L. Moody’s encounter with a Mormon missionary, which I related in my book.
It is said that D. L. Moody once rode on a train seated next to a Mormon missionary. They discussed their conflicting views on what they believed to be the gospel. The Mormon explained what his system required man to do to earn the Mormon view of eternal life in Heaven. D. L. Moody, on the other hand, showed the missionary from the Bible that everything had already been done by Jesus Christ, and all man had to do was believe and receive the free gift of God. After a while Moody said, “Sir, I find our differences can be summed up with just two letters: You are depending on what man must ‘do’, the Bible says it has been ‘done.’” The sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s provision for the salvation of mankind.John MacArthur defined this view when he wrote,
Is salvation a gift that costs us nothing? Is salvation received by faith alone? Is a commitment to “unconditional surrender,” the resolve to “leave sin” and a “full exchange of self for the Savior” necessary for the reception of eternal life? If we find commitment and surrender are additions to the gospel, then the grace of God is frustrated. (In Defense of the Gospel, p. 29)
“Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything.” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 78.)Surrender of one’s life in discipleship to the Lordship of Christ should be the natural response of one who has been saved by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the results of salvation must NEVER be made the requirement FOR salvation.
“That is the kind of response the Lord Jesus called for: wholehearted commitment. A desire for him at any cost. Unconditional surrender. A full exchange of self for the Savior. It is the only response that will open the gates of the kingdom.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith, p. 150.)
Lordship Salvation is a works based message that corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ and Lordship Salvation frustrates grace.
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him,” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).
“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” (Gal. 2:21).
LM
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteI don't remember ever being so humbled by such words before. I've been trying to figure out how to comment most of the day.
Our Sister Bridget dearly loves this person and she is panicked about the state they are in. I an only imagine the pain she is dealing with.
I can honestly say I'm glad that the conversation has moved past theological systems and gotten to the most important discussion that we as believers seeking to spread the Gospel can have - how is faith shared. This is not just some academic discussion for the theologically gifted and those with many letters attached to their names. Bridget shows that this discussion is deeply personal and affects the life of every ordinary Christian, and the families they love.
It is for this reason that we struggle and proclaim and spend late hours reading posts by people we have never met trying to discern what they are attempting to say. Searching the Scriptures for the hope they need.
I was fearful of where these discussions were going, but now it can clearly be seen that "arguing" about the purity of the Gospel is a fundamental, real, and life-touching thing that every Christian needs to be involved in.
Our faithfully giving God glory, our eternity, and the eternity of our families and loved ones all depends on it.
Very kind, and overly generous words Lou.
Kev
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to share a post with you that I wrote on the other blog.
The Word of God is not a unit that is made with individual components; rather, it is a single piece of cloth intricately woven together. Man creates his own problem when he tries to justify his position based upon a single word, passage, or even book with looking at it within the greater context.
Romans 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Of course God loved us that He sent is Son Jesus so that whoever believed in Him will have everlasting life. But if the only goal is everlasting life, then I may as well die the moment I believe. God forbid! The purpose of my believing is not for me, it is for those who may not believe. Yes, you can establish long coversations and arguments around everlasing life, salvation, and grace, but the truth is that none of them is to be looked at separately. Our mission as believers is to establish His Kingdom here in the earth. "Upon this rock, I will build my church." I pray that you look at the greater purpose, and not focus on individual expediency.
Kev:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. The Gospel is worth contending over.
Lou
Ron:
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your visiting here I trust you are not suggesting that Christians must get the world sorted out so that the Lord can return to rule and to reign once we have prepared the world for Him.
The rapture is the next event on the prophetic calendar.
BTW, I do not want to get into eschatology in this thread. You may open that discussion at the other discussion board and I'll look in there.
Lou
Lou,
ReplyDeleteI thank you in advance for another opportunity to say what is on my mind....
I loved this post, more than any other since I began to read your blog. You and kevl are really onto something here, and I care a lot too. I have a running theory if you'd let me share it.
The evangelical weakness is this:
When someone comes across our path with a broken life we think first of the bad example they make and the way scripture corrects the problem, instead of thinking first of the ministry of the person before our face.
Is it only a coincidence that individuals who happen to be lordship or crossless visit here and occasionally interact? How are these people really going to have their minds changed?
The way to a man's mind is through his heart.
I wish to take these precious opportunities to affect these people for what we believe! How we share is just as important as what we share, just as a captive audience is important to those who are ready to evangelize. We go to where the need is, but in the case of people like bridget, the need is even coming to you and I.
I am afraid to even refer to her situation, because I don't understand it and want to see her come to resolution and relief and I don't want to put myself in the way of that. But I noticed a little something....
Kevl and Lou were trying to illuminate how, at least philosophically, (but perhaps not also practically) her belief in the Lordship structure of the message puts some ideals of holiness ahead of the actual progress of her husband's faith. The message has become a burden he is accustomed to bearing, illuminated in that he "doesn't see it," perhaps, or as she/he calls the situation, "faking it." She is (blamelessly) so eager to see some signs of God at work in that most important person in her life.
I understand that Lou and others associated with him have an important message in free grace, and I wouldn't want to stop you from sharing it, but again I notice that drawing the principles of your message out from your exchange seemed to be the most important activity, when rather I remember that Jesus stopped teaching when someone came to him with a need. He saw people, he dealt with the personal needs of people as people made those needs known.
It's the same arrangement of priorities both in yours and her situation.
Is this not vestigial calvinism?
I want to be free from this old methodology. People cannot be taught devoid of love. Scripture cannot be more important than God's children; the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. I've changed my mind. Before I used to think to myself,
"Well, that's your particular problem, I don't have that problem."
Now, I think:
"Your problem is now my problem too, I will try and help."
As soon as disagreement arises, and there is a problem in the holiness and idealism of the one I speak with, I seize that situation as an opportunity. An opportunity to lean on the power of grace.
I would share with bridget: Anything not borne in faith is sin. A stunning thought.... Therefore, faith is always the goal for our listeners.
My one and only sibling is almost exactly like this. A frustrating mystery. For some reason she seems to be the only one who challenges me to trust God regarding the gospel of free grace. But that's exactly why I must. I think being close to her makes it difficult on me. I know she deserves the space to grow on God's timeline. Preaching scrutiny is not preaching faith.
Summary: There is a way to be both soft-spoken and biblically accurate. We can really make free grace pop out from the monitor if we put people first.
Thank you for your evident sensitivity,
Michele
Michele:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the note and comments. I only have time for a brief reply.
I think you mostly refer to the exchange in the thread under Is Lordship Salvation a “Barter” System?
1) Many times the guest to this or any blog are interacting NOT to learn, but to promote a particular viewpoint and/or refute the thrust of an article. Such is the case with Bridget. She is steeped in Calvinism and LS. She also shares some views that are unusual, just as Art had pointed out. Bridget was not here to learn, she is trying to convince Kev, Art and I we are wrong and need correcting.
2) When you have a guest that is primarily trying to defend and/or promote his/her viewpoint, and that viewpoint is antithetical to Scripture the response must to reprove and rebuke lest an unsuspecting believer be caught up in those errors.
3) The most vocal advocates of a position like LS & the Crossless gospel are not impossible to recover, but often their conscience has been seared to the point where they will not hear truth. They build walls around their extra-biblical presuppositions and will not allow for anything from the Bible or reasoning to chip away at their position.
4) Written communication can come off as stiff, but we do our best to be charitable. Please note the passage n the banner of my blog, Col. 4:6. We speak the truth in love, and sometimes we need to shoot straight for the sake of fidelity to the Scriptures.
In my opinion the exchange was cordial and in acceptable terms. It was a refreshing departure from the kind of harshness, ultra-combativeness and vitriol that is commonplace i the posting by the extremist Crossless gospel bloggers.
Thanks for your comment.
Lou
Hi Michele & Lou,
ReplyDeleteTo add to Lou's comments what you have seen here is only part of the conversation. Things did progress slightly differently at my blog where I had the opportunity to appeal to her several times on behalf of her husband.
Lou is completely right that when someone is promoting/defending a viewpoint that is counter to Scripture that viewpoint must be shown to be in error. 2 Cor 10:5 comes to mind.
However, there is important truth in what you are saying. If a man is destroying arguments for the sake of destroying the argument... then what has he gained?
The destruction of an argument that has been raised up against the Truth of Christ leaves an open door that must then be proceeded through.
When the door was open with Bridget we did go through it. Not unexpectedly, her reaction to that was not pleasant to endure. :)
Thanks for your comments, please be encouraged that none of us men who have come together to proclaim Truth above reason are not doing so for the fight, but so that people will be saved, the Bride will be healthy and God will be Glorified.
Thanks again,
Kev
I need to start reading your blog more, Kev.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how theologies change. Remember how Bridget and I used to be so chummy and held to the same theology? If not for you I don't think I would be a gracer right now.
Praise God for you, brother.
Lou & Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe more I read along here the more I appreciate the work Lou is doing. The comment by Robb further humbles me, to see God at work through the goals you have in mind. I am especially impressed by Kevin's attitude, which I agree, was exemplifying compassion. I see her reaction as difficult to endure, too. Though I don't blame her.
Actually, I had gone over to Kevin's blog and read the whole exchange about her family before commenting.
I have a thought, again, about the substance of Lou's point #3. He referred to a problem for which I have an idea of how to deal with:
"3) The most vocal advocates of a position like LS & the Crosslessgospel are not impossible to recover, but often their conscience has been seared to the point where they will not hear truth. They build walls around their extra-biblical presuppositions and will not allow for anything from the Bible or reasoning to chip away at their position."
I love the example 2 cor. 3 gives on how we ought to write the scriptures upon our listeners. It says our goal is not to write on stone which is nonliving but upon tablets of human hearts. In the twenty-first century, we don't actually write upon rocks, or even so much upon paper. We write upon portals of two-dimensional graphical interfaces; still -- this can kill rather than give life as we are intending to do.
When we are writing only upon the internet the children of God turn their face away from the glory of scripture, because the veil that comes by reading the law is set in front of them. Their minds are made dull because they do not put in perspective the Spirit to mediate, to reveal, and the Spirit is the source of all understanding. We must first bring them to a place of freedom by the Spirit, just as Peter did in Acts 15 when they were still in the discussion phase with heresy. He said:
"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” acts 15:8-10
The Word of God is always a burden to any man who is not walking at that moment in the Spirit; it becomes a ministry of condemnation, furthering all of us from unity in Christ. But evangelicals should know well enough how to find and walk in the Spirit, so, let's get them there by what we say and what we revel in. We purify our discussions with one another when we are talking while publicly trusting in Jesus (they and we are purified in our hearts by faith).
Even though unburdening the Lordship person is your goal, when you start your conversation with such language as:
"Yeah but you must do...."
"Okay but you need to know..."
Then you are, unfortunately, acting as a Judiazer, even if the content of your message is the opposite. For this reason, when for instance Lou shares the message of "the results of salvation must NEVER be made the requirement FOR salvation," be sure to precede it by acknowledging the freedom we have from being considered inadequate, because of the cross.
I see how ironic it is, that they are more-or-less the Judiazers, yet they don't realize it, and when we try and show it to them, we too are accustomed to treating them in a Judiazing manner, troubling their consciences by the rejection of the boldness we have to come before God by good faith, not by accomplishments. However we can come before God by faith. And He can endure both theirs and our misperceptions. We, like He, must endure fellowship with the church yet patiently correct their errors.
They aren't worthy of fellowship with us just only if they believe everything we do. That's essentially promoting the very kind of error in calvinism (needing to endure to the end in order to be saved, and never really having a sense of having done enough, for security). Here is what Lou wrote of Lordship in the "Barter" thread's comments:
"Lordship’s Gospel is a promise to perform in exchange for the promise of eternal life."
When we give them a laundry list without acknowledging the Spirit we are asking them to perform, in exchange for the privilege of acceptance. We're saying that their mediator, Jesus Christ, isn't sufficient to make them clean. They aren't going to get the message we share because our message is not accompanied by an appeal to the Spirit.
"Freedom" doesn't mean that the Lordship message is irrelevant or tolerable. But when we have reminded them of the freedom that comes by the Spirit, then we are leading them to remember the very things we are trying to correct in their theology. In that freedom, there is still room for a correction or two. In Acts they conclude their message of freedom to the churches this way:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." acts 15:28-29
Using this model, we are still free to give the Lordship bunch one or two important things to be working on -- just a couple of ideals in this particular age.
There may be a time where certain members of the lordship group need to be treated like heretics. But so long as the conversation is honest even if heated, we need to be careful to show them how to see our message, which is that we are indeed saved and sanctified through faith.
Looking forward to your reaction, Michele
Michele:
ReplyDeleteBeen home a short while, very tired. My reaction will have to wait.
Sorry,
Lou
I wanted to share a quote from Roman Catholic theologian and apologist, Robert Sungenis. He writes about MacArthur:
ReplyDeleteIn order to combat what he called “antinomianism” among his opponents, MacArthur spent almost all of his 300-page work exegeting passages from the Gospels, systematically going through many of the teachings of Jesus which specified that works indeed play a large part in our standing and relationship with God. This is not surprising. Catholic theology has always maintained that the Gospels deny faith alone theology most emphatically. Yet from another perspective it is quite ironic that MacArthur chose Jesus’ teachings as his best attack against the faith alone theology of Zane Hodges. The attack on Hodges is in direct contrast to MacArthur’s most recent joint venture, Justification By Faith Alone, which is a mere 20 pages attempts to refute Catholic theology by pointing out various passages in the Gospels that teach a faith alone theology. In this attempt, MacArthur cites only four passages which he feels illustrates his point. We find it contradictory that MacArthur can amass a 300 page volume emphasizing Jesus’ teaching on works from faith, yet refrain from calling such teaching heresy. Yet he and his colleagues do not hesitate to affirm that Rome’s joining of faith and works, even under the auspices of God’s grace, is “another gospel” deserving of anathema. Like most Reformed theologians, MacArthur has found himself trying to walk the razor-thin edge between the gospel of Hodges and the gospel of Rome (Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone, 597).
It is of concern to me that a Roman Catholic theologian is finding himself comfortable with MacArthur and Lordship Salvation. When one reads Sungenis, we see that he is not only comfortable with MacArthur on the issue but with other Reformed theologians as they emphasize works so much.
One cannot avoid seeing the fact that there are similarities between MacArthur's soteriology and Rome's.
Interesting quote!
ReplyDeleteRobb and I used to talk about the similarity of Lordship Salvation to that of the Catholic Soteriology.
Kev
Liam/Kev:
ReplyDeleteThere are many who see LS as the first cousin of Roman Catholicism. At another blog I frequent one man had this to say (in the opening of a longer comment) about LS in which he draws the connection.
When one gets faith wrong and makes it a work or quality of the soul, they then must have faith as a gift of God. In order for that to happen they then need regeneration to precede faith. With that then they load all sorts of expectations upon the soul desiring to come to Christ. This is probably why MacArthur indicates one cannot be saved without “unconditional surrender…full exchange of self for the Saviour.” His subsequent books do not clarify or moderate these kinds of statements but only reinforce them.
This is wrong and an unbiblical definition of faith and what one must do to be saved. It demands certain qualities be present in the soul. That is clearly works! It is very disheartening to see people that would endorse MacArthur’s position. They should point out its errors. These are not merely over statements as in question and answer sessions. MacArthur has made his position very clear. It is not classic Calvinism, but Puritan.
He has been accused by others of bordering on a Roman Catholicism works salvation… . Of course, from MacArthur’s viewpoint, all these qualities are part of faith so he repeatedly states that “salvation is by faith alone.”
LM
“In order to combat what he called “antinomianism” among his opponents, MacArthur spent almost all of his 300-page work…”
ReplyDeleteThis is a most interesting point, I my opinion. Because of this observation of Kev’s from his latest blog entry:
“The Apostle Paul was constantly questioned, examined and reviled because he preached grace instead of law.”
One of the (many) ways Paul was reviled and persecuted was by being falsely accused of teaching antinomianism. We all know God’s favor rested on Paul’s gospel. It is important to note that one thing MacArthur, et al, are never accused of is antinomianism. However, the (sound) free gracers are accused of that regularly and, as with Paul, the accusation is false.
JanH
(BTW, thanks Lou and Kev, for your nice compliments to my comment on the other thread. Kev, I hope you get good use out of it!)
Lou, Kev and Jan,
ReplyDeleteI have a few minutes to respond. I suppose it’s your prerogative to disable the comment section on your posts guys, but I’d like to say that I certainly don’t think that this encourages discussion. I’ll admit I got heated in my last few posts on your blog Kev, but it’s very difficult not to when (from my perspective) you are advising me (and others) to encourage those who make a profession of faith to believe that all is well between them and God when it is so obviously not so. This is an extremely serious thing that affects eternal lives and is hard to deal with politely, but I apologize if my posts seemed like a personal attack.
As far as your blog, Lou, I don’t think that any of my posts on your blog were ever overly-heated or inappropriate. But again, if you want to silence people who have Calvinistic theology and only leave discussion open for people who have no firm understanding of these things and want to “find” the truth at your blog , then this is your prerogative.
I would like to give answer to Jan’s post though. I want to thank you Jan, for your thoughtful post. You are right. Faith (in its essence or nature) IS a “resting” in all that Christ accomplished on our behalf. What I should have been focusing on is not faith itself, but the “decision” or “choice” that a person makes which is "behind" the actual act of faith (believing), and how having a misunderstanding of the how and why of this “decision” or “choice” can interfere and frustrate grace. I was trying to get at this by referring to the “foundation” of one’s faith, but I was not keeping it distinct from faith, and so I appreciate your helpful remarks.
God bless,
Bridget
Bridget the change of mind to place your faith in Christ IS repentance. It is based on convincing and conviction by the Holy Spirit about Sin, Judgment, and Truth.
ReplyDeleteThat "decision" is simply repentance and it is what God requires of the Sinner.
Neither the repentance or the faith is of merit. As has been amply shown by Scripture in this thread.
Kev
Hi Bridget-
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking my post well.
I wonder if you could explain this statement:
"What I should have been focusing on is not faith itself, but the “decision” or “choice” that a person makes which is "behind" the actual act of faith (believing)"
I don't know what this means. (?)
JanH
Hi Bridget, Jan, Lou, and all,
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me introduce myself as one who has been saved for over 20 years, but into the Gospel of the Kingdom for about 11 or 12 years. I was introduced to it through a powerful book entitled "The Merismos" by Randy Shankle.
I found Jan's question to be of great interest. I understood Bridget's post to mean that her focus should have been more on the will of the individual, rather than the belief. I would comment, however, that it is the faith that allows one to bring his or her will under submission to the will of the Father. Much like Paul yielded his will after his encounter with the Lord Jesus, we submit our will after we believe that Christ died for our sins and arose again from the dead.
Bridget:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "As far as your blog, Lou, I don’t think that any of my posts on your blog were ever overly-heated or inappropriate. But again, if you want to silence people who have Calvinistic theology and only leave discussion open for people who have no firm understanding of these things and want to “find” the truth at your blog , then this is your prerogative."
IMO, there were no over-heated post in the previous thread.
You are welocme to comment here, but I will not have any threads at my blog hi-jacked and/or become a bully pulpt for Calvinism.
Last caution to you for the part in bold. One more baseless insinuation like that, and you're done here.
LM
Hi Lou,
ReplyDeleteYou said that there were no over-heated posts in the other thread, and yet you have been repeatedly warning me that you will not let this be a “bully” pulpit for Calvinism. These constant warnings make it hard for me to think you want me to continue commenting.
Jan, If you believe in “free will” I assume that you believe that behind repentance and faith is an alignment of your will to God’s command for repentance and faith. I call this a “decision” or a “choice” that you make to obey.
Kev, you might call this “decision” repentance (a changing of the mind), but you must also believe that behind that repentance is a choice you make right? Or do you believe that repentance just happens and then you choose to believe or reject the gospel? (trying to understand).
Ron, you say that submitting our wills to the Father happens “after” faith. Eph 2 says we were dead in our trespasses and sins and following Satan and our own sinful lusts. To turn from that in repentance and believe the gospel IS submitting our wills to the Father’s.
It would be really helpful if you guys would break down every step of the conversion process and explain how you believe it happens.
God bless,
Bridget
Bridget,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me the definitions of the following words:
Repent
Submit
A proper understanding of those words will clearly show that believing does not equate to submitting.
Repentance (metanoia) is a change of mind concerning sin and God. Not merely an intellectual assent to facts, but also an emotional, inward grief over and turning from sin to God that takes place by God’s grace under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
ReplyDeleteBefore repentance and faith, we were dead in sin (Eph 2). We were following the world and our own sinful lusts. We hated the light of Christ and would not come to it lest our evil deeds would be exposed (John 3). We were “slaves to sin” (Titus 3), and in the flesh we could not please God (Rom 8) Repentance is God's grace revealed in us, resulting in a change of mind and a desire to turn from our sin and idols to the Living God.
“For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” -1 Thes 1:9
Submission is an act of submitting in conduct or/and attitude.
Bridget
Well guys, I can take a hint :) But I’d just like to leave you with one final thought, Lou. I have read many of your Lordship articles and I’m fairly certain that when MacArthur says that one must be willing to turn from sin and follow Christ to be saved that he’s not looking at this the same way that you are. From what I’ve read, you look at it and see things that a person must perform “in order for” God to save him because you see these things as something man freely chooses/or chooses not to do. But I’m fairly certain that MacArthur looks at it and sees something different. Namely, that if God has chosen to save a man, this process ALWAYS includes genuine repentance (turning from sin) and faith (turning to Christ), and so without them he will not be saved. I think that clarification needs to be made.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Bridget
Bridget:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “From what I’ve read, you look at it and see things that a person must perform 'in order for' God to save him...”
That is a misunderstanding of how I portray MacArthur 's Lordship Salvation. The crux of the controversy is that LS conditions salvation on the lost man's commitment, resolve to “turn from sin,” his, “willingness to forsake everything” FOR Salvation.
That is a man centered message that corrupts "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3), frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) and looks to man's promse to perform the "good works" (Eph. 2:10) expected of a mature born again Christian.
This is works salvation and I will do all I can to resist the spread of these egregious errors, "mark" any one who spreads this false gospel so that unsuspecting believers will be forewarned to "avoid" (Rom. 16:17-18) the men and their Lordship heresy!
LM
bp,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the response. Based on your definition of repent, what happened to Judas when he repented?
Lou,
ReplyDeleteInteresting response to Bridget. I would like to talk to you more to clearly understand your perspective. I was thankful that you commented on my response on the other blog, or I may not have had the privilege of "meeting" you. Feel free to e-mail me if you prefer. ron_mosby@yahoo.com
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteThat was my Cliff's Notes for what have written on in great details for years, not just in my book. The crux of the controversy is over how the lost are born again, not necessarily what should follow salvation, which is discipleship.
I'm sure you notice at the other blog how LS sympathizers try to evade that discussion preferring to discuss what should follow salvation. They redefine our questions and comments to reply on the subject they want, which is a dodge of the crux of the controversy.
Lou
"Well guys, I can take a hint :)"
ReplyDeleteBridget, I am not sure if you are including me in "guys" but I just want to say I am not ignoring you. I have been carefully rereading all your comments from Lou and Kev's blogs and I believe I understand now what it is you are saying (I think.) I am not yet prepared to post a response (for one thing, I have only gotten part way through that Looooong comment thread on Kev's blog) but if Lou and/or general consensus does not decide the conversation has run its course, I will have something presently to post. Otherwise, I will still continue my research for my own sake.
JanH
thanks Jan :)
ReplyDeleteLou, you seem frustrated that LS adherers keep moving the focus off of what needs to be done FOR salvation to discipleship, and it seems to me that this is where a lot of the disagreement and problem lies, because we’re not looking at it from the same perspective. So let me try to show you another perspective. Let’s say that I agree with your definitions of repentance and faith as being a simple change of mind and a mental belief in Christ. Even so, it would STILL be incorrect to tell a person that they do not need to forsake sin and follow Christ to be saved, because even if you look at this as something that happens AFTER a person is “saved” (justified) before God, you agree that they WILL happen, right? And so if they DON’T happen, it’s safe to say that the person will not (in the end), be saved, right? So can you see that from this perspective it’s wrong to tell a person that they can be saved without these works “befitting repentance”? This doesn’t mean that we preach works-salvation, it just means that if one is genuinely born again, they WILL produce works, and so apart from these works they will not be saved.
ReplyDeleteBridget
oops, I forgot to answer your question Ron.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Judas’ sorrow was a godly sorrow that produces repentance that led to life, but that it was a worldly sorrow that led to death.
bridget
Good Works are prepared by God beforehand for CHRISTIANS to walk in.
ReplyDeleteNo sinner is expected to do good works.
No sinner is expected to want to do good works.
Good Works flow out of a Christian as he/she is discipled by the Holy Spirit.
Repentance is rethink, after-thought, a change of mind. It is not emotional. It is not action. It is decision.
Faith is trust. It is not emotional. It is not action. It is reliance.
Kev
I disagree with your definitions of repentance and faith. But still, wouldn’t you agree that since these works are prepared beforehand for believers to walk in, that if they are NOT walked in, then they are not true Christians and they will not (in the end) be saved?
ReplyDeletebridget
Bridget:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “…it would STILL be incorrect to tell a person that they do not need to forsake sin and follow Christ to be saved…”
Why must the lost man come to Christ for salvation with the intention to obey? Why does he “need to forsake sin and follow Christ to be saved?”
Why is Lordship’s “salvation (only) for those who are willing to forsake everything?” Why must the lost come to Christ for salvation with a whole-hearted commitment to deny-self, bear the cross and follow Christ to death if necessary?
Is God not satisfied with the finished work of Jesus Christ? Is God not satisfied with His Son’s propitiation for the sins of the whole world? Is God is not satisfied with Christ’s atoning work?
Of course God is satisfied. So, why does LS add what man must bring to God for salvation when Jesus paid it all?
Lordship Salvation is a corruption of “the simplicity that is in Christ.” Lordship Salvation is a man-centered, non-saving message that is antithetical to the biblical plan of salvation. Lordship Salvation frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
LM
God is very satisfied with the finished work of Jesus Christ. But Lou, can someone be saved apart from repentance, faith, and discipleship? Does God save in any other way? You may believe that forsaking sin and following Christ come AFTER justification, but even so, they MUST come or a person will not ultimately be saved.
ReplyDeleteBridget
Bridget:
ReplyDeleteDo I suggest anywhere that the lost can be saved apart from faith and/or repentance? No. (BTW, I rejects Lordship's extra-biblical definitions of both of these doctrines.)
No one is eternally saved or kept saved by promising to do or actually doing the works of discipleship.
Your note above convinces me that you are holding to and propagating a false works-based message.
Your view that, “forsaking sin MUST come or a person will not ultimately be saved,” is the first cousin of Roman Catholicism.
LM
No one is eternally saved or kept saved by promising to do or actually doing the works of discipleship.
ReplyDeleteI’m not at all saying that anyone is saved BY promising to do or actually doing the works of discipleship Lou, but that IF someone has repented and trusted in Christ and is justified before God, they WILL go on to be a disciple of Christ, following Him and turning from sin, which obviously means that if they do not, then they will not ultimately be saved.
Your view that, “forsaking sin MUST come or a person will not ultimately be saved,” is the first cousin of Roman Catholicism.
So you think that a person can repent, trust Christ and never forsake sin or follow Christ?
bridget
Bridget that is what's called a False Dilemma
ReplyDeleteKev
I did go to the link and read it but I'm not sure I understand how it applies. Can you explain?
ReplyDeletebridget
A false dilemma is a logical fallacy employed by those seeking to control an argument by limiting the possible answers to a question.
ReplyDeleteYou stated that because Lou (rightly) says "forsaking sin MUST come or a person will not ultimately be saved" is the "first cousin of Roman Catholicism" the only possible way he could make that statement is if he thinks a person can "repent, trust Christ and never forsake sin or follow Christ"
You have decided an answer for him that you think you can argue against instead of allowing for all the possible positions that Lou might have.
Hence you have limited the number of answers to a weaker position to make your argument appear stronger and that is a False Dilemma Fallacy.
Kev
I guess I didn’t realize there was another possible position. If he doesn’t agree with my statement that forsaking of sin MUST happen or a person will not ultimately be saved, I’m not sure how he could still agree with me that a person cannot repent, trust Christ and never forsake sin or follow Christ. What is the other position?
ReplyDeleteHere is my take on the false dilemma, which appears in my book.
ReplyDeleteLordship advocates I have read leave no room for the possibility of a balanced position on the gospel. They consistently use the term “Easy-Believism” in reference to any gospel presentation that falls short of the Lordship requirements. Time and again Lordship advocates will claim they are answering the Easy-Believism gospel that is found in some circles. They will not see that many preach and teach a gospel message that balances faith and repentance. One writer explains the shortcomings of the Lordship advocate’s lack of balance in definitions:
The student of logic will spend some time studying fallacies. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Those who advocate the lordship salvation position see only the mental assent or “easy believism” position as an alternative. Likewise those who hold to Hodges’ mental assent position decry all others as advocates of lordship salvation… There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation.
In his review of The Gospel According to Jesus, Dr. Ernest Pickering writes about saving faith:
A number of times, in various ways, this emphasis is given. Saving faith is “more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing,” (The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 31). We do not know any fundamental preachers of the gospel who would disagree with that statement. We have never heard any reputable gospel preacher ever teach otherwise. The old Scofield Bible declared that “faith is personal trust, apart from meritorious works, in the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 1,302 Scofield Bible). The Ryrie Study Bible declares, “Both Paul and James define faith as a living, productive trust in Christ” (note on James 2:14).
LM
Ok, I understand what a false dilemma is now, but I still don’t understand how it applies to our discussion.
ReplyDeleteWhether you think repentance and faith = turning from sin and following Christ or whether you think this comes later, the fact is, it does come. And so if it doesn’t come, it’s proof there was no repentance and faith, and the person will ultimately not be saved. Therefore you can not tell people they can be saved apart from these works. You can tell them they are not saved “by” these works, but not that they can be saved apart from them.
What are the other possibilities I’m not seeing?
Bridget
works are not proof of repentance and faith.
ReplyDeleteWorks are proof of the effectual working of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer - Heb 12.
That a person is not doing good works is not proof they are not saved, it is proof they are not abiding, maintaining fellowship, or walking in the Spirit.
They may or may not be saved. The works do not prove or disprove salvation. If they did then most of the NT simply does not make sense.
You have sat under teachers who specialize in false dilemma teaching and you have soaked up what they say. You are not used to being critical of what they say and noticing these things in their arguments. I have seen the effects of this in your conversations with me. I hope you will begin to see this soon.
Kev
Bridget:
ReplyDeleteKev wrote this to you, “You have sat under teachers who specialize in false dilemma teaching and you have soaked up what they say. You are not used to being critical of what they say and noticing these things in their arguments. I have seen the effects of this in your conversations with me. I hope you will begin to see this soon.”
I'm not trying to pile on, but Kev is right. Many LS sympathizers I have interacted with over the last 20 years simply follow the line of argumentation they soak up from men like john MacArthur. These start out assuming MacArthur is right then in mantra like fashion they use the same false dilemma argumentation MacArthur uses and not even taking the time to see if there might be another answer to LS.
On a related note: In the last 3 months I have been discussion LS with two men who are very passionate and aggressive about defending and promoting LS. They are especially sensitive to any criticism of anything written on LS by MacArthur. They have repeatedly told me that I misrepresent MacArthur, and this is in read to posting actual statements by JM from his own books.
Now, here is the kicker. Until this week they have NEVER read any of JM’s LS books. They just decided that because it s JM who teaches LS it MUST be right. One of them got the book yesterday and before he read past the preface he says again, that JM is being misrepresented.
LM
works are not proof of repentance and faith.
ReplyDeleteWorks are proof of the effectual working of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer - Heb 12.
So if works are “proof” of the effectual working of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t that mean that if there are no works that this is proof of no effectual working of the Holy Spirit? And if there is no effectual working of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t this mean we never truly repented and trusted Christ, and that we won’t be saved? I’m not quite getting how you can say one without the others. Maybe this is where you say the "false dilemma" comes in, but I'm just not seeing another possibility. Can you show me the other possibility by using my own words?
That a person is not doing good works is not proof they are not saved, it is proof they are not abiding, maintaining fellowship, or walking in the Spirit.
But John 15: 5 and 8 say, “Whoever abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit……By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.”
And verse 6 “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.”
b.
Lou, I don't know everything JM teaches, but from what I have read I haven't seen anything I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteBridget
bp:
ReplyDeleteTry reading this Summary of LS.
As you read it remember JM is talking about how the unsaved are to be born again, NOT what should follow being born again.
LM
He is thrown away like a branch.
ReplyDeleteAnd the branches are gathered...
He is not burned, the branches are.
In Greek their must be agreement in both number and gender. What is cast into the fire are the "branches" not the one who does not abide.
But he is outside of fellowship. This is what you will read about in 1 John. And it is what you will read about in Paul's writings as well. If you do not abide, or walk in the Spirit you will not produce fruit. You will not grow.
The parable of the Sower each see sprung to life, but some didn't produce all that much did they? Does God give life and then take it away?
Can you show me the other possibility by using my own words?
Using your words? Sorry I don't understand.
Anther possibility is that Christians are not always perfect. I have yet to meet one who is Perfectly Sinless and so I have never met a Christian who was not in a state of rebellion at some level. The possibility is that a Christian may drift out of fellowship and become unfruitful. That is why we are told to restore such a one as that. Not to get them saved but restore them.
Maturity and fruitfulness flow out of fellowship. Abiding. Submitting. Growing.
Work is required of the trained worker not the one who is in School.
Kev
He is thrown away like a branch.
ReplyDeleteAnd the branches are gathered...
He is not burned, the branches are.
In Greek their must be agreement in both number and gender. What is cast into the fire are the "branches" not the one who does not abide.
“If anyone does not abide in Me, HE is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them (the branches , which HE is one of) and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” THEY obviously refers to HE and any others who do not abide in Him. If you interpret this to mean the fruitless one is cast out of fellowship and withers, what do the branches represent?
The parable of the Sower each see sprung to life, but some didn't produce all that much did they? Does God give life and then take it away?
In the parable of the sower, the one sown on good soil was the only one which produced good fruit. “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”-Matt 7:19-20
bridget
Anther possibility is that Christians are not always perfect. I have yet to meet one who is Perfectly Sinless and so I have never met a Christian who was not in a state of rebellion at some level.
ReplyDeleteUsing your words? Sorry I don't understand.
But I’m not talking about perfection. I didn’t say that works would be perfect, so saying that people can drift is not another legitimate possibility. From what I understand, a false dilemma is when someone presents two sides to something without recognizing other possibilities. So if my two sides are 1) That a true believer WILL produce works (we are all in agreement with this), and 2) therefore we cannot tell people they can (in the end) be saved apart from works (though we can tell them they’re not saved BY works), we can’t say another possibility is that the Christian may drift because we’ve already both agreed that works will be manifest (and we both agree not perfectly).
b.
Btw, I'll read that summary Lou. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteGreat...leave your notes, if any, in that thread.
ReplyDeleteLou
“If anyone does not abide in Me, HE is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them (the branches , which HE is one of)
ReplyDeleteYou missed the words "as a" there. He does not become a branch. A saved person, someone "in" Christ can not loose their salvation..... we can not be burned.
cast out and is withered, the branches are gathered and burnt.
this matches every other time the Lord speaks on this subject....
In the parable of the sower, the one sown on good soil was the only one which produced good fruit.
Actually that parable doesn't talk about the quality of the fruit at all. It doesn't say good or bad fruit. It speaks of a "crop" Mat 13:3-9 You might see that some of these "withered" as well. The only ones that did not have life are those that fell by the wayside. All the rest grew. Had life.
Kev
In order to be saved must a person do works?
ReplyDeleteWell here I am at last, way way waaaaaaayyyyy over due!! My apologies for taking so long to respond, Bridget. I had a lot to sift through and then I couldn't decide what was really the main thing just now. As it is, I suspect I am a bit behind. But here it is anyway. There were two main themes that I saw in your posts. The faith is a work issue, which I already commented on. And this one about being saved:
ReplyDelete(These quotes are Bridget's from the comments to Kev’s blog post The Power of God to Salvation at On My Walk, July 8, 2008.)
But do you realize that the Bible speaks of salvation in terms of “having been saved” (conversion), in terms of “being saved” (continual perseverance in faith), and in terms of “will be saved?” (glorified).
I keep hearing from you guys that we are constantly talking about what "results" from faith instead of what one has to do to be saved, and I know it seems that way, but I really AM talking about what one must do to be saved.[My bold, not Bridget’s] Because when you ask what a person must do to be saved, you are "meaning" what does a person need to do to be "justified", but I'm looking at it from a three-pronged perspective:
-Unless you endure to the end you will not be finally saved. [My bold, not Bridget’s]
-Unless you are producing works in keeping with repentence you are not being saved [My bold, not Bridget’s]
-And unless you have repented and trusted in Christ for the forgivenss of your sins, you have not "been saved."
I cannot tell how you mean these in any other way than being justified. The descriptions do not automatically require a different interpretation. In fact, I can’t find a different interpretation than justification for these three prongs. You have told us how you want us to understand you, but it would have been much easier if you would just say something like, “We are saved at conversion after which the Holy Spirit works in us to will and do His good pleasure until we are finished with this life and go home to glory.” But this is not what you say at all. It is not really the two end points at issue. It is the middle point that makes your framing seem Arminian. It comes across as something similar to the Catholic Mass. On the one hand, Christ died on the cross, which is a done deal. But on the other hand, it is not a done deal at all because they keep re-sacrificing Him over and over again. Here we have on the one hand, a person who has trusted in Christ for salvation, yet is still in need of “being saved.” And again, on the one hand his salvation is secure and certain, but on the other it is not, because without works he is not being saved and so will not be saved in the end. This insistence on framing working as “being saved” has only one natural interpretation- works are necessary FOR salvation. You have tried to say works are necessary BECAUSE OF being saved. But this hasn't really worked. On the contrary, the way you frame salvation it actually does sound very Arminian. I know you don’t mean it to, but it does. The only way you squeak out of being called an Arminian is because you assign the doing of these things to God, not yourself. But the problem is still there- the absence of assurance because of the denial of rest in Christ due to the need of working for being saved.
Further, it is certainly not true that the presence of fruit in the life is the main indicator of whether a person is saved. As Kev said, if you trust Christ, you know you do. One thing that concerns me about all this emphasis on works and whether there are works present is that constantly looking at one’s works/fruit can become a block on the road to maturity in Christ. The reason is that the believer is forever relying on sight rather than faith. If one is in such doubt that he must resort to the sight based method of examining fruit, well, that is better than nothing and will do in a pinch, but God will not have this be the believer’s perpetual norm. Not only is it not the God intended standard, it is entirely possible that God may even cause the believer to see no fruit at all for a time and, in fact, nothing but his own sin. He would do this for 2 reasons: He wants us to understand our sinful condition and that in our flesh dwells no good thing; He wants us to look to our Savior (which requires faith) and not to ourselves (or the evidences of God’s working in us, which requires sight) and trust Him in all things because of what He has said and not what we see Him doing, and trust ourselves in nothing. He wants us to understand we are saved because He said so, not because we can see so. This is illustrated by George Zeller (that guy you don’t like who you say misrepresents Calvinism. Sorry, but he did put it best.) Here is his personal testimony of assurance:
I knew that all a person needed to do to be saved was believe on the Lord Jesus Christ but I wasn’t sure I had really done that, though I believed I really had. My problem was that I was looking at my faith instead of looking at my Saviour. Finally I claimed full assurance of salvation and I wrote the following in the front cover of my Bible: (First I wrote out John 5:24 in full) "This night I claim–on the basis of the Word of God–full assurance of my salvation (May 17, 1970). I know that if I should die this very hour, I would go to heaven. I know this because I trust only in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to save me. It was His death on the cross which made it possible for me to be saved. I thank God for the gift of eternal life, and I thank Him for saving me (signed George Zeller)." This was about one year after I was saved. My assurance was not based on evidences in my life or my own personal fruitfulness. It was based on the Person and work of Jesus Christ. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/departff.htm
In short, it is not a good thing to need to look to works to assure you of your salvation. I am not saying works will not be there or will not be evident. And while it is true that a complete and total absence of works could indicate an unsaved state (it could be other things as well. For one thing, there may be fruit in the heart of someone that you are unaware of. Or the person could be a seriously bruised reed or come from an extremely difficult background that might make it hard to discern whether the Lord is working in them.), I would not take such absence as a certainty that they were not saved. I realize that if you do not believe there are two natures in a believer you really would not have much other choice but to conclude that an apparent absence of works/fruit would mean an unsaved state. But for those of us who do, we can see quite a few other options.
I will really try to be more timely in my responses next time!
JanH
You missed the words "as a" there. He does not become a branch. A saved person, someone "in" Christ can not loose their salvation..... we can not be burned.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a saved person cannot lose their salvation, which is why this is an unsaved person. The words, “as a” actually only prove my point because it is referring to this person “as a” branch and the branches are burned. This is so straight-forward kev. I just don’t know how it can be twisted to mean anything else. If you believe that this person is referred to as a branch but they are not the branches that will burn, then what are the branches?
Actually that parable doesn't talk about the quality of the fruit at all. It doesn't say good or bad fruit. It speaks of a "crop" Mat 13:3-9 You might see that some of these "withered" as well. The only ones that did not have life are those that fell by the wayside. All the rest grew. Had life.
In the parable of the soils in Mark 4:19 Jesus describes the seed that was sown among the thorns as becoming “unfruitful”, and the seed sown on stony ground as having no roots and so they endure only for a short time (which means they die, as plants do when there is no root). Matt 7:19 says that every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. This is clearly saying that only fruit-bearing trees and fruitful crops live, the rest are thrown into the fire. Not because anyone lost their salvation but because an unfruitful person is not a Christian.
b.
In order to be saved must a person do works?
ReplyDeleteDoes God not sanctify?
Does the sanctification process not manifest works?
Then if a person "says" they trust Christ and they live and die w/out these works, will they be saved? No they will not.
And I think that's why my interpretation of “What good is it brothers, if someone has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” No it cannot" is the right Scriptural interpretation.
We are not saved “by” our works, but we are not saved apart from them either. Because our faith is demonstrated by our works and if we have no works, we have no faith
“Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works”.
b.
Lou, I've read the summary and I will try to write a comment and leave it in that thread. I definately have thoughts on it.
ReplyDeleteJan, I haven't read your comment yet. Have you ever thought of getting a publisher? j/k. I know, I know, I've left some pretty long ones too. :) This is hard answering 3 or 4 people though. I should get some of my bbc friends to come on and help out :)
bridget
Bridget, I am in no position to say anything other than take your time. :)
ReplyDeleteJanH
(Publisher. Hehehe.)
Bridget, yes or no. Does a person have to do works to be saved?
ReplyDeleteAnd if you would just read the rest of James 2 you would see the GRAVE error you have on it. James is talking about being saved from judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ. He is comparing the Royal Law (Mosaic) with the Law of Liberty (Grace, Law of Christ, Spirit..). He is using the surity of Judgment under the Royal Law to explain the surity of Judgment (loss of reward) at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is NOT about Eternal Salvation.. how could it be? Unless Scripture does have errors.
Can Faith Without Works Save You? I have linked you to this before.
Kev
Graceful post Jan.
ReplyDeleteKev
Hi Jan,
ReplyDeleteI’m actually not speaking of all three in terms of justification. In Scripture salvation is spoken of in terms of “the already but not yet”. It uses the past tense in terms of justification, (“It is by grace we have been saved”-Eph 2:8). It uses the present tense in terms of sanctification (“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”- 1 Cor 1:18), and it uses the future tense in terms of glorification (“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”-Rom 5:9-10)
So yes, our salvation is secure once we are justified. In-fact, 1 Tm 1:9 that this was given to us in Christ before time began, and 1 Peter 1:5 says it is “kept secure by God’s power through faith, ready to be revealed in the last time.” So if we are true believers, this faith will continue steadfast (which is why Paul could say, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”--He was not some Super Saint. GOD preserved him). Our security isn’t in ourselves, but in the righteousness of Christ, which we need every day, not just when we first believe, and that’s why all of the warnings are in Scripture, because persevering faith is the only way to reach final salvation.
Bridget
Bridget, yes or no. Does a person have to do works to be saved?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what you mean by “have to do”. If you mean do they have to do them to help “earn” their salvation, then no. But if you mean do they have to do them because if they’re a Christian God prepared them before hand to do, then yes.
I know you think I'm talking about what happens "AFTER" salvation again, but kev, If a person confesses faith in Christ, and they live their life without these works, when they die they will not be saved.
And as far as James 2 is concerned, I just cannot read into it what you’re saying. Yes, James does talk about being judged under the law of liberty. But he very plainly says that “judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy.” And same with faith without works is dead. It doesn’t say that faith without works means you don’t get a reward, it says it’s DEAD. Just like the dead branches that bear no fruit and the dead seed that proves unfruitful.
bridget
Kev,
ReplyDeleteSorry this post is so late. I tried before, but I guess it didn't post. You asked "Bridget, yes or no. Does a person have to do works to be saved?" The answer is yes. In order to understand that, you first must understand that salvation is not an instantaneous event, but it is a process. So, I have been saved (Rom. 10:9-10), I am being saved (Phil 2:12), and I will be saved (Matt. 24:13). This is why one cannot try to use individual Scriptures to create a doctrine or philosophy. If I understand that the Word of God is one, then I have no problem saying that works is part of my salvation. Notice that Jesus never commanded us to save people, He commanded us to make disciples. I understand that works will not earn my salvation, but the works that I do are the fruit of my salvation.
Now I understand that the word "works" here is not clearly defined. Clearly, Jesus told us "for without me ye can do nothing." (John 15:5) So, without Him, any works are dead works. However, there must be some evidence of my salvation, and that would be the works that I do such that others can see and glorify God.
Our security isn’t in ourselves, but in the righteousness of Christ, which we need every day, not just when we first believe, and that’s why all of the warnings are in Scripture, because persevering faith is the only way to reach final salvation.
ReplyDeleteBut Bridget, here’s the thing: It sounds like you are saying two different things. First you say our security is…in the righteousness of Christ, but then you say persevering faith is the only way to reach final salvation. I would certainly agree with your first point. But because of that I would then say having been saved is why we will reach final salvation. {I agree there is the aspect of being saved and that aspect is sanctification (though I am not sure I would define it as you have) and that that will happen in at least some measure in a truly saved person.} I know you agree with this but this is not what you focus on. You’ve still got the person looking at whether he is being saved to judge whether he has been saved and will be saved. So there is still no security and he must walk by sight. I could live with what you are saying if you put things in the order that allowed the person to rest in Christ’s finished work, and reliance on faith rather than sight was left in tact. If you said something like, “my expectation of being saved (sanctification) and that I will be saved in the end (glorified) is based on the fact that I have been saved by trusting Christ for salvation” (leaving aside for now how it is you came to trust) or something similar, I would leave you alone on this point. But as it is I hear you saying, “I judge that I have been saved and will be saved because I see that I am being saved now.” Do you see what I mean? Here is what I am talking about from the two first quotes:
“…in terms of “being saved” (continual perseverance in faith),” and “-Unless you endure to the end you will not be finally saved.” This is very misleading and causes the hearer to assume it is the perseverance and endurance that brings about their final salvation, when in fact their final salvation was actually accomplished already at the time of belief and the sanctification (I am not quite sure I would call it perseverance) and glorification are the guaranteed results of that. When you say they must persevere and endure to the end, it strongly implies an uncertainty and is the enemy of faith. Worse, it could even (easily!) cause an uncertain and fearful person to start trying to perform works in order to prove to themselves that they are saved. Now, maybe they are saved and maybe they aren’t. If they aren’t saved, then they aren’t being saved no matter how hard they work. (I know you agree with that.) If they are saved, then they are relying on what they can see rather than the fact that Jesus died for them and they have trusted Him for salvation. But the point is they will look to the works for evidence they are saved and seek to draw their security from that (which is especially awful if they don’t have any grounds for security because of being unsaved.)
As I understand it, this was something the Puritans struggled with. Because they held to Limited Atonement (or Particular or Definite Atonement, if you prefer), and they believed that God would allow (or cause?) some non elect people to think Christ had died for them -even though He hadn’t- the better to show His judgment on them. So they suffered with the idea that their believing was not necessarily valid since maybe they didn’t have a Savior to believe in and their possibly false belief was actually an indication of God’s condemnation! These poor folks couldn’t look to their Savior since maybe they didn't have one, so they had to look for evidences in their lives to see if the Spirit was producing works in them which kept them in a constant state of anxiety and fear. And really, if you don’t know Jesus died for you or that you are one of the “fixed and unalterable” number of the elect and you are forced to look to works as your only hope of assurance, just how much works is going to be enough to satisfy the aching soul? I think that’s one of the saddest things I had ever heard. I am not saying you hold to this yourself. I am just saying this is a consequence of this kind of thing, intended or not. But Jesus tells the weary and heavy laden to come unto Him and find rest for their souls. Obviously, this is not rest for the soul.
JanH
Graceful post Jan.
ReplyDeleteKev
Thanks Kev! :)
Hi Jan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. You covered a lot of ground, so I'll try to respond to some main things.
This is very misleading and causes the hearer to assume it is the perseverance and endurance that brings about their final salvation when in fact their final salvation was actually accomplished already at the time of belief and the sanctification (I am not quite sure I would call it perseverance) and glorification are the guaranteed results of that
Jan, how can our “final” salvation be accomplished at the time of belief? The word itself means “in the end”, and that is exactly when our “final salvation” is accomplished.
Final
–adjective
Pertaining to or coming at the end; last in place, order, or time: the final meeting of the year.
But I do know what you’re trying to say. YES, we are justified before God by His grace, at the moment of faith in Christ, and our eternal security and inheritance is SET. But it doesn't end there. 1 Peter 1 says that through Christ, the Father has begotten us “to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, WHO ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD THROUGH FAITH FOR SALVATION READY TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME.”
So while it is TRUE that perseverance and glorification are “results” of justification, it is ALSO true that because God ALWAYS keeps a person through perseverance of faith, they MUST persevere!
...I'm going to break this into two cuz it's so long :)
ReplyDeleteWhen you say they must persevere and endure to the end, it strongly implies an uncertainty
The REASON it sounds uncertain is because for those who say they have repented and trust in Christ and DON’T persevere, IT IS uncertain! These warnings are to WAKE PEOPLE UP who (in regards to their own salvation) are internally feeling “PEACE, PEACE” when there is NO PEACE. This is a “means” God uses to bring people to genuine repentance and faith. But if we help people feel at peace (like the false prophets of old), when there is no peace, we AID in their destruction.
Look at all the warnings throughout the NT. Warning after warning after warning. WHY? 1 John was written ONLY to encourage the saints and make them feel secure and assured? Then why all the WARNINGS? To show christians they can lose their rewards? NO, these are warnings to show a person what it looks like to be born again and have eternal life abiding in us. These warnings are about LIFE AND DEATH.
“If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.” (2:29)
“Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (3:15)
“If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (2:15)
Bridget
Lou, I tried to post at your other thread but it won't let me. :(
ReplyDeleteBridget
The word itself means “in the end”, and that is exactly when our “final salvation” is accomplished.
ReplyDeleteI would say this is when our final salvation is realized, as in revealed/fully experienced, because I see that our current position in Christ is not our current condition. Our standing in Christ is indeed accomplished. Our state does not bear this out in this life. I would not use the word "accomplished" as you use it for reasons I have already stated.
As for the warnings you mention and whether they pertain to rewards or salvation itself, as for me, that is a part of all this I am not settled on. You'll have to continue that debate with Kev. However, one thing I do know, whatever the warnings refer to, the implications do not allow a born again person to come into doubt about their salvation because their salvation is already accomplished, though not yet fully realized until the rapture. I have already listed some of the possible results of the kind of reasoning that says otherwise.
Additionally, while your point about making people feel at peace when there is no peace is well taken, there is the other aspect of making people feel at peace when there is no peace due to their confidence in their works that I would urge you not to dismiss. This is a very real concern.
And now I will observe the excellent point you made about long posts.:)
Following this is another post with an account from my own life on Lordship Salvation.
JanH
At my old church I was one of three women who were responsible for choosing what VBS package we were going to use. One year as the three of us were reviewing the available packages we came to a package put out by a Southern Baptist group (I forget which one) that had a lot of potential. We liked the theme and the music was fantastic. We were all leaning toward that package when the VBS director started looking through the class lessons and papers the children would receive. She blew the whole thing out of the water when she asked, "Where is the gospel? This last lesson is on the Rich Young Ruler but there's no gospel here." Well, I had noticed that throughout the video presentation the two MCs kept referring to the need to accept Christ as Savior...AND LORD. This was their emphasis, not mine. They would even draw it out, "AAAAAANNNDDD LLLLOOOORRRRDDDD!!!!" I didn't know a whole lot about Lordship Salvation at that time, except that it has some Southern Baptist connections and that the Lordship of Christ is emphasized so I did suspect this was what was being taught. But I was not ready for the VBS director's comment that the saving gospel was not even present in the materials! When I suggested to her that this package was teaching Lordship Salvation, she didn't even know what that was. Now just imagine all the kids who made a decision to forsake all and follow Jesus as Lord just as the Rich Young Ruler was entreated to do- who never even heard of His sacrifice on the cross for them! They are already producing works, but they are not saved. Now what if they continue to produce works throughout their lives? And what if they get involved in a church that emphasizes that works are how you know you are saved? So there they are working from childhood and continuing to work into adulthood believing they are saved because they forsook all and followed Jesus as Lord, and then they die and......then what?
ReplyDeleteBridget, My argument with you is not that works are not going to be evident in a saved person or even that the complete and total absence of works should be dismissed as irrelevant because somewhere along the line the person made some profession of faith. (Honestly, I don't think anyone in this discussion has said or intended to imply this.) What I am entreating you to do is recognize that there are pitfalls to your view that are very real and very serious, even to the point of the actual saving gospel message being left out. Please don't dismiss these because of the warning passages.
JanH
You make very good points Jan. For one, it is an incredibly serious thing to leave out the gospel because without Christ and the gospel, we have no hope whatsoever! And so I agree there are pitfalls that need to be avoided (there will always be those who misrepresent the truth).
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right about one of the dangers of looking at works that cannot be dismissed. Namely that a person will look to works TO save them, and will work harder in the flesh instead of looking at them as evidences that God (through Christ) HAS saved them, IS keeping them, and finally WILL save them.
But also, on the other hand, is the danger that a person will go through life not looking at themselves to see if there are evidences of being a new creature in Christ at all or will dismiss it if there aren't because they mentally believe the facts of the gospel and so they presume that they’re saved and don’t doubt it (that’s my husband).
I realize too that there is a danger at the other end, that sensitive Christians who are incredibly aware of their sin may have a difficult time seeing ANY signs of saving faith in their lives. Like I said before, there is the danger of presumption on one end (I don't doubt it even when there are no evidences), and despair on the other (I'm always doubting it). So we need to be sensitive to this and encourage the doubting who show evidences and warn the ones who show none. Besides, if a person is overly worried about not having any evidences of new life, this itself is a sign they are sensitive of sin, which is an evidence of new life. :)
FOR salvation, we look away from self to Christ. For evidences OF salvation, we examine ourselves.
Bridget
Besides, if a person is overly worried about not having any evidences of new life, this itself is a sign they are sensitive of sin, which is an evidence of new life. :)
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true. The thing is, they almost always need someone to point that out to them as they are too consumed to understand that on their own.
For one, it is an incredibly serious thing to leave out the gospel because without Christ and the gospel, we have no hope whatsoever!
This is a concern to me because I have noticed that that seems to happen on occasion with Lordship preachers that they leave out the gospel. I am sure they do this inadvertently, but it does seem to happen from time to time. They are so intent on addressing the change of life that comes with salvation that they can forget about what message brings salvation in the first place! At least, they do if their intent is to preach the gospel, per se. This is why I asked my original question about John MacArthur's quotes under Lou's Barter System post. I really do want to know if these quotes do represent the Lordship gospel in a nutshell or whether they are some kind of supplementary teaching aimed at Christians. MacArthur has made other such omissions elsewhere too. For example, there is a YouTube video of MacArthur and Kirk Cameron that is basically Cameron's testimony and MacArthur's comments. I truly cannot tell if this video is supposed to be evangelical or what because the cross is not mentioned. What Kirk was before he was saved and what he has become since were pretty much the whole thing. I am not complaining that Cameron is saved but I am confused about what their point was. Here is another thing MacArthur allegedly said (I can't verify it as it was at a church meeting about 20 years ago. I suppose if I wanted to I could get a copy of it from the source.):
"Let me just say simply, that when you present the gospel, all of this Lordship discussion aside, a presentation of the gospel is simply this: you are calling on someone to TURN FROM THEIR SIN and FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST. That’s it! Turn from your sin and follow Jesus Christ!....That is all we are asking: TURN FROM YOUR SIN AND FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST....What you talk to an adult about is the same thing you tell a child: you need to turn from your sin and follow Jesus Christ" (Caps in the transcription, not mine.)
If that is indeed what he said, then that is consistent with the VBS that didn't have the gospel in it. I understand that MacArthur does not intentionally discount the cross. I have read his tract on the GTY website and it does clearly discuss the death of Christ. It seems what happens sometimes is he can't focus on two things at once and he chooses the discipleship gospel instead of the cross gospel.
On the other hand, there is another YouTube video by a Fundamentalist pastor in New Jersey who is not Lordship that is unmistakably the gospel. Even the title is the gospel: "Christ Our Passover Sacrificed for Us." And that's exactly what he preaches. No confusion about what he is getting at.
And Bridget, on a more personal note, I just want to tell you I am very sorry about the situation with your husband. That must be incredibly painful. I have been praying for him since I read about it on Kev's blog.
JanH
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the point has been made. Some will say that Salvation is 'by grace through faith' and 'apart from works' and others will not.
ReplyDeleteSalvation is decided at the moment of Justification. 1 Cor 15:1-2 Our faith can not be in the results of this because in order to BE saved one must first have faith. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. Period.
Those who believe that Salvation is dependent on works - no matter what twisting of language is used - preach in direct opposition with what Christ preached, and what each and every one of the Apostles preached.
The sinner need do no work, nor pledge to do any work to be saved. What must I "do" to be saved? Believe.
I will submit to the plain Text of God's own Word. I need not add to what He has seen fit to write for me to learn from.
Kev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteYou said "I will submit to the plain Text of God's own Word. I need not add to what He has seen fit to write for me to learn from." I find this an interesting quote. Do you submit to all of God's Word? If you do, then you submit to working out your salvation with fear and trembling, correct?
Yes Ron I do.
ReplyDeleteKev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteThank you! Why, then, would you need to work out that which is already done?
Thank you! Why, then, would you need to work out that which is already done?
ReplyDeleteI had some small hope that you were not going to take up the cause of word games...
I suggest that you take whatever meaning you have for the words "work out" and write it out and see if it makes sense.
Ps 2:10-12 might make for interesting reading.
Mark 5:25-34 might be interesting too.
1 Cor 2:1-5 is Paul using this phrase again.
But a parallel thought from Paul on a different subject can be found in Eph 6:5-8
Fear and trembling, knowing what has been done for you.
work out (whatever this might mean) your salvation (what has been done for you) in fear and trembling.
Be less cryptic if you want me to play along.
Kev
Kev,
ReplyDeleteI have neither reason nor need to be cryptic. We are two brothers in the faith having a serious discussion about some doctrine someone has created. I have made it clear from the beginning that I follow truth, not man's doctrine. At some point in time, someone took the process of salvation and made it a doctrine. What is more, Jesus did not command us to save people, he commanded us to make disciples. I understand that salvation, which is free, is a step in that discipleship process. You will notice that my concern is not whether salvation or eternal life is free. My concern is that you and/or others extract this from the rest of the Bible and create a doctrine or denomination from it. I have stated that the Bible is one Word, as intricately and finely woven as the robe Jesus wore. The Word of God is not a quilt, made up of patches. So, I am sorry that in your defense of your position, you incorrectly interpreted my reason for asking you the question.
Kev, let me ask this in another way - do you believe that salvation is simply one step in a process of becoming a disciple?
The word "salvation" much like "repentance" needs to be seen in the context it is being used it.
ReplyDeleteEternal Life is securely given in an instant.
Sanctification (sometimes called salvation) is a process - although we are "sanctified" or set apart for the Lord in an instant as well.
Maturity, or "being conformed" is a lifelong process that is subsequent to Salvation (that instant rebirth into eternal life) that can only be accomplished in someone who is saved. But our Salvation is not dependent on our maturity.
Yes I believe that God works in our lives.... Heb 12. This does not change the fact that the Sinner neither has to do, nor pledge willingness to do, works.
Kev
Yes, that's true. The thing is, they almost always need someone to point that out to them as they are too consumed to understand that on their own.
ReplyDeleteHi Jan,
That’s why it’s so important for the body to rally around each other and encourage, warn etc. “Let the word of God dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom.”
And I agree again with you about the gospel. I have a friend who goes to another church and she said she and her husband are so frustrated that the pastor is always talking about “behavior”, about what they should be doing as Christians, etc. This may be hard to believe, but our pastor doesn’t do this.
I remember when I first starting going here and I was fresh into the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron teachings, which I think you’re right, they are sometimes prone to lose sight of the centrality of the gospel AND the centrality of grace, and at the time, it kind of frustrated me that he didn’t talk more about behavior, but now I understand that there is no boasting in behavior because God’s grace in christ is the basis for everything we have. Jesus dealt with issues of the heart, which is what our Pastor does deal with, but the gospel is ALWAYS central. It undergirds everything!
Bridget
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesorry for the deletions, but I wanted to highlight something.
ReplyDeleteKev,
Scripture speaks of salvation in terms of having “been saved”, of “being saved” and of “will be saved”, but if you want to speak of it only in terms of having “been saved” that’s your prerogative, but it’s not Scriptural.
The verses in Romans that speak of being saved “apart” from works are speaking in terms of justification.
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”-Rom 3:28.
“Just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works.”-Rom 4:6
Those whom God justifies, He also sanctifies, which WILL produce visible works, so apart from these works a person will not be saved because they never were. So for the hundredth time, we cannot tell a person they will ultimately be saved apart from works. (I think you’re right, I AM starting to sound like a recorder :)
Bridget
Oh, and honestly Kev, your comparison of LS adherers to Mormons is unbelievable. I guess it doesn’t matter how many times someone says
ReplyDeleteWE DON'T LOOK TO OUR WORKS FOR SALVATION, WE LOOK TO OUR WORKS AS EVIDENCE OF SALVATION
and
WORKS DON'T SAVE, BUT A PERSON WHO HAS SAVING FAITH WORKS
…you will just continue the mantra that we’re trusting in our works to save us. :(
…you will just continue the mantra that we’re trusting in our works to save us. :(
ReplyDeleteDefinition of mantra.
Can you please show me where I have repeatedly said that you are trusting in your works to save you?
You believe your goodness is part of the equation. Not that your goodness saves you but that you can't be saved unless you are good. It starts with regeneration prior to salvation and finishes with having to produce some arbitrary amount of "good works" of some arbitrary quality and consistency, continually (except when you're having a bad day) until the end of your life.
You do not depend only on Christ. You depend on the change He supposedly makes in you. Though Phil 2 is often quoted I have yet to see it demonstrated in the life of a LS proponent.
I answer your false charge, but still leave the argument for you to solve between God and yourself.
Kev
Dear Bridget:
ReplyDeleteYou are not considering the things Kev and others respond to you with. You are simply regurgitating what you have been told for years.
In this and previous threads you are repeating, in mantra like fashion, arguments that have already been destroyed.
While I have appreciated the opportunity you gave us at IDOTG to discuss and repeatedly refute your doctrinal errors, It is time for you to move on to another blog.
My blog is no longer open to you for the propagation of your views, which are antithetical to the Scriptures.
Kind regards,
LM
Hi Jan:
ReplyDeleteYou referred to the following that I reposted below.
Can you link me to this and assist in some research to pin point:
1) that quote,
2) the speaker,
3) the date, place
for documentation purposes?
Thanks,
Lou
YouTube video of MacArthur and Kirk Cameron that is basically Cameron's testimony and MacArthur's comments. I truly cannot tell if this video is supposed to be evangelical or what because the cross is not mentioned. What Kirk was before he was saved and what he has become since were pretty much the whole thing. I am not complaining that Cameron is saved but I am confused about what their point was. Here is another thing MacArthur allegedly said (I can't verify it as it was at a church meeting about 20 years ago. I suppose if I wanted to I could get a copy of it from the source.):
"Let me just say simply, that when you present the gospel, all of this Lordship discussion aside, a presentation of the gospel is simply this: you are calling on someone to TURN FROM THEIR SIN and FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST. That’s it! Turn from your sin and follow Jesus Christ!....That is all we are asking: TURN FROM YOUR SIN AND FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST....What you talk to an adult about is the same thing you tell a child: you need to turn from your sin and follow Jesus Christ" (Caps in the transcription, not mine.)
Oh sure! Sorry, I should have done that in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe You Tube video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452YaMMC8ko
It's just called "Kirk Cameron and John MacArthur. On Salvation." It's an 11 minute video.
The quote I got from George Zeller at this page on the Middletown Bible Church site:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm
The page is called "John MacArthur's Position on the Lordship of Christ. I found it under the "Problems with Reformed Theology" section.
The quote is under the section "What Must a Sinner Do to be Saved?" It's about midway down the page. The quote itself is transcribed from a tape of a question and answer service at Calvary Baptist Church in Brewer, Maine, dated 9/25/1990 (18 years ago.)
Do you want the info for the Christ our Passover video too?
JanH
Thanks Jan, I have Zeller's article on file. I just did not recognize the quote from it.
ReplyDeleteLou
Jan, before I move on, I want to thank you for your prayers for my husband. I appreciate that a lot Sis. :)
ReplyDeleteBridget