Forthright Talk on the “Non-Lordship” Message

Those who teach and preach a message of easy-believism, cheap grace, non-Lordship salvation, hyper grace, so called free grace, once saved always saved/eternal security (without including the perseverance of the saints as being necessary), preach a false gospel. I've been looking into this subject as of late and have been deeply grieved by how much this false gospel has influenced so many evangelical churches for the past century and continues to do so today.

Basically this false teaching says that one can believe in Christ as Savior without submitting to Him as Lord. It’s a view which says that one does not need to renounce and turn from one's wicked ways (repent) in order to be saved; that one only needs to give mental assent to (or believe the facts about) Jesus as Savior. This view says that one can be a saved born again Christian without being a disciple (follower) of Jesus Christ.

One of the arguments that proponents of this teaching commonly use is in reference to the fact that the Gospel of John does not contain the actual word "repent". But it's a faulty argument because John's Gospel contains the truth of repentance all throughout despite not containing the actual words "repent" or "repentance". Besides, repentance is clearly taught throughout the whole Bible as being necessary for salvation. A myriad of scriptures can be sited in this regard.

I learned that Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) has been one of the main hubs if not thee main hub of this teaching, which explains why many ministers who have promoted this teaching have been graduates from there. This seminary was founded in 1924 and the founder (Lewis Sperry Chafer) believed and taught this false teaching. It's easy to prove this from his writings which are readily available online.

I learned that in the 1980s there was a big controversy over this issue among well-known ministers. On one side you had men like John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul denouncing easy-believism and defending the truth of the Lordship of Christ in the life of all true believers, and on the other side you had men like John Walvoord, Zane C. Hodges, Charles Ryrie, and Joseph Dillow (all four associated with DTS) denouncing the Lordship view and defending easy-believism.

In 1986 an organization called Grace Evangelical Society was founded by DTS graduate Robert N. Wilkin. The purpose of this organization is to promote easy-believism and denounce the truth of the Lordship of Christ in the life of all believers.

I was checking out a debate recently between Robert N. Wilkin and Reformed apologist James White on this issue and was shocked at how Wilkin twisted so many clear passages of Scripture. One clear example is in reference to 1Cor.6.9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 where Paul the apostle says clearly that those who practice sin will not inherit God’s kingdom. Wilkin says that inheriting the kingdom there means receiving a special reward, that not inheriting the kingdom has nothing to do with perishing in hell. Another example is in reference to James 2:17-20 which declares that a dead kind of "faith" cannot save. Wilkin says that James is speaking only of a weak faith and that that passage has nothing at all to do with salvation. He even says that one can become an atheist and still be saved. Those are just a few clear examples of many scriptures that are twisted.

In recent times, one of the most well-known and respected ministers who has promoted easy-believism is Charles Stanley. I know that many solid believers endorse him. I used to like hearing his preaching on the radio and TV a lot. I believe he teaches sound doctrine in many areas. But I feel I must be honest and tell it like it is when it comes to the cheap grace, easy-believism message which he preaches. I’ve heard that message from him on several occasions as I've listened to him. I know at least one person who has been spiritually damaged and deceived through hearing him teach that heresy.

To serve as examples, here are some quotes which I believe are causes for serious concern from Dr. Stanley’s book titled Eternal Security:

"The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand."(p.74)
"believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation, for God remains faithful”(p. 94)
"Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy”(p. 93)
"there are Christians who show no evidence of their Christianity"(p. 71)
"Where is this place represented by the 'outer darkness' in Jesus' parables? To be in the 'outer darkness' is to be in the kingdom of God but outside the circle of men and women whose faithfulness on this earth earned them a special rank or position of authority. The 'outer darkness' represents not so much an actual place as it does a sphere of influence and privilege".(p.126)

And here are quotes from Dr. Stanley’s book Handbook for Christian Living:

"You and I are not saved because we have enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our Lord"(p. 190).
"Discipleship has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven or not"(p. 505).

In Charismatic circles Joseph Prince has been leading the way these days with this easy-believism false gospel. I have not taken the time to compile any of his heretical teachings; I’ve only heard them and read them. As one clear example, I'll share the link to this video in which Prince clearly denies that repentance (turning from sin) is necessary for salvation:

http://www.christian-faith.com/joseph-prince-says-turning-from-sin-not-necessary-for-justification-or-forgiveness/

In that video Prince first denies that repentance is necessary, and then admits that it is necessary but tries to redefine repentance as only a change of mind about trusting in one's good deeds. He completely rejects the truth that repentance involves renouncing and forsaking one's wicked ways. And he mentions the terms "easy-believism" and "cheap grace" because he knows that many have called him out for teaching that heresy.

If you’re confused on this issue of easy-believism vs the Lordship of Christ in the life of true believers I’d highly recommend this well-written article:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html

A.W. Tozer also dealt with this issue in his day long before the Easy-believism vs Lordship controversy of the 80s. Tozer too called easy-believism a heresy. I came across this compilation of Tozer's sermons dealing with that issue:

http://cciog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-Call-it-a-Heresy-A.W.-Tozer.pdf

Some have linked the practice of altar calls and the "Sinner's Prayer" method with the cheap grace message. I can see the logic behind that but I would not say that they are one and the same thing. I’ll try to explain. Many of those who use the altar call and sinner’s prayer methods do not actually preach easy-believism per se but do in fact include the preaching of repentance from sin along with the preaching of faith in Christ in their gospel messages. And they preach that one must bear good fruit as evidence of true conversion or salvation just like the Word of God teaches. Yet their methodology betrays their theology, and they do in fact cheapen the gospel message by their methods; because they make the gospel and salvation look like a simple formula of repeating words, regardless of whether or not those words come from a broken and contrite spirit-Psalm 51:17. Since they are so quick to pronounce people saved without waiting to see any actual fruit, they show that they have a very shallow view of the new birth.

I know that we see examples in Scripture of people being saved on the spot and being welcomed into the church immediately, such as in Acts 2:41 where we’re told that about 3,000 souls were saved and added to the church right after hearing Peter’s sermon. But I want to point out a couple of things from that scriptural example to explain why I believe it differs widely from what we see today with the sinner’s prayer method. Here’s the passage:

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

So first of all, it was Peter’s hearers who took the initiative in expressing their desire to be saved after hearing Peter’s sermon and being convicted of their sins against God. We see this same type of thing with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:35-38, and in many other examples in Scripture. By contrast, in much of modern evangelism we see the exact opposite; it is the evangelist or worker who tries to get the people to repeat a prayer before the people even express a desire to be saved. And notice what Peter’s answer was in response to their inquiry. Peter told them to repent and be baptized. That’s not to say that baptism is taught as being necessary for salvation because it isn't. It’s sort of like saying, "Repent and bear fruit in keeping with repentance; one such fruit being obedience to the command to be baptized in Jesus’ name.” My main point here is that Peter told them to repent on their own and be baptized which is way different than telling people to repeat a sinner’s prayer. There’s more that can be said about that passage but I don’t want to make this post too long (It’s already quite long lol).

So it’s a bit tough for me to say which is worse between actually preaching the easy-believism message blatantly on the one hand, and using the sinner’s prayer method on the other. I lean toward the former being worse but I do not leave the latter off the hook in the least.

"Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord' but won't do what I tell you?"

Good post as usual, Oracio!

In another thread there is a vision/prophecy by a Norwegian woman from 1968. Looks like the Easy Believe message was forecast back then as well. For some reason, entertainment is more popular than repentance...?

Who gives these modern pastor-priests the authority to devise a formula by which a person becomes a Christian, and then with a wave of the two-finger magic sweep they pronounce the supplicants saved and heaven bound?

Certainly not the New Testament apostles. As in your example of Peter's sermon, with a repentant turning to Christ the crowd was told that they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, not a glossy brochure and a pledge card. They were to receive something by which they would know that they were indeed recipients of salvation, a spiritual reality that would transform everything about their lives.

Paul mentions it casually in Ephesians 1, how believers have an inner witness from the Holy Spirit that they are children of God. God alone reserves the right to declare that a person is a Christian! Shame on any church leader who subverts that and makes a pronouncement on unsuspecting inquirers who truly want to be saved! They will take that false assurance and quit their pursuit of God right there- short of the finish line!

Indeed, no one is a Christian until God tells them that they are His child! As Tozer used to bellow from his pulpit- "Do you accept Christ? Wrong question! Does Christ accept you?!"

The world is aflood with people who have accepted Christ without the foggiest notion of what that means. Nothing in their day to day life reveals that, they can't answer a simple question about it, will often say "Well, I hope I'm saved."

Easy believe is the current model for the vacuous Christianity that fills churches all across America and probably most of the western world. It will prove powerless against Satanic forces, will not recognize true evil, will not lay down in sacrifice for truth, will accept moral perversion in the deceptive names of fairness and tolerance, and eventually turn with their sweet Satanic friends against people of genuine faith.

Every man is either a disciple of Jesus Christ or a mission field.

Amen brother. Your description of them as "pastor-priests” is spot on. Indeed, the only difference between them and Catholic priests is that Catholic priests pronounce people forgiven by means of the people confessing their sins to them and saying some Hail Marys and doing some type of penance, while many evangelical pastors pronounce people forgiven and saved by means of the people coming forward during an altar call and repeating a "sinner’s prayer”, or sometimes even just by the raising of hands while remaining seated in the pews. It’s pure superstition. No wonder we've been in such a mess within Evangelical Protestantism. Many have been practicing these superstitious methods on the one hand, and many have been preaching a watered down false gospel on the other, and many have been doing both. Indeed, we desperately need a true revival.

This is a very relevant issue to me at this time. We have just come back from the morning service at the independant baptist church we attend on Sundays (we are not members) and are shocked and grieved at tbe preachibg we just sat through. We are well aware of their doctrinal belief in OSAS, but the full time Pastor does not promote easy believism, in that he would preach the neccesity of repentance and accompanying fruit to faith. However they have a interim pastor (from the USA) for a few months as the full time pastor (English) is on a trip to get extra support in the USA.

So this morning this interim pastor preached on OSAS in the most outlandish way I think I have ever heard in person. He gave examples of people who lived extreemly sinful lives with no evidence of any interest in Christ or His church and that you would consider to be unbelievers and unsaved. He then told us that he discovered that they had 'believed' and made some confession of faith many years before and therefore on that basis declared that they were saved people and would inherit eternal life, that God saw them as perfect and they would come into all the blessings of God's kingdom. The way he dishonestly used the scriptures is what really upset me. He basically butchered them! Cut and past, quoting part of verses (like first half of Romans 8:1, but not the rest) and quoting some verses in a chapter and ignoring the ones that give clarity on the importance of fruit or continuing faith like in 1 John, which is one of the clearest letters that explains what a real christian looks like. However he managed to quote two verses in 1 John 2 to try and support his view while ignoring all the rest.

Unfortunately there are many in that church that will lap this up, as they are already deluded by this false gospel. The funny (not) thing about this is that they think they are one of the few churches in the local area that is a solid bible church! They claim to hold a high postion of bible only (KJV only really). However the cut up the sciptures to suit their doctrines. They mistakenly believe that "rightly dividing the word" means you can slice it up into pieces and get a true understanding. To 'rightly divide' means to handle in an honest way and this was anything but honest this morning.

Only this morning I was praying with my wife before we went that God would revive His church (the church worldwide that is). God have mercy on us!

There seems to be a big misunderstanding on what it means to 'believe' and an ignorance that 'believing' is in the continuous present tense, not a one time act in the past. The other huge thing they miss is that salvation is in Christ, not something we can have separately from Him.

"He who has the Son (Christ) has (eternal) life, he who does not have the Son of God does not have life".

As a hyper grace believer I find your post misinformed and a false representation of the gospel.

I was checking out this Wikipedia article dealing with the traditional view of the Perseverance of the Saints and felt led to share a portion of it here. This is the main statement that stood out and the reason I decided to share that specific portion here:

"Both traditional Calvinism and traditional Arminianism have rejected Free Grace theology.”

As I pointed out in the OP, the so-called Free Grace doctrine has been promoted by well-known ministers and theologians and has been influencing and creeping into multitudes of evangelical churches for many decades to one degree or another. Unfortunately, there has been much confusion and much tolerance for this doctrine. The confusion has to do with the fact that both the Calvinistic position of the Perseverance of the Saints and the so-called Free Grace doctrine have been called or referred to as "Eternal Security" and "Once Saved Always Saved". But they are in fact two different views, the former being within historic, Christian orthodoxy and the latter being outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy and being in fact heretical. Indeed, I firmly believe that both Calvinists and Arminians (and Christians who consider themselves to be neither) should completely reject this so-called Free Grace doctrine and have no tolerance for it because it is very deceptive, dangerous, and damning.

From the Wikipedia article:

"Free Grace doctrine
The Free Grace or non-traditional Calvinist doctrine has been espoused by Charles Stanley, Norman Geisler, Zane C. Hodges, Bill Bright, and others. This view, like the traditional Calvinist view, emphasizes that people are saved purely by an act of divine grace that does not depend at all on the deeds of the individual, and for that reason, advocates insist that nothing the person can do can affect his or her salvation.

The Free Grace doctrine views the person's character and life after receiving the gift of salvation as independent from the gift itself, which is the main point of differentiation from the traditional Calvinist view, or, in other words, it asserts that justification (that is, being declared righteous before God on account of Christ) does not necessarily result in sanctification (that is, a progressively more righteous life).

Charles Stanley, pastor of Atlanta's megachurch First Baptist and a television evangelist, has written that the doctrine of eternal security of the believer persuaded him years ago to leave his familial Pentecostalism and become a Southern Baptist. He sums up his deep conviction that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone when he claims, "Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy… believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation."[6] For example, Stanley writes:

"Look at that verse [John 3:18] and answer this question: According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual "believe in" Him.””” Charles Stanley[6] (p. 67).

In a chapter entitled "For Those Who Stop Believing", he says, "The Bible clearly teaches that God's love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand (p. 74)." A little later, Stanley also writes: "You and I are not saved because we have an enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our enduring Lord" (p. 80).

The doctrine sees the work of salvation as wholly monergistic, which is to say that God alone performs it and man has no part in the process beyond receiving it, and therefore, proponents argue that man cannot undo what they believe God has done. By comparison, in traditional Calvinism, people, who are otherwise unable to follow God, are enabled by regeneration to cooperate with him, and so the Reformed tradition sees itself as mediating between the total monergism of the non-traditional Calvinist view and the synergism of the Wesleyan, Arminian, and Roman Catholic views in which even unregenerate man can choose to cooperate with God in salvation.

The traditional Calvinist doctrine teaches that a person is secure in salvation because he or she was predestined by God, whereas in the Free Grace or non-traditional Calvinist views, a person is secure because at some point in time he or she has believed the Gospel message (Dave Hunt, What Love is This, p. 481).

Evangelical criticism

Both traditional Calvinism and traditional Arminianism have rejected Free Grace theology.[7] The former believes Free Grace to be a distorted form of Calvinism which maintains the permanency of salvation (or properly speaking, justification) while radically divorcing the ongoing work of sanctification from that justification. Reformed theology has uniformly asserted that "no man is a Christian who does not feel some special love for righteousness" (Institutes),[8] and therefore sees Free Grace theology, which allows for the concept of a "carnal Christian" or even an "unbelieving Christian", as a form of radical antinomianism. Arminianism, which has always believed true believers can give themselves completely over to sin, has also rejected the Free Grace view for the opposite reason of Calvinism: namely, that the view denies the classical Arminian doctrine that true Christians can lose their salvation by denouncing their faith (see conditional preservation of the saints). Free Grace theology struggles to maintain a middle ground, hoping to grasp the permancy of salvation (Calvinism) with one hand, while maintaining a true believer can still give up faith and choose to live a life of sin and unbelief (Arminianism). Both Calvinists and Arminians appeal to Biblical passages such as 1 Cor. 15:2 ("By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain"), Hebrews 3:14 ("We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first"), James 2:21-22 ("faith without works is dead"), and 2 Tim. 2:12 ("If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us").”

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints…

Zeke, what do you think was false representation, the OP or my experience this morning.? While I accept there are various ways that OSAS people see this, my experience this morning and at other times shows the OP description is true in many cases.

I do also have issues with the reforrmed 'perseverance' position as this creates other problems. I believe we are eternally secure in Christ, but only as we remain in Christ by faith. He only is our security!

Jesus "breaks off" those who do not produce fruit and prunes those who do.

Zeke, what do you think "breaking off" means?

If a person is not producing fruit they are not attached to the vine, I.e. they are not saved. Eternal life is only found in the vine so if a person is broken off the vine there is no life in them.

That is what Jesus says on the matter.

So this morning this interim pastor preached on OSAS in the most outlandish way I think I have ever heard in person. He gave examples of people who lived extreemly sinful lives with no evidence of any interest in Christ or His church and that you would consider to be unbelievers and unsaved. He then told us that he discovered that they had 'believed' and made some confession of faith many years before and therefore on that basis declared that they were saved people and would inherit eternal life, that God saw them as perfect and they would come into all the blessings of God's kingdom. The way he dishonestly used the scriptures is what really upset me. He basically butchered them! Cut and past, quoting part of verses (like first half of Romans 8:1, but not the rest) and quoting some verses in a chapter and ignoring the ones that give clarity on the importance of fruit or continuing faith like in 1 John, which is one of the clearest letters that explains what a real christian looks like. However he managed to quote two verses in 1 John 2 to try and support his view while ignoring all the rest.

I didn't want to possibly start a Cal vs Arm debate with my last post. I shared all that because I think it's important to understand those differences because like I said there's been much misunderstanding due to this "Free Grace" heresy.

The traditional reformed view of perseverance says that a true believer may have occasional moral lapses. But as in the cases of David, Peter(even after Pentecost), and others, they will eventually repent and get back on track if they are true believers; that they will not continue in unrepentant sin without conviction and true repentance. The false Free Grace view says that conviction and repentance of sin may not necessarily be involved in the lives of true believers.

So again to recap, the traditional reformed view says that repentance, fruit and perseverance in the faith are necessarily involved in true salvation. That's something both Calvinists and Arminians can agree on and unite on. And that's why they both point to the same scriptures which support the need for persevering in the faith to the end.

My hope is that both Calvinists and Arminians (and Christians who claim neither side) will unite in exposing this false gospel that has been deceiving and damning multitudes of souls for many decades.

What is a carnal christian and how do they fit into the lordship message?

Edit: to add 'how do they fit into the lordship message'

Excellent post, Brother Oracio. This has been a matter of concern for me as I also attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. The pastor is much more lenient than most IFB pastors about his free grace theology, sounding almost more of a believer in the perseverance of the saints, but claims to renounce Lordship salvation all the same. I, however, do not understand how anyone can possibly reject the doctrine of Lordship salvation. It is so clearly laid out in the Scriptures, especially 1 John. I do believe in the perseverance of the saints, but it is only in their persevering that they do show themselves to be born again. It is as Paul said, how can we who have died to sin live any longer in it (Rom. 6:2)?

The church of Jesus Christ needs both revival (of things lost from the "good old days") but also advancement into vitality never seen previously. All ethnic nations must yet be taught and disciples made to an extent not yet seen.

Saving faith must reside in the heart (Romans 10:9-10) and anything less than whole-hearted devotion to the cause of Christ may leave the heart devoid of faith regardless of the level of intellectual assent.

Earthly kingdoms have policies and laws and standards and those who transgress against them can expect adverse consequences. God's kingdom will also have standards. Those who receive pardon from the King should submit themselves to the standards of the Kingdom and not rebel. Pardons for those who continue in rebellion could easily be revoked.

God's kingdom is a supernatural kingdom and its citizens must experience the new birth brought about by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be expected to force its ways upon an unrepentant life not dedicated to holiness and righteousness.

Prayer: May God's Kingdom come and God's will be done on earth as is in heaven.

Those who have formerly been in rebellion to the Will of God need to repent and develop conformity to the Will of God as evidence of genuine, saving belief.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. [1Jo 3:7 NKJV]

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. 8 For you were once darkness, but now [you are] light in the Lord. Walk as children of light. [Eph 5:6-8 NKJV] "Walk in newness of life.”

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. [1Co 6:9-11 NKJV]

7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. [Gal 6:7-8 NKJV]

Each passage begins with "do not be deceived" and "let no one deceive you" - because many will try! Cheap grace, imputed righteousness, justification without regeneration are the earmarks of Big Church theology. I say "Big Church" because no movement ever got big, prosperous, popular and respectable by preaching the real gospel.

Colin asked: "What is a carnal christian and how do they fit into the lordship message?"

I would say that to be 'carnal' or walking in the flesh (carnal = flesh) is not necessarily the same as wilful rebellious sin that does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ. It is possible to have a heart that is submitted to Christ as Lord, but walk in the flesh at times in some areas of our lives, e.g. as outlined in Galatians 5. Also those mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 who he called carnal because of divisions / party spirit. Interestingly it is quite common for those in the IFB camp to consider all other denominations as wrong or inferior to themselves, thus making them 'carnal' or in the flesh.

I agree with Heydave’s last post.

The "Carnal Christian” doctrine is another term used to describe this easy-believism, cheap grace, non-Lordship message. It is based on what I’d contend to be a misinterpretation and misapplication of 1Cor.3:1-4. Here’s the passage:

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not carnal?”

"Free Gracers” say that that passage teaches clearly that one can be "carnal” and still saved, and by "carnal” they mean indulging in any type of sinful or fleshly behavior. I admit that Paul is not questioning the salvation of the Corinthians in that passage despite calling them "carnal”. But Paul is not saying that one can practice all types of sins and still be saved. That would contradict passages like 1Cor.6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 which declare that one cannot practice sin and inherit God’s kingdom. And it would contradict 1Cor.5 where the Lord, through Paul, commanded the Corinthians to excommunicate a man who was living in adultery with his father’s wife. That teaching also contradicts many other clear passages of Scripture which warn of false conversions and of not inheriting God’s kingdom due to sinful rebellion against God.

So what is Paul saying there in 1Cor.3? He is simply saying that by reason of them being sectarian or factious toward one another, the Corinthian believers were behaving in a carnal or fleshly manner. Paul was rebuking them for behaving that way toward one another. But that’s way different than him saying, "You can be a fornicator, murderer, thief, drunkard, etc. and still be saved as a "Carnal Christian.”

This is the thing. Whenever we as Christians commit any sins, whether sins of omission or commission in thought, word or deed, at that very moment we are behaving carnally or fleshly. Any sin is carnal or fleshly. And simply because we may fall into certain types of sinful behavior at any given moment it doesn’t mean we automatically lose our salvation. For example, let’s suppose we have a weak moment and are tempted and are caught in the sin of lust, maybe by looking at a billboard or something. Would that mean we lost our salvation and need to be born again, again? I don’t think so. But falling into those types of sins occasionally as believers is much different that running headlong into all types of sins, unchecked and unrepentant. If we are true believers we will experience the conviction of the Holy Spirit and will be repentant and desire to live a holy life pleasing to the Lord.

For an in-depth study on this issue of the Carnal Christian doctrine I’d recommend this sermon article by Al Martin:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/carnal-christian-by-albert-n-martin/

To me the disagreement comes down to a lack of understanding of the difference and likeness of Salvation and Regeneration.

The latter part of Isaiah 43:13 says "when God acts, who can reverse it?"

Do we all agree that someone being born again is a work of God where He raises someone up from being dead spiritually and being alive in Christ?

So, some of you are saying that we as humans have more power than God to reverse that experience?

That we can one day wake up and say " I don't really feel like being a new creation today, I think I am going to go back to being dead." does that work?

I believe the problem is that we have combined salvation and regeneration into one big plate. You never read of Paul saying "to those of us being born again", but he does say "to those of us that are being SAVED" 1 Cor 1:18 .

If you are claiming that you have been born again and are not producing fruit, or have never produced fruit, then yes I would say you probably need to go check yourself. I do not agree with this cheap grace non sense of being born again and looking no different than you were before. That's non sense. You've been given a new heart with new desires etc.

But I know people right now that have been truly born again that are resisting God's salvation process in their life.

Salvation: Saved, Healed, Delivered, Rescued etc.

If you have been truly born again then yes you have Been Saved from the wrath of God and punishment of hell. But it doesn't mean that you are being saved right now does it? Maybe you have let an idol of t.v. to come into your life and has led you to start having lustful, worldly thoughts. Don't you think you need to be Saved from that? How do you obtain that salvation? Through repentance.

Regeneration is an experience, salvation is a process.

the word Saved has become this majestic word in most churches to where people walk around claiming "I have been saved!"

Hallelujah! That's awesome! How about today though? Is God saving you today from this world and from satan?

So I agree with the premise of OSAS, but only based upon God's work and His word. Not because you prayed some prayer.

Carnal christians that have fleshly desires and sins they have to fight and sometimes they fall prey to? Yes I agree with that translation. But I do not think he is talking about a continuosly sinful chrisitan when he speaks of those Corinthians being carnal.
I do not read Paul speaking anywhere of worldly christians, or dead christians. Just ones that have yet to crucify all of their carnality.

back-to-acts, I agree with all of what you said in essence. The only thing I'd point out is that your use of the word "salvation" there is also known and taught in the Word as the process of "sanctification". It's been said that WE WERE saved, ARE BEING saved, and WILL BE saved when we get to glory.

Yes I agree with that. But there is also is a distinction in the words as well. But I wouldn't argue the point. I believe we are being sanctified ( being set apart) by being constantlty saved ( healed, rescued, delivered) from the world, flesh and the devil, through God's pattern of repentance, obedience, self denial etc.

But back to the point of this thread.

If you agree with what I said in essence, then do you believe that someone who has been genuinely born again can become un-saved? Which is the opposite of OSAS.

Another issue I see is ministers are trying to make converts instead of disciples. If we were truly focused on making disciples ( which could take a lot of time) then this debate would almost be non existent. Christ gave us a command to make disciples, not converts who will do everything that He commands of them. Which points out directly "lordship salvation" in my opinion. Unless we fall into the teaching that I believe is false, that you can be a christian and not be a disciple. Don't see that in scripture.

Travis wrote: "Do we all agree that someone being born again is a work of God where He raises someone up from being dead spiritually and being alive in Christ?

So, some of you are saying that we as humans have more power than God to reverse that experience?

That we can one day wake up and say " I don't really feel like being a new creation today, I think I am going to go back to being dead." does that work?"
____________________________________________________________

The problem with this is it is using human reasoning to say we cannot forfeit eternal life once we have it. I have heard similar things like, "Your children don't stop being your children even if they disown you." Again using human reasoning to establish a doctrine. It's not a good comparison, because you could say that every human is in a way a child of God, in that God created them, but only those who choose to submit to His authority will have the rights and privilege of sons. If they afterward walk away from Him, then they loose that privilege. You see anyone can use the same examples to argue either way! we have to look at what scripture teaches in it's full revelation and not isolated text taken out to make a point.

We talk as if at regeneration something physical happens and equate that to not being able to be undone like a physical birth, but in fact our regeneration is spiritual and is based on us being joined to Christ. We also talk as if we have this eternal life independently from Christ, but apart from Him, we don't have any spiritual life. So if it is possible to separate from Christ, then it is possible to loose that spiritual life. The bible has too many warnings about continuing in faith and not turning back and the consequences of turning away to ignore the possibility of loosing the life we once had.

Just one example I'll give (there are many others) is Hebrews 10:26-27 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

Why is there no sacrifice for sins for those who sin wilfully? Because they reject the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore His sacrifice for their sins. That leaves them to face the consequence for their sins and the judgement will be 'guilty' and the punishment that follows. In the context of the surrounding text and in fact the whole book, I believe this is talking to true believers.

I know there are different views on OSAS and eternal security and I have respect for those who take a slightly different position that say that perseverance is necessary, but also guaranteed for true believers. I guess that is the only point of disagreement I have with Oracio, as I agree that perseverance is necessary, but not guaranteed. The typical OSAS view that Oracio put forward is a lot different to eternal security/perseverance position of the reformed people. It is this OSAS position that is dangerous and unbiblical.

I agree with the following you wrote.
"Another issue I see is ministers are trying to make converts instead of disciples. If we were truly focused on making disciples ( which could take a lot of time) then this debate would almost be non existent. Christ gave us a command to make disciples, not converts who will do everything that He commands of them. Which points out directly "lordship salvation" in my opinion. Unless we fall into the teaching that I believe is false, that you can be a christian and not be a disciple. Don't see that in scripture."

Quote: I would say that to be 'carnal' or walking in the flesh (carnal = flesh) is not necessarily the same as wilful rebellious sin that does not want to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

Scripture describes that the flesh and the Spirit at war with each other, as thier desires are opposite, not only that it describes the flesh as keeping us from doing the things we would want to do. (Gal 5:17)

That particular scripture I quote from above if we read it and consider what is being said it lets us know that there remains a power that controls the regenerate after conversion.

One of the biggest failings I see in Lordship Salvation doctrine is that it fails to address the carnality that remains after conversion and that carnality keeps us in bondage and keep us from doing what we would…

If you agree with what I said in essence, then do you believe that someone who has been genuinely born again can become un-saved? Which is the opposite of OSAS.

I would also contend that many have also swung the pendulum on the opposite way of the cheap grace teaching with the teaching of sinless perfection. Robert N. Wilkin, the Free Grace theologian whom I mentioned in the OP, said he came out of a holiness church that taught sinless perfection and that he was very discouraged during that whole time of being involved with that church. So he ended up going to the opposite extreme and fell for the cheap grace doctrine. I'd say that the Lordship position is a more biblical position between those two extremes.

Quote: The "Carnal Christian” doctrine is another term used to describe this easy-believism

Following on from my last post (please read it to understand my thinking) this what the Lordship Salvation doctrine must say because it fails horrendously to address the carnal Christian.

I want to stamp something very strongly here; He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning 1 John 3:8

Quote"Free Gracers” say that that passage teaches clearly that one can be "carnal” and still saved, and by "carnal” they mean indulging in any type of sinful or fleshly behavior.

Fine but let’s look at your mindset to see how you excuse sin.

Quote: For example, let’s suppose we have a weak moment and are tempted and are caught in the sin of lust, maybe by looking at a billboard or something. Would that mean we lost our salvation and need to be born again, again?

Weak moment - I am wondering what to say here, do I call you a hypocrite; do I call you a whitewashed tomb, clean on the outside but dead on the inside. Why would I consider using such strong words, well scripture tells us very plainly if you hate your brother you’re a murder; if you lust after a women in your heart then you it’s just like you have fornicated with her.

There is no excuse for sin externally or internally, let’s not deceive ourselves and get puffed up with pride and claim we are under Christ Lordship when we are yet carnal and under the bondage of sin.

Maybe the example of excusing sin is not enough?

Quote: He is simply saying that by reason of them being sectarian or factious toward one another, the Corinthian believers were behaving in a carnal or fleshly manner.

Sectarianism ”“ coming from Scotland I am well aware what the fruit of "sectarianism” ”“ it is hatred that leads to people being murdered. That’s why John says in 1 Jhn 3:8 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.

My point here is the Corinthians may not have killing each other physically, but internally there was deep-seated issues; they were carnal still under the power a mysterious internal force called Sin.

Quote: But falling into those types of sins occasionally as believers is much different that running headlong into all types of sins, unchecked and unrepentant.

Brother the deceitfulness of sin is at work, there is no difference; scripture says clearly; if we fail in one point of the law we become accountable for all of the law.

Dave wrote:
The problem with this is it is using human reasoning to say we cannot forfeit eternal life once we have it. I have heard similar things like, "Your children don't stop being your children even if they disown you." Again using human reasoning to establish a doctrine. It's not a good comparison, because you could say that every human is in a way a child of God, in that God created them, but only those who choose to submit to His authority will have the rights and privilege of sons. If they afterward walk away from Him, then they loose that privilege. You see anyone can use the same examples to argue either way! we have to look at what scripture teaches in it's full revelation and not isolated text taken out to make a point.

First off I am not using human reasoning to come to this conclusion. If regeneration is a work of God, are you saying that we can undo that work? Us believing and repenting and receiving Christ is partly our job ( through the Spirit) but the making us a live and new creatures is God's work.

Secondly, you cannot use the argument that we are all children of God based upon 1 John 3:10 . We are either children of God or children of the devil. So before regenration, we belong to the devil, after we belong to Jesus as his sons ( John 1:12) . So that argument would fail just simply based upon scripture.

Doesnt our Father use human examples to describe Himself in Hebrews 12:7 talking about Him being a Father that disciplines? Isn't the picture of the prodigal a picture of God's love for one who has fallen away?

I would make the argument based upon Ezekiel 36 that something does happen to our soul/spirit at regeneration. Of course it is not physical in the sense of our fleshly bodies that will return to the dust. But something does happen where we are given new hearts, and new desires.

The problem with SOME lordship salvation teaching is that it removes the power of the spirit and regeneration from the picture and only focuses on the outward evidences. It hinges on the verge of legalism.
I believe it also puts us as humans in the drivers seat to remain "saved" .

If you have been truly born again, then Jesus is your Lord. Not the other way around. Millions of people are going to hell in my opinion because they have never been born again, not because they haven't made Jesus their Lord. I think SOME lordship salvation teaching gets those 2 switched around.

Also, in Hebrews 10:26-27 - when do we cross that line? Who determines that line? What if we do sin willfully today? If you are willfully sinning, bets are you still have the same will that you had before your "supposed" regeneration- which would nulify that regeneration experience.

That's a tough question for me at the moment. What I meant was that I agreed with the thrust of your post as far as the process of sanctification was concerned. But to answer your question, I'm not 100% sure on either side, but I lean toward the traditional reformed view of the perseverance of the saints. I see seemingly convincing scriptures on both sides.

I would also contend that many have also swung the pendulum on the opposite way of the cheap grace teaching with the teaching of sinless perfection. Robert N. Wilkin, the Free Grace theologian whom I mentioned in the OP, said he came out of a holiness church that taught sinless perfection and that he was very discouraged during that whole time of being involved with that church. So he ended up going to the opposite extreme and fell for the cheap grace doctrine. I'd say that the Lordship position is a more biblical position between those two extremes.

I agree 100% with what you posted here brother. I am in the same state of mind where I see valid points on both sides. My only concern is that we over emphasize our own power in following the Lord ( some lordship teaching) and not the power of the Spirit. He has raised us up to new life, we follow Him faithfully and obediently as our Lord.

Weak moment - I am wondering what to say here, do I call you a hypocrite; do I call you a whitewashed tomb, clean on the outside but dead on the inside. Why would I consider using such strong words, well scripture tells us very plainly if you hate your brother you’re a murder; if you lust after a women in your heart then you it’s just like you have fornicated with her.

There is no excuse for sin externally or internally, let’s not deceive ourselves and get puffed up with pride and claim we are under Christ Lordship when we are yet carnal and under the bondage of sin.

Regarding 1 John 3:8 and other similar verses, the meaning is in reference to a continual or habitual lifestyle or pattern of unrepentant sin. If we interpret those verses according to your type of interpretation, you have people who are unsaved the moment they commit any sin whatsoever, again, whether in thought, word, or deed, sins of omission and commission. That would mean only those that are sinless or perfect are saved. Here is another verse in that passage that would have to be taken that way:

"6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him”

So again, according to your type of interpretation that verse has to mean that one who abides in Christ and knows God is sinless or perfect and that those that are not so do not abide in Christ nor know God. Again, I don’t believe that’s what God’s Word is teaching there. Otherwise I and many other brethren here are unsaved, including you if you are not sinless or perfect.

Quote: So let me get this straight. By your line of reasoning and interpretation of 1John 3:8, if a Christian is not sinless or perfect in thought, word and deed, regarding sins of omission and commission, he/she is a hypocrite and a child of the devil?

I am not the one pontificating about being under the Lordship of Christ; while excusing certain sins, while at the same time calling many many thousands of conversions false by the Lordship doctrines low standards, if we must set standards then lets apply the perfect standard of the law.

I must admit that I am not saved...in the sense that as near as I can tell I am still living in an earthly body. The "saved" scenario is reserved for a future date when I shall hear the Savior pronounce my successful graduation. Indeed I look forward to that!

But for now, I work it all out with fear and trembling. I am invited to the feast, but must show up by my own decision. I have the power to rather go evaluate the oxen I just purchased, check out the land, marry the wife, or read my emails. I have the right to skip the feast, insult the king, ignore the wedding garment. All of that is in my purview.

Ah, but He has sent His Messenger and told me the wonders of the feast. He has whetted my senses to the aromas of the food, the awesomeness of the music, the thrill of the dance, the exceeding joy of the back-stage passes to the throne of the King. All my other options shrivel and go dark in comparison, my heart and my feet are moving toward the King's banquet! While I am not yet there, it fills my longing and remains my best thought every day.

Am I free to choose something else? Certainly. But nothing I have seen compares with the vision in my soul of the King's bounty!

Also as I parabalize (is that a word?) my fantasy, I would also note the means of my potential derailment.

Temptation. The one who would keep me from the feast must offer something that catches my attention, something that might be seen as better, sweeter, more fulfilling- a real temptation.

But the temptation is not the fall! For theological reasons that I won't probe here, the Adversary has a right to try and pull me away from my Godly course! So important, the scripture notes that Jesus Himself was pulled by temptation- "In every way, just as we are!"

But He did not sin. Temptation and sin are related, are connected- but are not the same. Sin has a germinating phase, and temptation is a part of that. But until one pulls the trigger, sin is still at bay and the virtue of righteous resistance is still operating.

How many yield to temptation without even a wimpy little fight?

I think holiness is not the absence of temptation, but the wise knowing of how it works and the learning of skillfully using the armor of God to escape from it.

"Tempted in all points just as we." Good enough for Jesus, good enough for me!

I am not the one pontificating about being under the Lordship of Christ; while excusing certain sins, while at the same time calling many many thousands of conversions false by the Lordship doctrines low standards, if we must set standards then lets apply the perfect standard of the law.

Quote: Are you living up to your view of the standard of true conversion.

My standard for conversion is simple through grace by faith we are saved, all I would ask someone after conversion is this question, "where is Jesus in your life" if they reply with a certain answer, then I know they that the Holy Spirit has begun his work and they are converted. Very very simple...

Unlike Lordship Salvation which seems to mix up justification/sanctification and seeks a perfection of sorts, that Christ must be Lord at the time at conversion, if you don't come up to the mark of the Lordship standards which is a low standard of no external sin then your conversion is classed as false.

What I mean by a low standard is that there is no chance within the Lordship salvation doctrine that you'll never ever conquer the flesh that deep seated internal sins of the heart, while I would say you can conquer the flesh that deep seated internal sins of the heart but not at conversion.

I hear Colin saying that some Lordship teaching misses the point of holiness. That it is more than just saying " Jesus is Lord of my life". That if we are going to have a standard of what a true believer is, it should be holiness not lordship. I partly agree with this. Paul says in Acts 26:18 that he is sent to open the eyes of the blind so that they may turn from darkness to light from the dominion of satan into God and that they receive forgiveness of sin and an inheritance amongst those who are being sanctified through faith in Christ. So he was not sent to make people who submit to the lordship of Christ ( even though that is what Jesus called us to do in the Great commission ) , but to raise dead people to life. Christ did say to be holy as I am holy and be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. So the standard is that, He doesn't say "submit to my lordship". But we all know the only way that it is possible is by submitting to Christ's lordship in our lives. Us "abiding in the Vine" . Holiness is the standard and measure of a believer, not lordship. So I believe the two arguments are intertwined. I do not think there is a huge disagreement here.

But Colin, I think denying all of the lordship teaching would also be wrong. Jesus did give us the commission to go and make disciples who will do all that I command them. That sounds like we are meant to go make disciples who submit to the lordship of Christ to where when He commands , then we move. Is this being proclaimed to the lost? Or are we drowning our Gospel message down to such a point where people aren't truly getting converted? We are meant to make disciples. Disciples who go out and subdue the earth through the Gospel of Christ.

The problem as with most doctrines of man is that it has becomes so flesh driven. The truth behind it is solid in my opinion, but people that propagate it are usually non Spirit filled men that have anger problems ( just my opinion from being raised in it) .

I really do not understand how some of these men teaching false grace and easy believism can honestly sleep at night. Have they become so deceived into thinking that they are have preached the whole truth of Gods word? Do they not care, or do they not know the truth themselves? Forget about the doctrine, just look at the messages that Jesus taught and you don't even have to be a theologian to see how different they are compared to some of this preaching.

Quickly,

when you look at 1 John and all the references to sin, please see how many times its a verb and what the context is. Similarly the times when its a noun. It does give a clearer picture of what John was saying.

Hey Oracio,

I was reading your post over again and a couple of questions came up.

First off thank you for posting this excerpt from Tozer, it has been very encouraging and helpful to me. I will post it again for anyone who has not read it.

http://cciog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-Call-it-a-Heresy-A.W.-Tozer.pdf

I was wondering what your thoughts were on altar calls? I was a pastor of a small home church for the past 4 years until recently and in that enviroment it is quote easy to do a " altar call", even though I shy away from even calling it that. The enviroment of home church is much different and more intimate than an actual church. I just preached and asked if anyone wanted Jesus to come talk to me. One Sunday morning 3 lost people were there. They all wanted to accept Jesus and had heard the cost of discipleship and knew what they were about to do. I simply sat down with them and told them to tell Christ what they wanted to do. Without leading them at all they all confessed sins, repented, wept, told God they wanted to follow Him forever. Immediately after that we baptized them in our master bath tub. Now that to me was wonderful. But in a bigger setting that type of experience just isn't reasonable almost. But yet I see that type of experience happening in scripture almost ( obviously without the bath tub) . I grew up around the sinners prayer and I do feel as though it can be totally abused and lead many many astray. But I agree with you that it is not the main issue, just a symptom. But I have come to the point of believing that the sinners prayer takes the place of a broken spirit. If you are truly broken you do not necesarily need someomne to tell you how to express those feelings. They just come out in ugly/beautiful ways. And it has almost become easier to have them pray that prayer instead of deal with the conviction and brokeness.

My standard for conversion is simple through grace by faith we are saved, all I would ask someone after conversion is this question, "where is Jesus in your life" if they reply with a certain answer, then I know they that the Holy Spirit has begun his work and they are converted. Very very simple...

Unlike Lordship Salvation which seems to mix up justification/sanctification and seeks a perfection of sorts, that Christ must be Lord at the time at conversion, if you don't come up to the mark of the Lordship standards which is a low standard of no external sin then your conversion is classed as false.

What I mean by a low standard is that there is no chance within the Lordship salvation doctrine that you'll never ever conquer the flesh that deep seated internal sins of the heart, while I would say you can conquer the flesh that deep seated internal sins of the heart but not at conversion.

Okay, I think I get what you’re trying to say. I think it would have helped if you would have clarified like this before. It had seemed to me that you were espousing sinless perfection as the standard of true conversion as some do. What I understand now is that you believe sinless perfection is the standard of conquering the flesh or living a victorious Christian life. You believe a born again believer can live in total defeat in sin and still be saved, just like what Free Grace theology teaches. The difference is that for you maturity in Christ or victory over the flesh means complete sinless perfection in this life, or as some call it, a second blessing.

It’s basically a two-tier type of Christianity where you have believers who are living in defeat of the flesh or sin and believers who obtain a second blessing which is sinless perfection. Those who espouse Free Grace theology also believe in a two-tier type of Christianity. But for them you have believers who are not obedient disciples (followers) of Christ and believers who are obedient disciples (though not sinless or perfect). Both views are unbiblical and dangerous imo because they both provide an easy pass for professing Christians who do not want to repent or turn from their wicked ways.

This view of the "second blessing” says in effect, "Look, all sin is sin, so you have no right to preach against sin or question anyone’s salvation unless you are perfect yourself. Other wise you are a hypocrite and a whitewashed tomb or legalistic Pharisee”.

It seems very probable that some who espouse this view but who also admit that they have not reached this state of perfection can also easily be deceived into thinking they are saved when they are not. They may think that they can give themselves completely over to the flesh and still be saved because to them salvation is not dependent on them reaching this "second blessing” or state of sinless perfection.

So again I’ll ask because I’m curious, would you say you have reached this state of victory and conquering of the flesh to which you refer? I know in the past here on SI you've admitted you hadn't reached that state yet, though you've desired to do so.

I see many failings in what I term or of what my understanding of "Lordship Salvation doctrine" one is motivation.

Obligation is not the right motive!

another is the belief that repentance of sin is a gift that we offer rather than a gift that we recieve.

I tried for over 12 years to offer my repentance of sin as a sacrafice, no breakthrough happened, no victory over such sins as self abuse, Though I deeply desired to stop such sins and tried with all my might, my will power was just to weak.

I started listening to sermons by old Mike Pearl, like Spurgeon and others that Preached a Gospel a little different than I had understood before.

My understanding before was that I needed to confess and repent of my sins first so that God could forgive me, I was of the understanding that God does not look on sin so we must first rid ourselves of them by confessing and repenting from them. No matter how hard I tried within 2 weeks I was right back in those sins.
And with a theology like that it could only mean 1 of 2 things never saved or else backsliden, the old cycle of sin confess sin confess. Romans 7 was a favorite chapter.

But when I started hearing messages telling me to bring my unworthyness my hoplessness and to let God do the cleaning up, there was hope in that, even though I already felt to far gone to be helped.
And when I did that,: "the look and live message" as what saved Spurgeon as Pearl preaches, A breakthrough, a realm of Grace opened
instantly revelation of Scripture opened up,
My question of why Cains sacrafice that he worked so hard for by the sweat of his brow and the callus of his hand was not excepted ? , was instantly answered beyound my own intellect. and the ability beyound my own will power to stop such sins as previously mentioned I found after more than 12 years of personal failure (add:sin confess, try harder theology).

And that Gospel is open to whomsoever will, not just those whom have strong will power.

David Wilkersons key to understanding Righteousness or beware of Dogs: https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=4531&commentView=itemComments

Hey Oracio,

I was reading your post over again and a couple of questions came up.

First off thank you for posting this excerpt from Tozer, it has been very encouraging and helpful to me. I will post it again for anyone who has not read it.

http://cciog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/I-Call-it-a-Heresy-A.W.-Tozer.pdf

I was wondering what your thoughts were on altar calls? I was a pastor of a small home church for the past 4 years until recently and in that enviroment it is quote easy to do a " altar call", even though I shy away from even calling it that. The enviroment of home church is much different and more intimate than an actual church. I just preached and asked if anyone wanted Jesus to come talk to me. One Sunday morning 3 lost people were there. They all wanted to accept Jesus and had heard the cost of discipleship and knew what they were about to do. I simply sat down with them and told them to tell Christ what they wanted to do. Without leading them at all they all confessed sins, repented, wept, told God they wanted to follow Him forever. Immediately after that we baptized them in our master bath tub. Now that to me was wonderful. But in a bigger setting that type of experience just isn't reasonable almost. But yet I see that type of experience happening in scripture almost ( obviously without the bath tub) . I grew up around the sinners prayer and I do feel as though it can be totally abused and lead many many astray. But I agree with you that it is not the main issue, just a symptom. But I have come to the point of believing that the sinners prayer takes the place of a broken spirit. If you are truly broken you do not necesarily need someomne to tell you how to express those feelings. They just come out in ugly/beautiful ways. And it has almost become easier to have them pray that prayer instead of deal with the conviction and brokeness.

It is a great mystery; faith is before repentance in some of its acts, and repentance before faith in another view of it; the fact being that they come into the soul together. Now, a repentance which makes me weep and abhor my past life because of the love of Christ which has pardoned it, is the right repentance. When I can say, "My sin is washed away by Jesu's blood," and then repent because I so sinned as to make it necessary that Christ should die””that dove-eyed repentance which looks at his bleeding wounds, and feels that her heart must bleed because she wounded Christ””that broken heart that breaks because Christ was nailed to the cross for it””that is the repentance which bringeth us salvation.
Again, the repentance which makes us avoid present sin because of the love of God who died for us, this also is saving repentance. If I avoid sin to-day because I am afraid of being lost if I commit it, I have not the repentance of a child of God; but when I avoid it and seek to lead a holy life because Christ loved me and gave himself up for me, and because I am not my own, but am bought with a price, this is the work of the Spirit of God.
And again, that change of mind, that after-carefulness which leads me to resolve that in future I will live like Jesus, and will not live unto the lusts of the flesh, because he hath redeemed me, not with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with his own precious blood””that is the repentance which will save me, and the repentance he asks of me. O ye nations of the earth, he asks not the repentance of Mount Sinai, while ye do fear and shake because his lightnings are abroad; but he asks you to weep and wail because of him; to look on him whom you have pierced, and to mourn for him as a man mourneth for his only son; he bids you remember that you nailed the Saviour to the tree, and asks that this argument may make you hate the murderous sins which fastened the Saviour there, and put the Lord of glory to an ignominious and an accursed death. This is the only repentance we have to preach; not law and terrors; not despair; not driving men to self-murder””this is the terror of the world which worketh death; but godly sorrow is a sorrow unto salvation though Jesus Christ our Lord.
- C.H. Spurgeon

There have been quite a few post on this since I last had a chance to come on a read and I just wanted to acknowledge them and give a short response as I still don't have much time at present. I hope to contribute more later if appropriate.

So very briefly, It seems that there has been a lot of misunderstanding between all of us and I think we are in general agreed on some of the main elements being discussed.

Travis, I concede to your point on the children of God. I was just trying to show how examples such as that can be used either way. My main point is that there is no clear scripture that says once you have been made a child of God you cannot loose that position, it only comes from a persons reasoning, which cannot establish absolute truth.

Regarding the Lordship salvation doctrine, I honestly am not familiar with this movement or doctrine. However I do know those who teach that you can have Christ as saviour, without having Him as Lord. This I reject as He is both Lord and saviour, so as Tozer said, 'if Lordship salvation means Christ must be both Lord and saviour, then yes I am in agreement with that'. I am sure that like any doctrinal movement there is a tendency to go to extremes.

Travis, based on your recent posts I would pretty much agree with all you have said. I guess the only point we may disagree on is that I believe it is possible for someone to forfeit their salvation, not by sin, but by rejecting Christ.

So very briefly, It seems that there has been a lot of misunderstanding between all of us and I think we are in general agreed on some of the main elements being discussed.

Regarding the Lordship salvation doctrine, I honestly am not familiar with this movement or doctrine. However I do know those who teach that you can have Christ as saviour, without having Him as Lord. This I reject as He is both Lord and saviour, so as Tozer said, 'if Lordship salvation means Christ must be both Lord and saviour, then yes I am in agreement with that'. I am sure that like any doctrinal movement there is a tendency to go to extremes.

For example, brother proudpapa, respectfully I say that it seems you have not understood the position correctly since you have tried to pit Spurgeon against it, when in fact Spurgeon himself held to this same view as a reformed Baptist preacher and preached it in many of his sermons.

It is unfortunate that this view has been termed Lordship Salvation by it's antagonists. Many Christians have been afraid of siding with it out of fear that it may be erroneous because the term has not been around that long though the teaching has throughout redemptive history.

It is in fact simply as Tozer said, that you cannot have Christ as Savior without having Him as Lord of your life and bowing the knee to Him. As Tozer has said, we do not believe in a divided Christ. He is both Lord and Savior and author of salvation only for those that obey Him-Hebrews 5:9

The "Free Grace” teachers have been very clever in choosing that term for themselves because it makes it seem to some that we are against the free grace of God given to those that trust in Christ as Savior. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply opposed to their interpretation of God's grace.

This is a slight detour from the main topic but I just wanted to say thank you to proudpapa for sharing your testimony, the Wilkerson sermon, and the Spurgeon quote, all gems in my opinion.

I like what you shared concerning obligation, this does indeed seem to be a shortcoming in the "Lordship" doctrine in the sense that it can lead to this wrong motive of obligation for the believer and this can play into the hands of the devil who loves to lie to believers.

The great lie of the enemy will be that if you aren't fully conformed to Christ's image then He probably isn't your Lord and you should just stay away until you get it right. The Bible is exactly the opposite, we are to come into His presence with brokenness and thanksgiving. If you choose to trust God even though you are going through great temptations, God will save.

Don't let Satan lie to you that you must first get it right before you come to God. Don't elevate your faults over the cross. Don't make a bunch of promises that you'll do better but trust in His promises, appropriate them.

Brokenness is good, godly repentance is good, but let it bring you to Him and to rejoice in His embrace, there will be strength over temptation. Temptations will always be there but victory is in Him!

In Christ,

I thought I’d share this piece from Spurgeon as an example of my point that he preached the same message I’m referring to:

"Grace makes a great difference in a man, when it enters into him. How vain, then, are the boasts and professions of some persons, who assert themselves to be the children of God, and yet live in sin. There is no perceivable difference in their conduct; they are just what they used to be before their pretended conversion; they are not changed in their acts, even in the least degree, and yet they do most positively affirm that they are the called and living children of God, though they are entirely unchanged. Let such know that their pretensions are lies, and that falsehood is the only groundwork that they have for their hopes; for, wherever the grace of God is, it makes men to differ. A graceless man is not like a gracious man: and a gracious man is not like a graceless one. We are "new creatures in Christ Jesus.” When God looks upon us with the eye of love, in conversion and regeneration, he makes us as opposite from what we were before as light is from darkness, as even heaven itself is from hell. God changes man. He works in him a change so great, that no reformation can even so much as thoroughly imitate it; it is an entire change ”“ a change of the will, of the being, of the desires, of the hates, of the dislikings, and of the likings. In every aspect the man becomes new when divine grace enters into his heart. And yet thou sayest of thyself, "I am converted,” and remain what thou wast! I tell thee once again to thy face, that thou sayest an empty thing; thou hast no ground for saying it. If grace permits thee to sin as thou wast wont to do, then that grace is no grace at all. That grace were not worth the having which permits a man to be, after he receives it, what he was before. No, we must ever hold and teach the great doctrine of sanctification. Where God really justifies he really sanctifies too; and where there is the remission of sin, there is also the forsaking of it. Where God hath blotted out transgression, he also removeth our love of it, and maketh us seek after holiness, and walk in the ways of the Lord.”

Excerpted from this sermon:
http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols58-60/chs3332.pdf

It seems like for some, when they hear the term Lordship Salvation it sounds to them like we’re saying the emphasis must be on surrendering or submitting to the Lordship of Christ. But we’re just saying that submitting to Christ as Lord is one important aspect of true conversion or regeneration, and that without that there is no salvation. Another important aspect is trusting in Christ’s atonement for our sins. Other aspects are a sense of unworthiness and a sense of gratitude for what God has done for us in Christ. There are more aspects that can be mentioned, and it’s all part of the same package when one gets truly converted. The problem comes when you have preachers or teachers trying to eliminate any one of those important aspects of true conversion and saying they are not necessary.

The reason for this particular controversy at hand is due to "Free Grace” proponents saying that obedience is not a necessary fruit of true conversion, that you can have a true conversion without obedience to Christ’s commands. Again, numerous passages of Scripture are completely opposed to that view. The epistle of 1 John is one clear example, and other scriptures like Hebrews 12:14 which says that without holiness no one will see the Lord.

Those who hold to the "Lordship" view of conversion would completely agree with Spurgeon’s definition and description of true repentance which proudpapa shared. I guess maybe many of us are not as eloquent as he was; therefore we deal in simple terms. We do not have the talent to be able to speak and explain things as beautifully as Spurgeon did, but we’re saying the same thing and hold to the same thing as he did regarding this whole issue.

Quote: But Colin, I think denying all of the lordship teaching would also be wrong. Jesus did give us the commission to go and make disciples who will do all that I command them.

I have no issue with the Lordship of Christ ”“ I have no issue with making disciples but that is not a doctrine exclusive to the Lordship salvation doctrine.

Take that last few words ”“ "disciples who will do all that I command them”

If Christ is your Lord then you will do all he commands you to do ”“ or you could say if you love Christ you’ll keep his commandments. So Christ Lordship and love for him are intrinsic they are the same. My point is this you don’t love Christ and don’t keep his commandments then Christ is not your Lord.

You could say that a fully-fledged disciple is someone who is head over heels in love with Christ and because of that love; he willing submits and yields to the Lordship of Christ obeying everything that he says.

Now as we are aware very soon after conversion in the journey of discipleship we soon find out that we can’t do all that is commanded of us… We may have the desire to do, but the power to do is not there, as that famous quote goes: "Houston, we have a problem”

Now if we are honest and open about this "problem” ”“ we will freely admit that bondage remains that there is an area in us that does not love Christ and as such is not under Christ Lordship because we don’t obey.

That "problem” in the scripture is called the Flesh ”“ what is the Flesh, it is innately evil something that remains after conversion. It is not our bodies, muscle, tissue, sinew, nails and hair are not evil in and of themselves, they can do wicked things, but they can also carry the good news of the gospel to the nations. It not our spirit, our spirit is Born Again of the living giving Spirit of God our Spirit is the new man.

The Soul - the connection between the spirit and body. The soul is both spiritual and fleshly. The soul ”“ is our mind our will and emotions, when we read the scripture we hear of the carnal mind and we are told that the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God, but we can add the will governed by the flesh is hostile towards God or the emotions governed by the flesh is hostile. The Soul in scripture is often described as the heart, in the Old testament the word for heart is lebab meaning; Hebrew Lexicon - inner man, mind, will, heart, soul, understanding.

In the New Testament the word for heart is kardia meaning: greek lexicon - that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life, denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life, the vigour and sense of physical life, the centre and seat of spiritual life, the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours, of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence, of the will and character, of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions, of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate.

The heart the seat of both physical and spiritual life, both spiritual and natural ”“ the Flesh is heart it is the thing that is inherently evil (do I need to quote scripture) ”“ it is there that thoughts passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes all start from. The Flesh is our self ”“ our self is the heart ”“ it is the heart of all the self-life.

"disciples who will do all that I command them”

Consider what Gal 5:17 says - For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

The heart our heart is contrary to the Spirit so that ye cannot do the things that ye would, our heart is not under submission to the Lordship of Christ ”“ it will never be under submission the Lordship of Christ, never it must be put to death - So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you, Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. (Col 3:5)

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me Gal 2:20. The only cure is death, it is the cross ”“ it is were the I ”“ the self is removed and the new man Christ becomes the heart and soul of a man; but at the same time you live ”“ something wonderful, something so mysterious that I struggle to find the words to explain it fully other than these ”“ the Heart has become Christ - the Flesh has become Christ.

It is there that you are fully submitted to the Lordship of Christ, it is there that you heart is filled with the fullness of love for Christ and your fellow man ”“ it is there that you are a disciple who will do all that is command of them, but that all takes a work of the Spirit apart from conversion. If we mediate on the the life of the disciples who failed oh so many times even when they walked with Christ, then consider the radical change in them at pentecost.

That is why I disagree with the oh so weak doctrine of Lordship salvation.

RE: ///For example, brother proudpapa, respectfully I say that it seems you have not understood the position correctly since you have tried to pit Spurgeon against it, when in fact Spurgeon himself held to this same view as a reformed Baptist preacher and preached it in many of his sermons.///

I am only pointing out what was a road block to me.

I am in complete agreement with this statement :
"It cannot be that pardon of sin should be given to an impenitent sinner" - Spurgeon

I am testifying that trusting in my repentance of sin kept me out.

I am warning against puting any confidence in our ownselves including our repentance.

Spurgeon preached the most clear Gospel Messages of any one that I have ever read or heard. Did he preach repentance ? absolutly, but he did not preach it as the object of our faith.

"Does an inquirer reply, "But surely I must do something, or suffer something”? I answer””You must put nothing
with Jesus Christ, or you greatly dishonor Him! In order to secure your salvation, you must rely only upon the wounds of
Jesus Christ and nothing else! The text does not say, "His stripes help to heal us,” but, "By His stripes we are healed.”
"But we must repent,” cries another! Assuredly we must and shall, for repentance is the first sign of healing! But the
stripes of Jesus heal us””not our repentance. These stripes, when applied to the heart, work repentance in us””we hate
sin because it made Jesus suffer."
- C.H. Spurgeon, healing by the stripes of Jesushttp://www.spurgeongems.org/vols31-33/chs2000.pdf

"The saints, when they come to die, never conclude their lives by hoping in their good works. Those who have lived the most holy and useful lives invariably look to free grace in their final moments. I never stood by the bedside of a godly man who reposed any confidence whatever in his own prayers, or repentance, or religiousness. I have heard eminently holy men quoting in death the words, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." In fact, the nearer men come to heaven, and the more prepared they are for it, the more simply is their trust in the merit of the Lord Jesus, and the more intensely do they abhor all trust in themselves. If this be the case in our last moments, when the conflict is almost over, much more ought we to feel it to be so while we are in the thick of the fight. If a man be completely saved in this present time of warfare, how can it be except by grace. While he has to mourn over sin that dwelleth in him, while he has to confess innumerable shortcomings and transgressions, while sin is mixed with all he does, how can he believe that he is completely saved except it be by the free favour of God?" - C.H. Spurgeon
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1344

Over the years there have been some who've come on here trying to teach and preach sinless perfection, while at the same time admitting that they themselves are not at that stage due to some supposed deficiency in themselves such as a lack of commitment or whatnot. I’d compare it to someone standing on a street corner preaching that one must be born again, going to great lengths in trying to explain what it means to be born again, while admitting that they themselves are not born again. If that is not the height of hypocrisy I don’t know what is.

I have not come on here trying to preach something I myself admit I haven’t yet experienced or am not walking in as that would indeed be hypocrisy. The issue is that our understanding of being under the Lordship of Christ does not have to do with sinless perfection.

Jesus taught his disciples to pray daily for the forgiveness of their sins in the model prayer He left for His Church. Jesus told Peter that if one is born again he/she does not need a complete washing, as in regeneration, but only a washing of the feet, meaning a washing from the daily defilement of sin that remains in the life of believers. It’s the process of sanctification and much can be said on that topic. Maybe a thread should be started on that topic, who knows.

If this is what you believe Oracio then I have no idea how you can type on a keyboard let alone see the screen. Jesus made it quite clear that if your eye sins poke it out. If your hand sins, cut it off!!

What are you talking about sinless perfection for. There is only one who is perfect, Jesus Christ. For the life of me I have no idea why we try and read ourselves into a story about how God so loved the world and sent his Son to die for it.

It is trick of the devil to make us think so highly of ourselves in relation to matters of Salvation. What is our problem, We have been invited to accept a covenant cut between the the perfect man and God. It has nothing to do with us, It is between The Son and the Father on our behalf.

If you want to bring yourself into this conversation you will only get frustrated with the duplicity and failure that resides in each and every one of us. Jesus is perfect, and its his life in you that is the hope of glory not my pitiful attempts at self sanctification and self justification.

The father relates to us in only one way and thats through his son. if any man tries any other way you will be met with failure and discouragement. We make light of his work and make much of ourselves. Put Jesus Christ as the only thing and the things of this world, the things of ourselves will grow strangely dim.

ZekeO, you completely misunderstood my last post or did not read all of it, or did not read it carefully. I was making reference to some who have come on here trying to promote sinless perfection, which thing I completely reject as having no biblical warrant.

Also, you may not have read other previous posts which will indicate why I bring up this "sinless perfection" thing.

I was making reference to your belief that the disciples prayer is a model that we as new covenant belivers should adhere to.

Friend, you making light of sin then.

I was making reference to your belief that the disciples prayer is a model that we as new covenant belivers should adhere to.

Friend, you making light of sin then.

So you're saying that that model prayer which is part of our Lord's Sermon on the Mount is not for today? I think it'd be hard to prove that biblically.

Yesterday I read Spurgeon's evening devotional which speaks to this issue so I'll share it here:

"It is quite certain that those whom Christ has washed in His precious blood need not make a confession of sin, as culprits or criminals, before God the Judge, for Christ has for ever taken away all their sins in a legal sense, so that they no longer stand where they can be condemned, but are once for all accepted in the Beloved; but having become children, and offending as children, ought they not every day to go before their heavenly Father and confess their sin, and acknowledge their iniquity in that character? Nature teaches that it is the duty of erring children to make a confession to their earthly father, and the grace of God in the heart teaches us that we, as Christians, owe the same duty to our heavenly father. We daily offend, and ought not to rest without daily pardon. For, supposing that my trespasses against my Father are not at once taken to Him to be washed away by the cleansing power of the Lord Jesus, what will be the consequence? If I have not sought forgiveness and been washed from these offences against my Father, I shall feel at a distance from Him; I shall doubt His love to me; I shall tremble at Him; I shall be afraid to pray to Him: I shall grow like the prodigal, who, although still a child, was yet far off from his father. But if, with a child's sorrow at offending so gracious and loving a Parent, I go to Him and tell Him all, and rest not till I realize that I am forgiven, then I shall feel a holy love to my Father, and shall go through my Christian career, not only as saved, but as one enjoying present peace in God through Jesus Christ my Lord. There is a wide distinction between confessing sin as a culprit, and confessing sin as a child. The Father's bosom is the place for penitent confessions. We have been cleansed once for all, but our feet still need to be washed from the defilement of our daily walk as children of God."

Disclaimer: I don't agree with Spurgeon's example and use of the story of the prodigal son there, as I take that parable to be teaching the truth of lost sinner's who are converted after coming to their senses. A.W. Pink wrote an excellent treatise on that parable:
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=732

But again, the point Spurgeon is making is well-taken.

It's been said that Christians should keep short accounts with God, lest there be more drifting away and more of a need for greater discipline or chastisement from the Lord. Like David, we should pray continually, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; 24 And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting."-Ps.139:23-24

So you're saying that that model prayer which is part of our Lord's Sermon on the Mount is not for today?

I think it'd be hard to prove that biblically.

Lets turn that question around and ask this do you have eyes and hands because if you do then you are not being obedient to the sermon on the mount?

ZekeO, I don't want to get into the topic of whether or not the Sermon on the Mount is for today because I don't believe it is relevant here. My main point is that sinless perfection is not taught in God's Word as something attainable in this life. I think this truth can also be proven from other sections of the New Testament. But I don't really want to speak further on the issue of sinless perfection here because I feel I've said enough on that. We'll have to agree to disagree on our views ZekeO. Take care.

Zeko he is upset because I have pointed out the weakness of the Lordship Salvation doctrine and nailed it with the full force of the perfect law that Lordship Salvationers so fervently apply to the easy believist and the free-gracers. Only to find out that they’ll happily run for the cover of God’s abounding grace themselves when they also fail before the law.

The Sermon on the Mount Jesus showed that God requires perfection in our heart attitudes as well as in our actions.

This is what David Wilkerson said: I have walked with the Lord for over sixty years. After all this time, I am convinced it is possible to walk before the Lord with a perfect heart. I am with David on this although I haven’t walked with Christ as long.

The definition of perfection according to Scripture is "completeness,” "maturity.” In both the Hebrew and Greek, the term includes "uprightness,” "being without spot or blemish,” "totally obedient.”

John Wesley thought of perfection as "constant obedience.” In other words, a perfect heart is a responsive heart. It quickly and totally reacts to the Lord’s wooings, whisperings and warnings. This heart says at all times, "Speak, Lord, for your servant is attentive. Show me the path to go in, and I will walk in it.”

Surely then one must conclude that a perfect heart is a heart that is led by the Spirit of God.

A few preachers whom God has raised up in recent times to expose easy-believism are Paul Washer, Tim Conway, and Steve Lawson. In hearing these men preach certain messages which expose cheap grace, many false converts have been angered and remained that way, some have been truly converted, and many true believers have been exhorted and encouraged to keep pressing on in the Lord. These are a few of what I’d say are must hear messages from them:

Paul Washer - Examine Yourself (about an hour and 13 min.):
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=12829&commentView=itemComments

Steve Lawson ”“ It Will Cost You Everything (about 11 min.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQOBMi4QS8

Tim Conway ”“Jesus Is Lord (about 10 and a half min.):
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KD7WDGNX

Thanks Oracio,

I shall indeed take care. If I may just comment on the preachers and sermons you have referenced.

You go to the bible and you wrestle with the word yourself so that you know from scripture why you believe what you believe. I have in regards to the grace of God and am convinced that he is able to guard that which I have entrusted to him till that day.

I appreciate that there may be different understanding of the term 'Lordship Salvation' and some may have had bad experiences from a legalistic way of looking at this, but that is not what is being presented here. It is a misrepresentation to suggest it is legalistic or perfectionism to say Jesus needs to be Lord if He is to be Saviour.

How do those who reject the Lordship aspect of salvation deal with Jesus' words such as in Matt 7.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

"Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

"And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Does this not apply to today? When Jesus says 'in that day', He refers to the future when He returns. It cannot be OT dispensation as they would not say to Jesus 'Lord, Lord, look what we did in your name'! Please do not cut out the difficult passages because we don't like them. Yes it applies to today.

Is Jesus teaching sinless perfection here? I think not! It is very clear what He is saying. Those who 'practice lawlessness' are those He does not know and will not enter the Kingdom. They are not His subjects. In the context of the whole teaching, which includes the warning of false teachers and judging by the fruit, to practise (or work) lawlessness is to be someone who has none of the character of Jesus in them and no interest in His righteousness.

Using the parent and children analogy, if a child is submissive to their parents authority (we could say lordship) even though they may at times do some things wrong (sin), they accept and respect the discipline of their parents when they are corrected and punished. The relationship is still maintained. This is different to a child (or someone who claims to be their child) who lives in complete rebellion to their parents and will not accept their rules or authority and has a completely different view of how they want to live. As this continues there will be no relationship and eventually a separation between parent and child.
No analogy is perfect, but I use it just to get across a way to view this. It is a matter of submission, motives and will. Now 'will' does not mean 'will power' or our own strength, but our desire, what we will or choose.

Heydave, I like your reference to the children and parents analogy. But I beleive you would be hard pressed to prove that based upon a child living in rebellion to their God, then that makes them an unconverted child of God. Some do walk away and claim the grace of God as if it's is something that will keep them even against their own will , those are not children of God. But some rebel bases upon despair in their life. I don't want to get into it, but not every backslidden Christian is abusing the grace of God.

But what your saying in the jist of it is that a born again Christian who one day of through the process of life that decides to walk away from God can lose their eternal security in heaven and be damned to hell? That they once walked with the Lord , but now walk with the devil?

The problem with that goes back to Isaiah 43:13 for me to be honest with you. God acts, who can reverse it? But your saying that we in our own power can reverse the recreating work of God in our lives. That we can Shane ourselves back from being new creations to our old creation. That our old things did not truly "pass away" but they still remain?

The only issue I have with Lordship teaching ( even though I do believe in the premise of it 100%) is that it seems to me that it makes it pretty easy for others to judge others based upon it. It gives us a measuring stick as it were for others people's lives. Mark 4:26-29 describes the parable of the seed. In vs 27 it says that the mans goes to bed and he gets up and the seed sprouts and grows. But he doesn't know how. But based upon your interpretation that's nots true. It grew because he believed in lordship salvation right? He must of submitted to the Lordship of Christ.

I'm not trying to down play the extreme importance of submitting to the Lordship of Christ, but I get a little un easy when a doctrine is established out of it. I believe the Lordship of Christ puts so much emphasis on man and not in God. Paul never describes his mission of going into the world and having people submit to the Lordship of Christ. Even though he for sure believed in it, and practiced it. It could almost get to a point where we could start proclaiming when people ask us how we were converted that we submitted to the Lordship of Christ that's how. Instead of I was dead in sin and God came to me and through His infinite grace He gave me new life as soon as I received Christ to be the Lord and my propitiation for my sin in my life. That puts it back on the grace of God instead of the will of man.

Here is the basic issue I have with Lordship Salvation. It makes it seem ( at least to me) that Lordhsip Salvation is the whole pie and not just a piece of it. Submitting to the Lordship of Christ is almost a natural thing in my opinion when someone is converted. Although sometimes it takes time for some individuals to fully submit even though they are converted. Don't we all struggle from time to time submiting to God's word in our flesh? Does that mean that we are not saved because we are not submitted at that moment to Christ's Lordhsip? I think not.

Paul says the he preached Christ crucified, not submit, submit, submit. Paul submitted to the Lordhsip of Christ, after Christ made the first move on that road to Damascus. I just do not want a piece of the Gospel message ( submitting to the Lordhsip of Christ) to become the whole of the Gospel message, which I believe it can or already has in some instances.

Also, HeyDave mentioned the parent analogy of a child that rebels and will no longer submit to his parents being an example of someone not submitting to the Lordhsip of Christ and a seperation occurs because of that. That is very true that a seperation will occur when we willingly choose to rebel against God. But does not scripture say that "He who began a good work WILL finish it"? Also, what about the story of the prodigal? He willingly rebeled against his fathers will and chose a life of sin. He was his actual son. So we would have to conlude based upon some of the theology presented, that the son was lost as soon as he left his father and chose to no longer submit to his "lordhsip" . But when he came back he regained his salvation. So really, it was all up to the son to "maintain" his right standing with his father, based upon submitting to him? Then what would happen if the son did it again! The very next moment possibly! Would he be continually stuck in a cycle of walking away and coming back?
So then we would have to conlude that the other son was in perfect standing with the father because of his submission to his fathers "lordship"? But yet he was filled with envy and anger but still right with his father based upon his submission to him? So the Father up in heaven is more pleased with someone who submits to Him, but their heart is far from His heart?

These are just some issues I see in submitting the Lordhsip Salvation stance from a dogmatic view point to where it almost becomes the whole of the Gospel message instead of an intricate part of it.

Matthew 11:28-29 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

The Gospel call is to come to Him first, then He will set His yoke upon us ( signifying submission).

Heydave, I think that that was an awesome, spot on analogy brother. Yes, that is what we are saying in essence, that a true child of God will evidence submission to their heavenly Father's rules and discipline, though not 100% perfectly.

Now as to whether or not one can actually lose their salvation, I don't think that needs to be the issue here necessarily. The issue is whether or not one can have assurance of salvation or a right to claim they are a child of God when they have no desire to submit to His authority over their lives.

Regarding Matt.7:21-23, "Free Grace" teachers say it only refers to people who trusted in their own works to save them, since it says there that they boasted of what they did in Christ's name. I've heard Charles Stanley teach it that way and Bob Wilkin points people to Stanley's teaching on it. But like you pointed out, when you consider the fact that Jesus said they "practice lawlessness" or are "workers of iniquity", the "Free Grace" "exclusive" interpretation has to crumble. Sure, people will definitely end up in hell on account of trusting in their own goodness or works to save them, but that's not all there is to it; because Scripture also teaches clearly in numerous places that those who practice sin and refuse to repent will not go to heaven.

back-to-acts, you brought up a good point which I'd like to try to respond to briefly. You wrote:

The only issue I have with Lordship teaching ( even though I do believe in the premise of it 100%) is that it seems to me that it makes it pretty easy for others to judge others based upon it. It gives us a measuring stick as it were for others people's lives. Mark 4:26-29 describes the parable of the seed. In vs 27 it says that the mans goes to bed and he gets up and the seed sprouts and grows. But he doesn't know how. But based upon your interpretation that's nots true. It grew because he believed in lordship salvation right? He must of submitted to the Lordship of Christ.

But we do have to be careful on how we go about confronting folk and ask for God's wisdom because there are different types of situations that come up when it comes to the need for church discipline or confronting someone.

back-to-acts, this is another part of your posts I'd like to respond to briefly brother, and it's in love :)

Paul says the he preached Christ crucified, not submit, submit, submit. Paul submitted to the Lordhsip of Christ, after Christ made the first move on that road to Damascus. I just do not want a piece of the Gospel message ( submitting to the Lordhsip of Christ) to become the whole of the Gospel message, which I believe it can or already has in some instances.

But notice what we're told Paul also preaced in Acts 26:19-21:
"Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me."

So we see there that repentance, which Paul defines as turning to God and doing works befitting repentance, was an important element of Paul's gospel proclamation. What we're saying is that the kind of faith we see preached in the Word of God is not this easy-believism type of "faith" being preached in many circles today. Like James points out, it is a faith that has works accompanying it, not a dead faith. Many claim to have faith in Christ but many have a dead "faith" that does not save.

Like Titus 1:16 says, "They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work."

Travis,

It is not an either/or situation as you depict it. You seem to be saying that if there is a submitting or a repentance then salvation is dependent upon man. However the bible clearly points out that salvation is of God, but we have to respond to it. It's a 'both'situation. As in the passage you mentioned where 'Jesus said come unto me and then take my yoke upon you', what would be the heart of someone saying, "Yes I'll come, but I'm not wearing your yoke!"?

If you were drowning in the sea and a person came looking for you and threw you a life jacket, would you say afterwards 'I was saved because I put the life jacket on'? No, you would say you were saved because that person came and saved you. However if you did not put the jacket on you would not have been saved. In the same way just because (as Paul put it) 'God commands all men everywhere to repent', does not make salvation our work.

You cannot have grace without faith. Grace is God's gift and faith is that by which we receive that gift. James tells us that true faith is evidenced by works (not works of law, but works as in appropriate action). Faith without action is useless in the same way a life jacket is no good unless you put it on.

Let me ask this question, when do you think the new covenant started??

That indeed is the issue at hand. The answer is found through out Scripture but I believe Hebrews 9 15-28 makes that point clear.

What was the big change that occured at that point : Christ in you, the hope of glory become available to all men whomsoever will look to the sacrifice of Jesus.

May we be growing in this Grace that has been given to us and encouraging others to do likewise.

I'd agree that some of our Lord's sayings or commands are not binding on us today, as in the case of tithing which He told the scribes and Pharisees that they should have practiced while simultaneously practicing the weightier things of God's law(Matt.23:23). But I'd say the vast majority of our Lord's teaching and commands are binding today because we see them carried over into Acts through Revelation.

When Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount that one should pluck out their eye and cut off their hand and foot if they cause them to sin, did Christ literally expect people to do that when they sinned? I don't think so, though some have actually done that kind of thing in history due to misunderstanding our Lord there, ouch. He was making the point that we need to do whatever it takes to get rid of sin in our lives; that it's not worth it to lose one's soul on account of any sin we may enjoy.

Spurgeon put it this way in his sermon titled "Turn or Burn":

"...repentance to be sure must be entire. How many will say, "Sir, I will renounce this sin and the other; but there are certain darling lusts which I must keep and hold." O sirs, In God's name let me tell you, it is not the giving up of one sin, nor fifty sins, which is true repentance; it is the solemn renunciation of every sin. If thou dost harbour one of those accursed vipers in thy heart, thy repentance is but a sham. If thou dost indulge in but one lust, and dost give up every other, that one lust, like one leak in a ship, will sink thy soul. Think it not sufficient to give up thy outward vices; fancy it not enough to cut off the more corrupt sins of thy life; it is all or none which God demands. "Repent," says he; and when he bids you repent, he means repent for all thy sins, otherwise he never can accept thy repentance as being real and genuine."

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0106.htm

Entire sermon highly recommended. Spurgeon was very balanced in his preaching of the gospel. He preached both the goodness and severity of God as all preachers of the gospel should do. Unfortunately many love and will point to Spurgeon's eloquent preaching on grace and love and will ignore his preaching on sin, righteousness, and judgment.

RE: ///Entire sermon highly recommended. Spurgeon was very balanced in his preaching of the gospel. He preached both the goodness and severity of God as all preachers of the gospel should. Unfortunately many love and will point to Spurgeon's eloquent preaching on grace and love and will ignore his preaching on sin, righteousness, and judgment.///

I do not believe anyone on this thread is opposed to preaching on sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Of course I would agree that there is a vast difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Also that we are saved by Christ's life in us. What is being discussed is what that life looks like.

Tuc, I hope I am misunderstanding you, but surely you are not suggesting that we dismiss most of the words we have recorded by our Lord in the gospels as irrelevant to Christians? Jesus is God incarnate, so it is much more importance we should give heed to what at He had to say! (See Hebrews1).

RE//What is being discussed is what that life looks like.//

I see the disussion differently.
We all can agree on what the perfect life looks like, that is Jesus. and as most in this thread have admitted they fail at living up to that life.
So I feel the discussion is what is the correct motivation to growing in that direction.

Tuc,

I'm sure we all ageee on that, but you did not answer my question.

What I find odd is this resistance to the Lordship of Christ, when Christ himself is the very centre of the New Covenant. He is also the Head of the church and should have the pre eminence in all we are and do as Christians. How can He NOT be Lord of those who claim to be Christians?

Proudpapa, Read the OP again, I don't see how you get that it is about motivation from that, but maybe Oracio is best placed to answer that as it was he that set the topic.

I do not believe anyone on this thread is opposed to preaching on sin, righteousness, and judgment.

Heydave,

Tuc is dancing with Joseph Prince down a primrose path of deceit.

I wish someone would take each of Prince's books and write a page by page refutation. The man is evil. Tuc is a victim and many others are.

http://www.amazon.com/Hyper-Grace-Exposing-Dangers-Modern-Message/dp/1621365891/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424472178&sr=8-1&keywords=hypergrace

Dr. Brown's refutation, but certainly not a page by page refutation. He has requested an audience with Joseph Prince who I believe has refused.

Quote: I appreciate that there may be different understanding of the term 'Lordship Salvation'

Yes that true so you must go to the Lordship Salvation to see what they say.

Quote from LS doctrine: Christ warns that the gate is strait and the way is narrow that leads to life. It is narrow because Christ is the only way and because the conditions required for those who would enter are difficult.

Do you see the subtleness of this doctrine - Christ is the only way PLUS the conditions required for those who would enter are difficult.

Christ is the way, the truth and the light - there is no plus - he is the only way to the Father to the Father, he is the only way to have eternal life. The LS doctrine for salvation is faith plus works. They use the Lordship of Christ to enforce the plus.

Quote: "Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

Quote: "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!

The whole point of my previous posts where to address this issue, but it seemed to go over everyones heads. After conversion a rebel remains within - lawlessness remains. Paul calls it the Flesh, if you want you can go back and reread how I broke down what the flesh is.

You see these people claimed to be under Christ Lordship and they held up there works they had done, but in reality they were lawless and not under Christ Lordship.

To them it was faith PLUS works and that is the error of Lordship salvation doctrine.

Edit: spelling

Quote from LS doctrine: Christ warns that the gate is strait and the way is narrow that leads to life. It is narrow because Christ is the only way and because the conditions required for those who would enter are difficult.

Do you see the subtleness of this doctrine - Christ is the only way PLUS the conditions required for those who would enter are difficult.

Christ is the way, the truth and the light - there is no plus - he is the only way to the Father to the Father, he is the only way to have eternal life. The LS doctrine for salvation is faith plus works. They use the Lordship of Christ to enforce the plus.

"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."-Matthew 7:13-14

Your problem is not with us, it's with God's Word. The devil wants you to think that repentance is a work added to the gospel when in fact it is part of the gospel that Christ, Paul, Peter, and the rest of the Apostles and disciples and the prophets preached. Again, if you have a problem of not wanting to repent and submit to Christ's Lordship for the salvation of your soul it is to be taken up with God and His Word, not us. One cannot think they can remain unrepentant until they get to some sinless perfection second blessing stage which they suppose is optional. Again, that's what the devil would have you think and be deceived in friend. Don't listen to his lies, it's not worth it.

Another word that can be used instead of lordship is repentance. Those who oppose the lordship of Christ in the life of true believers oppose biblical repentance in the life of true believers.

Is not repentance a turning from sin to God and a surrendering to Him as Lord and Master? How can someone say that they've truly repented while at the same time refusing to heed God's command to forsake their wicked ways(lordship)?

So this issue can also be seen in terms of asking the questions, is repentance necessary for salvation and does repentance entail a renouncing and forsaking of one's wicked ways before God? Of course the answer from God's Word is crystal clear and unmistakable, unless one willfully opposes that truth of God.

I love Joseph Prince and listen to him often and would recommend his books to anyone.

I love Joseph Prince and listen to him often and would recommend his books to anyone.

Thanks Oracio,

I shall indeed take care. If I may just comment on the preachers and sermons you have referenced.

You go to the bible and you wrestle with the word yourself so that you know from scripture why you believe what you believe. I have in regards to the grace of God and am convinced that he is able to guard that which I have entrusted to him till that day.

So I see that you have a problem with the preachers I referenced, including the gospel of repentance and faith in Christ which Spurgeon also preached, but endorse Joseph Prince and listen to him often and recommend his books.

Joseph Prince is a word of faith prosperity preacher who preaches easy-believism and what some call antinomianism (meaning lawlessness). It's a delusional hope, a false assurance, a false gospel. Flee from such an ear-tickling preacher, friend. It's not worth the ruin of your soul. I know that your country has been plagued with this false prosperity gospel but I think that there are a few sound preachers and churches in your country. Look for them.

Oracio,

So I see that you have a problem with the preachers I referenced

The reason I mentioned you going to the bible etc, etc, is that you from the word can give a reason for the hope that you have or in this case the rod for your back, thats sarcasm by the way!

I love most of the grace preachers and hold some of them in high regard, but my belief isn't built on a sermon or two that substantiates my belief. I have gone to the word and searched and wrestled with the word myself to see if these things are indeed true.

I am not going to defend Joseph Prince, what a waste of time.

Joseph Prince is a word of faith prosperity preacher who preaches easy-believism and what some call antinomianism (meaning lawlessness). It's a delusional hope, a false assurance, a false gospel. Flee from such an ear-tickling preacher, friend. It's not worth the ruin of your soul.

I know that your country has been plagued with this false prosperity gospel but I think that there are a few sound preachers and churches in your country. Look for them.

Quote: Your problem is not with us, it's with God's Word. The devil wants you to think that repentance is a work added to the gospel when in fact it is part of the gospel that Christ, Paul, Peter, and the rest of the Apostles and disciples and the prophets preached.

My problem is a doctrine that is faith PLUS.

Quote: Again, your problem of not wanting to repent and submit to Christ's Lordship for the salvation of your soul.

Quote: Again, your problem of not wanting to repent and submit to Christ's Lordship for the salvation of your soul is to be taken up with God and His Word, not us. You cannot think that you can remain unrepentant until you get to some sinless perfection second blessing.

My dear Oracio - God has chosen me for a purpose, that purpose is a move of God the likes of which has not been seen before. If you must that Move of God can be described by the meaning of my name - Victorious people.

In the preparations and dealings with God through the years, I find this - that Salvation is all about faith, when your justified it's about faith, when I mention sanctification it's about faith, it is nothing that I can do, it is nothing of myself.

Jesus said - I can do nothing of myself - it is the same as what Paul said: I am crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. This is the work of God, that we believe on him whom God sent.

You live by faith in the Son of God - so simple, so very simple it has taken years of struggling in my own strength to come to this way of thinking. The mistake I made you could say was focusing on "the doing" rather than by faith. Focusing on what I must do rather than trusting and believing in what Christ has done.

This is the work of God, that we believe on him whom God sent.

So my challenge to you Oracio when what I have told you happens will you lay aside this Lordship doctrine?

Quote: So this issue can also be seen in terms of asking the questions, is repentance necessary for salvation and does repentance entail a renouncing and forsaking of one's wicked ways before God? Of course the answer from God's Word is crystal clear and unmistakable, unless one willfully opposes that truth of God.

The subtleness of Lordship salvation;

1. repentance necessary for salvation
2. repentance entail a renouncing and forsaking of one's wicked ways before God

Lordship salvation - renouncing and forsaking of one's wicked ways are necessary for salvation.

It's works are necessary for salvation.

So the drug addict gives up his drugs in his own strength so that he can be saved, the Alcoholic must overcome his addiction in his own strength so that he can be saved.

Do you just ignore this scripture: Not of works, lest any man should boast Eph 2:9

Edit: spelling

With respect colin ,iv read much of oraco posts and watched much of the preachers he mentions ,repentence accoring to them is not somthing that the drug adict does to get him self saved in his own strength ,,that friend is a blanten misrepresentation of that doctrine ,but repentence from sin is the evedence that the drug adict is saved ,and it occours accoring to the calvinistic view and my experence ,at the point of the new birth and conversion ,and it is wrought by the spirit of god ,for he who is born of god does not sin for gods seed is in him so he cannot sin ,,,in the context of practicing sin with no repentence

To say that washer and spurgen and others teach that one must stop sinning according to the flesh ,is actualy close to the verry opasite of what they believe ,

They go as far as saying that it is imposable in the flesh as an unregenerate man to stop sinning ,,thats why they believe and teach a soild doctrine totaly depravity ,,that not only can a natural man in adam not stop sinning in him self for the reason as paul said that nothing good dwels in him , but that because of that ecevy thing he does is only sin even his so called goood deeds and he cant come to god and even hates god.

SO it is all up to the power of god in regeneration to produce and ignight faith and repentence becasue they are totaly gifts from god ,in contrass to you thinking of them as something that man must produse in the flesh ,

They do not say that but would be apalled at any teaching that says fallen man can stop sinning or clean him self up,

iv listend to around 100 sermons from paul washer ,he has allways said the opasite

Yes I agree with brothergary, Colin you are misrepresenting what is being said by us who don't go along with the hyper grace teaching. You also misunderstand what constitutes 'works'.

Your interpretation of the Matthew 7:21-23 is really bizarre. You implied that those who who say Lord, Lord were like those who hold to the Lordship teaching because they did works. However the very opposite is true because these ones Jesus rejected because they did not manifest righteousness, but licentiousness! They DID NOT claim any works, but that they operated in Christ's authority.....they were deluded. They had no works befitting repentance, but had works of lawlessness!

It always amazes me how one can completely misinterpret quite simple scriptures because of a predetermined doctrinal postion. But this is possible for any of us and we need to lay down our preconceptions and honestly and sincerely let the Holy Spirit apply the word as it was written and not as we want to fit it to our ideas.

Colin, when I hear anyone say such things as 'I have been chosen by God for a special task', then I am conerned that pride and deception will not be far from overtaking them. Even if someone genuinely believes God has called them to a particular work they would be wise not to publicise that until it comes to fruition and can be seen as evident. Spiritual pride is something that is a common weapon of Satan against the saints. Beware of this.

Quote: SO it is all up to the power of god in regeneration to produce and ignight faith and repentence becasue they are totaly gifts from god ,in contrass to you thinking of them as something that man must produse in the flesh.

So you can read my mind and know what I think, give me a break...

Dr. John MacArthur Quote: Of all the statements that I have read on the subject, the strongest one comes from Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Listen to what Spurgeon said. "There must be a true and actual abandonment of sin and a turning unto righteousness in real act and deed in every day life. Repentance, to be sure, must be entire. How many will say, Sir, I will renounce this sin and the other...but there are certain darling lusts which I must keep and hold? Oh, sirs, in God's name let me tell you, it is not the giving up of one sin, nor 50 sins which is true repentance. It is the solemn renunciation of every sin. If thou dost harbor one of those accursed vipers in thy heart and dost give up every other, that one lust like one leak in a ship will sink thy soul. Think it not sufficient to give up thy outward vices, fancy it not enough to cut off the more corrupt sins of thy life, it is all or none which God demands. Repent, says He, and when He bids you repent, He means repent of all thy sins otherwise He can never accept thy repentance as real and genuine. All sin must be given up or else you will never have Christ. All transgression must be renounced or else the gates of heaven must be barred against you. Let us remember then that for repentance to be sincere, it must be entire repentance. True repentance is a turning of the heart as well as of the life. It is the giving up of the whole soul to God to be His forever and ever. It is the renunciation of the sins of the heart as well as the crimes of the life.

Unfortunately, John MacArthur horribly takes Charles Spurgeon's words out of context, and claims that Spurgeon taught Lordship Salvation. Nothing could be further from the truth, as this quote by Spurgeon himself plainly reveals.

"You must not expect that you will be perfect in 'repentance' before you are saved. No Christian can be perfect. 'Repentance' is a grace. Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself...

Read it here -

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0044.htm

Quote: To say that washer and spurgen and others teach that one must stop sinning according to the flesh ,is actualy close to the verry opasite of what they believe.

Let me remind you what Macarthur was happy to quote;

- All sin must be given up or else you will never have Christ.

Can't get much plainer than that.

Heydave thank you for your concern.

Quote: Your interpretation of the Matthew 7:21-23 is really bizarre. You implied that those who who say Lord, Lord were like those who hold to the Lordship teaching because they did works.

Sorry Dave but to fully understand what I mean you have to think about lawlessness. The flesh is lawless because in the flesh there is Sin and Sin is lawlessness. So any time you refuse God's will your being lawless - if you live the christian life by your own strength, then you are lawless. Salvation is far deeper than just being born again and claiming his Lordship, casting out a few devils with the little prophesy every now and again.

The point is Lordship salvationist or a Free Gracer it doesn't matter if you don't do the will of the Father then you'll be classed as lawless...

Quote: Colin you are misrepresenting what is being said by us who don't go along with the hyper grace teaching.

Heydave you said earlier you hadn't heard of Lordship salvation - but you seem happy to defend LS I think you should do some research and carefully study what they say. It's a case of getting out of one ditch and falling into another.

Colin you are misrepresenting what is being said by us who don't go along with the hyper grace teaching.

If you going to have an opinion either way make sure its because you yourself know why, not because of some mans opinion. Your spiritual destiny is at stake.

Colin,
I don't need to fully understand what you mean by lawlessness in regard to Matthew 7. I need to understand Jesus means and that is quite clear to me. It's your interpretation that is wrong. Jesus clearly said the reason that that he said to them 'depart'was because He never knew them and they practiced lawlessness. According to your definition of lawlessness, then everyone who is not sinless will be be told to depart from from Jesus based on what He said there. That is why your definition is clearly wrong.

You think that repentance is a work and that it is wrong to claim the neccesity of it along side faith to be saved to eternal life. So you know better that John Baptist, Jesus and Paul who all clearly preached repent and believe.
Repentance as you probably know means a change of mind. So we are required to change our minds about what is sin and righteousness. We are to accept the Lordship of Jesus and His rule on sin and righteousness. Does that mean we are perfect and without sin? No, but we desire to please the Lord by walking in the light with Him and if and when we sin we readily accept the that it is sin, confess it as such and turn from that sin to continue to walk in righteousness. Cheap grace says you can come to Christ as saviour and if you never turn from sin and just continue in your own lawlessness you are still saved. This we reject. Don't tell me it is not so, I have heard it with my own ears many times.

Forget anyone else definitions, but just answer me two questions. Do you believe that Jesus must be accepted as Lord as well as Saviour? If yes what does that mean to you? If no, then there is no point in discussing further.

RE:///Proudpapa, Read the OP again, I don't see how you get that it is about motivation from that, but maybe Oracio is best placed to answer that as it was he that set the topic.///

I am was not defending any on the OP, though I would challenge any evidence that would show that John Mcarthur or James White etc. is any more sold out to the Lord in there personal lives than was Zane C. Hodges, Charles Ryrie, David Jeremiah, Tony Evans or even old Dr. Stanley. none of whom I am any large fan of.
I would also challenge any one to show any evidence that those sitting under the preaching of someone like David Jeremiah are any less sold out to the Lordship of Jesus than those setting under some one like John Mcarthur.

The issue I see is motivation. Do we serve Jesus as Lord because God first Loved us or because we must do so to be found worthy of the Atonement.

The doctrine of the new birth or regeneration has been an essential Christian doctrine throughout the Church's history, right up there with the Trinity, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. The doctrine of the new birth says that a radical transformation of heart and life takes place when one is saved and that without that radical transformation there is no salvation(2Cor.5:17). When one is truly born again they have a new heart that hates sin and loves righteousness. Their will is changed and bent toward holiness of heart and life, whereas before their will was bent toward sin, darkness and unrighteousness.

Jesus said you must be born again and that unless one is born again one cannot see the kingdom of God.

When you have preachers denying this essential doctrine you have apostasy from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, regardless of how respected or popular those preachers are.

Again, when you have preachers denying the need for the new birth you have serious problems and one cannot compromise with such error.

Ultimately, this is not really about siding with any particular preachers but rather about siding with essential Christian truth taught in God's Word.

RE: ///Jesus said you must be born again and that unless one is born again one cannot see the kingdom of God///

Oh yes! That is found in John chapter 3, and how that is accomplished is also found.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Numbers 21 was instumental to my breakthrough

Since David Jeremiah's church is only 5 miles from my home, I attended services there for around 5 years. Mostly so that my wife and I could listen to the Word and do some worship. We sat in the balcony, resisted the regular plea to join, and dabbled in the men's fellowship. My wife went to a couple women's events, was unable to penetrate the cliques.

At the men's ministry, informational structure was very confining and the words that dripped from the master's mouth each week were the same as scripture. I was even a "table leader" for a time during one of the sessions but found that no one wanted to think outside the box. Even holding back in deference to building relationships was ineffective- could not find one man that wanted to pursue God in the Baptism in the Spirit.

Jeremiah lays it out, you get everything you are ever going to get from God when you go forward to accept Christ. You get salvation, the Holy Spirit, forgiveness from sins, a shiny new bible, and a full color brochure with your pledge card. They buy it all, and live out the boring denial from there on out.

One time I was at a meeting where I had an opportunity to approach the good Doctor, and I had a question for him. Suddenly a strong feeling of restraint came over me, as the Spirit apparently bid me to leave him alone. I did.

But I have heard him clearly repudiate the idea that a man could be baptised in the Spirit, hear directly from God, operate in the gifts of the Spirit. I don't go there anymore.

The money continues to roll. They are building bigger barns as we speak.

Scary how people can be led so close to the real thing and then the hand of human flesh says, "That's far enough."

Oh yes! That is found in John chapter 3, and how that is accomplished is also found.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Numbers 21 was instumental to my breakthrough

It's not an either or but a both and, repentance and faith, two sides of the same coin.

It's been said that true saving faith is a repentant faith otherwise it is a spurious or false faith.

Regarding David Jeremiah, I have not mentioned his name at all on this thread as being part of those who teach the "Free Grace" or hyper grace heresy. I have not heard or read anything from him to that effect. I did not state that every single DTS graduate holds to "Free Grace" teaching because I know that that is not true, but many do hold to it.

Respectfully, regarding a preacher's position on the gifts of the Spirit or the baptism in the Spirit, that is not an essential issue that has to do with salvation. And again, neither is the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism. But this cheap, hyper grace thing is an issue because it is the cause of deceiving and damning many souls with a false security or false assurance.

As I said "none of whom I am any large fan of."

RE: ///But I have heard him clearly repudiate the idea that a man could be baptised in the Spirit,///

I agree with you sidewalk. that is a big issue.

but my question Pertained to comparison with that of John Macarthurs ministry. They would disagree with us also.

Please, let's not discount a ministry simply because it may be cessationist, as that has nothing to do with the salvation of one's soul. Cessationists being mentioned here believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit but their idea of it differs from Pentecostalism's view on it. Cessationists believe that one is baptized with the Holy Ghost when one is born again per 1Cor.12:13, and that after that we need more fillings of the Spirit.

But again, let's not turn this thread into debating that issue as it has nothing to do with salvation. Precious souls are at stake when it comes to this cheap grace teaching. That's way more important imo.

The debate over Lordship salvation has been going on for over a decade. The position by "Free Grace" men like Zane Hodges makes salvation a simple matter of mental assent to historical and doctrinal truths. True faith will change a person's heart and result in a change in lifestyle. It is important to not put the cart before the horse here. Salvation is not belief plus works. That is Romanism. MacArthur in trying to correct the errors of "easy believism" swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction by conflating justification with sanctification. I want to make clear that my criticism of MacArthur does not signal that I am a proponent of the "free grace" position. Both sides are extreme positions and contain error. The Bible does say that those who PRACTICE a LIFESTYLE of gross sin without remorse will not enter the kingdom of God. This does not mean we earn salvation by works but that only those with hearts that trust and love the Lord more than their own lives are saved. Doing results from our being. The Pharisees were far from God not because their works were faulty but because their love and relationship with and for God was in shambles. However I have known Christians who backslid from the Lord and after a time, when they hit rock bottom, came back to the Lord in repentance and reconciliation. They loved the Lord perhaps even more because "he who is forgiven much, loves much". I am not suggesting that people backslide of course but scripture does say that the Lord, like the Good Shepherd, will seek and draw the lost sheep back to himself. MacArthur's position allows no possibility of a backslidden Christian.

I do think that Zane Hodge's extreme mental assent salvation position is not defensible and I believe most on this forum see the error of it so I won't go into critiquing it. If you want to understand where MacArthur gets it wrong, this review of The Gospel According to Jesus sums it up:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193

-Daniel

True or false: a truly born again person WILL submit to the lordship of Christ.

Submitting to lordship is not a prerequisite to salvation. But salvation will result in this submission. Submission is nothing more than loyalty, which is why I like this quote from The Robe, when Marcellus finally stopped kicking against the goads:

"From this day forward, I am enlisted in His service. I offer Him my fortune, my sword, and my life. And this I pledge to you on my honor as a Roman."

The debate over Lordship salvation has been going on for over a decade. The position by "Free Grace" men like Zane Hodges makes salvation a simple matter of mental assent to historical and doctrinal truths. True faith will change a person's heart and result in a change in lifestyle. It is important to not put the cart before the horse here. Salvation is not belief plus works. That is Romanism. MacArthur in trying to correct the errors of "easy believism" swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction by conflating justification with sanctification. I want to make clear that my criticism of MacArthur does not signal that I am a proponent of the "free grace" position. Both sides are extreme positions and contain error. The Bible does say that those who PRACTICE a LIFESTYLE of gross sin without remorse will not enter the kingdom of God. This does not mean we earn salvation by works but that only those with hearts that trust and love the Lord more than their own lives are saved. Doing results from our being. The Pharisees were far from God not because their works were faulty but because their love and relationship with and for God was in shambles. However I have known Christians who backslid from the Lord and after a time, when they hit rock bottom, came back to the Lord in repentance and reconciliation. They loved the Lord perhaps even more because "he who is forgiven much, loves much". I am not suggesting that people backslide of course but scripture does say that the Lord, like the Good Shepherd, will seek and draw the lost sheep back to himself. MacArthur's position allows no possibility of a backslidden Christian.

I do think that Zane Hodge's extreme mental assent salvation position is not defensible and I believe most on this forum see the error of it so I won't go into critiquing it. If you want to understand where MacArthur gets it wrong, this review of The Gospel According to Jesus sums it up:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=193

-Daniel

I understand the gospel to be the good news about the kingdom of God. This message, according to the book of Acts, is that Jesus has been enthroned as King and that all are obliged to surrender to His claims upon them. This requires repentance on the part of those in rebellion against Him. It requires faithfulness (or "faith"””the Greek pistis can mean either) in our relationship with Him. Since He is a King, He is to be obeyed. Here is a summary of the Gospel of the Kingdom from the specimens recorded in the preaching of the apostles:

From Acts, we would have to conclude that the main elements of this message were as follows:

1. Long ago, God made promises to the patriarchs and to David that a King of David’s lineage would be permanently enthroned in David’s place””one called the "Messiah,” or "Christ.” (Acts 2:16”“21, 25”“31; 3:18, 22”“25; 4:11; 10:43; 13:27, 29, 32”“35; 26:22);

2. These promises have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, the Promised One, whom God publicly endorsed by working acts of power through Him before many witnesses (Acts 2:22; 3:13, 16; 10:38”“39; 13:23);

3. Jesus had enemies who crucified Him, but God restored Him to life, after which He was seen by witnesses, prior to ascending to His throne at the right hand of God (Acts 2:23”“24, 32”“35; 3:14”“15, 26; 4:10; 5:30”“32; 10:39”“41; 13:28”“35; 17:31; 26:23);

4. Since Jesus has been enthroned, it is incumbent upon all people to acknowledge His royal prerogatives (or "lordship”), and to repent of their rebellion against Him. To those who do this””embracing Him as Lord and Messiah (King)””He will graciously grant amnesty for all past rebellion (Acts 2:36”“39; 3:19”“20; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43; 13:26, 34, 38”“39; 17:30”“31; 26:23.).

These are the elements of every substantial presentation of the gospel recorded in the ministries of Peter and Paul. It may seem strange to us in some particulars, e.g.,

1. No emphasis on the atonement (though Paul retrospectively mentions it in his summary of the gospel as preach in Corinth””1 Cor.15:3);

2. No appeal to the Law to bring about conviction of sin (the use of the law in this way was not "the Way of the Master");

3. No mention of heaven or of hell, though, in one sermon, there is passing mention that there will be a day of judgment (Acts 17:31);

4. No mention of a need to "accept Jesus into one's heart" (not a biblical phrase);

5. No altar call or sinner's prayer.

RE: ///Zane Hodges makes salvation a simple matter of mental assent to historical and doctrinal truths.///

If that is what Hodges believed and taught, I definetly want to distance myself from it.
I believe in breakthroughs, and those are not simple, births Proceed travail. and I believe that faith is active.

That article does not endorse Zane Hodge's position. It barely mentions him. I challenge you to cut and paste exactly the passage(s) that you feel support the Hodges.

That article does not endorse Zane Hodge's position. It barely mentions him. I challenge you to cut and paste exactly the passage(s) that you feel support the Hodges.

Rather than discussing the Gospel, MacArthur discusses psychology. He attacks "intellectual assent." Modern men, he says, "have been told that the only criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some basic facts about Christ"(17). Of course it is not only modern men who are thus informed; that was the message of the apostles as well: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." MacArthur intends to extirpate the view that justification is by faith -- belief - alone. Of course, he keeps the form of the words, but he redefines "faith" to include works.

On page 67 he writes:

"Those who argue against lordship salvation have a tendency to view faith as merely [notice the language of propaganda] intellectual assent to a set of Biblical facts. To them the gospel is ultimately an academic [notice the propaganda] issue, a list of basic historical and doctrinal data about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection [such as Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 15?]. Believing those facts constitutes saving faith."

MacArthur believes that believing facts cannot be saving faith. In a note he asks: "Is that not demonic faith (James 2:19), orthodox but not efficacious?" MacArthur here teaches that one can have orthodox faith and not be saved. He says it is not enough to believe the truth. MacArthur wants something more. So does the Roman Church. So does the natural man. Men have always stumbled over the simplicity of salvation.

MacArthur says that the demons are orthodox believers. What better refutation of both justification by faith alone and orthodoxy could there be than orthodox, believing demons? In a note on page 23 he writes: "Even the demons have faith enough to grasp the basic facts (v.19), but that is not redeeming faith. 'Faith without works is useless' (v.20), and 'Faith without works is dead' (v.26)." One can only conclude from this that what makes faith saving, in MacArthur's view, is works. Belief alone is not enough. Even the demons believe. Even the demons are orthodox. Works are necessary for saving faith; works are necessary for justification.

Anyone who agrees with MacArthur's interpretation of James must say the same thing: The thing that makes faith saving faith is works. And that is pure Romanism - and pure humanism. The conclusion is logically inexorable; if the reader does not like the conclusion, he should re-read James and figure out where he has misunderstood what James says.

On page 32 MacArthur writes: "Salvation is a gift, but it is appropriated only through a faith that goes beyond merely [propaganda again] understanding and assenting to the truth. Demons have that kind of faith." Obviously then, understanding and assenting to the truth are not saving faith. "No one," thunders MacArthur, "is saved simply by knowing and believing facts.... The object of saving faith is not a creed; it is Christ Himself" (68). On page 112 he asserts that "The object of saving faith is not a creed, not a church, not a pastor, not a set of rituals or ceremonies. Jesus is the object of saving faith." To which the appropriate reply is, "Which Jesus?"

Anyone who cares to read documents from the fundamentalist-modernist controversy at the beginning of the twentieth century, such as Christianity And Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen, will discover that MacArthur is here taking the modernist position; The liberals also declared that creeds are not the object of faith, that Christ is the object. It was the fundamentalists, the Bible believers, who insisted on creeds. The reason is quite simple: The only way to identify the Christ in whom we are to believe is to describe him, and that description is a creed. The Gospel itself is a creed. If we do not believe the creed, we do not believe Christ. And if we profess to believe in Christ but do not believe true statements about him - a creed -- we are liars. Christ identified himself with his words. The words and the Word are identical. The fighting fundamentalists at the early part of the century were more orthodox than today's fundamentalists, for they did not teach, "No creed but Christ," as MacArthur does.

The Bible is very clear about faith:

"They believed the Scripture." John 2:22.

"The man believed the word that Jesus had spoken to him." John 4:50.

"These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." John 20:31.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight. For by the law is the knowledge of sin, but now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Christ Jesus to all and on all who believe, for there is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.... Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.... Blessed is the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works." Romans 4.

If a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, conduct - works - cannot be part of faith. MacArthur has offered an un-Scriptural definition of faith. In his commentary on John 3:33, John Calvin wrote: "To believe the Gospel is nothing else than to assent to the truths that God has revealed." The sort faith that MacArthur rejects is what the Bible requires.

In keeping with his view of faith, MacArthur denigrates "facts," "doctrine," "intellectual assent," and so on. On page 70 he refers to the relationship between sin and suffering as "theological trivia." In a logical fallacy, he says the Pharisees were "fat with theological information" (71). So if we today emphasize knowledge, we are likely to be Pharisees. MacArthur should read the Bible more closely, beginning with a concordance and looking up words such as knowledge, understanding, truth, mind, and so forth. He will find hundreds of entries. He will learn from Peter that we have received everything we need for life and godliness through knowledge. He will learn from John that we are sanctified by truth. He will discover - from James no less! - that God regenerates us by the word of truth.

The author of this article mentions James's teaching on a dead faith and says that MacArthur is misinterpreting James, but the author does not even try to give his interpretation.

So please tell me, those who oppose repentance, what is James saying when he says that faith without works is dead, and that a faith that does not produce works cannot save? What is your interpretation of that passage?

RE: ///These are the elements of every substantial presentation of the gospel recorded in the ministries of Peter and Paul. It may seem strange to us in some particulars, e.g.,
1. No emphasis on the atonement (though Paul retrospectively mentions it in his summary of the gospel as preach in Corinth””1 Cor.15:3);///

That is my problem with what my understanding of what I consider the lordship salvation view, emphasis off of the atonment and on to the walk.

The Walk begains at the atonment.

That is my problem with what my understanding of what I consider the lordship salvation view, emphasis off of the atonment and on to the walk.

The Walk begains at the atonment.

I think TMK raised a good and important point. While the gospel message presented by Christ and the Apostles and disciples is the same gospel message, we do not see it always presented in the same way or always with the inclusion of the same aspects or elements of that message. Here's what I mean. Sometimes we see only sin, Judgment Day, and repentance and a turning to Christ being proclaimed, as in Acts 17 with Paul at Mars Hill. Paul did not include the atonement in that gospel message. And sometimes we see that only faith in Christ is preached and not repentance, as in the case of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16.

Why is that? I suggest that our Lord and His Apostles and disciples were perfectly led by the Spirit in their gospel proclamations and were able to perfectly discern what aspect of the gospel their particular hearers needed to hear.

I believe they were able to discern whether their hearers needed to hear the severity or kindness of God in the gospel. The full gospel message encompasses both aspects of God. The full gospel message deals with sin, righteousness, judgment, heaven and hell, repentance, faith in Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin and His resurrection from the dead.

I submit that sometimes it is not absolutely necessary to include all those elements when we present the gospel to the lost, and that it depends on how the Spirit may lead us, but Christ must always be proclaimed.

The basic pattern and principle that seems evident to me in the Word when it comes to proclaiming the gospel is this, law to the proud and grace to the humble. So for example, if I'm trying to preach the gospel to someone and I notice that they are very proud or arrogant, I may feel led to preach the severity of God in the gospel and not even get to the atonement until I discern that they are more open. On the other hand if I'm speaking with a lost person who seems to be sincerely seeking God I may feel led to emphasize and hone in on the atonement and faith in Christ.

I believe one can be truly born again without fully understanding the atonement at first but only through them having a broken and contrite spirit and sincerely desiring to repent and turn to Christ and surrender to Him. That was the case in my testimony. I only knew that Jesus was the Son of God and that He was the only way to God and had heard that He died for our sins but didn't know what that really meant. I didn't even know about the Trinity or deity of Christ. I knew that I needed to come to Christ and turn from my wicked ways and surrender all to Him as best as I knew how, and I did, and I believe I was born again at that moment. But right afterward I gained a clear understanding on the atonement and I was overwhelmed and amazed at the grace of God in Christ and have been since. Likewise I immediately learned the truth of the Trinity and deity of Christ.

Now even though I didn't have a clear understanding on the atonement or the Trinity or deity of Christ, I believe I exercised saving faith in Christ because I looked to Him and cried out to Him to save me from my sins.

Now some say that one can be born again and saved by only looking by faith to Christ and His atonement and without necessarily repenting(turning from sin). They say that repentance can come right afterward. But I have issues with that. I believe that God's Word teaches that a desire to turn from one's sinful ways must always accompany saving faith.

Like it's been pointed out already in this thread by a few, how can a treacherous rebel be reconciled with his king while desiring to remain a rebel in opposition to the king's kingdom? It doesn't work like that with God. You must be willing to be subjected to His rule over you. Otherwise you will perish in your sins no matter how much you say you believe in Him. Did not Jesus say that unless we repent we will perish(Luke 13:5)?

Or what about our Lord's call to self-denying discipleship(Matt.16:24). Was that only a call for a next-step stage after the new birth? Nothing in God's Word suggests that, though "Free Grace" teachers would have us think that it is optional and not essential to true conversion.

what is James saying when he says that faith without works is dead, and that a faith that does not produce works cannot save? What is your interpretation of that passage?

Believing that there is one God is not how we got saved, we got saved by believing in Jesus Christ.

Got to run, but thats the context.

While faith without works is dead, that is not the same thing as saying that we are saved by faith + works which is what MacArthur seems to be implying. Good works which are the normal and natural attributes of a truly saved Christian are the fruit of salvation and not the root of it. While both justification and sanctification both issue from the finished work of Christ, they are separate entities.

Hodges and company miss the mark completely by stating that the only thing necessary for salvation (justification) is that at some point in your life you made a mental assent decision about the deity of Christ and the truth of His offering of salvation through His blood and perhaps make a profession of faith regarding that and THATS IT! No, faith is more than simple mental assent to some facts regarding Jesus. What more is there? Trust. This speaks to relationship and intimate communion and fellowship with the person of Christ. It will naturally follow that those in such intimate relationship will strive to follow, submit and obey the Lord out of love for Him. Will truly born again believers perform perfect obedience all of the time? No. Does that mean they aren't saved. No. The crucial detail that separates the truly born again person from a false convert is this: the truly born again person will agonize about their disobedience. This is not to say that they agonize by thinking they have "lost" their salvation, but rather they feel convicted (not condemned) for having disappointed the Lord they love. The false believer will feel no such distress while living in sin. We see this agony in Romans chapter 7. It is quite common for such a scenario to play out in the life of the newly converted Christian. Perhaps they pursue sanctification by means of the law (works righteousness). They have fallen for the error of Galatianism. After a while of failing again and again by this method, they come to the end of themselves (which is a good thing) and turn to putting their faith and trust in the person of the indwelling Christ to live His life through them. I just wish MacArthur had made allowance for this type of experience in his teaching. While I do believe that conduct, behavior and morals are important in the Christian life, they are the fruits of having been truly born again and not the roots or prerequisites to salvation (justification). We are justified by faith alone and faith here does not mean mental assent only but involves trusting (relationship with) the Lord that will produce some fruit (obedience). As time goes on, it is natural and to be expected that more and more fruit (sanctification) will develop. While justification and sanctification both derive from the finished work of Christ, they are separate. They start at the same time and develop along side of each other throughout life but they are not one and the same thing.

The other troubling aspect of MacArthur's book is his failing to distinguish between law and gospel in 1) the Sermon on the Mount and 2) the rich young ruler. Both passages of scripture are Jesus' pronouncement of law in order to bring His hearers to despair in their own ability to be righteous by law keeping. That has always been the design of the law. It was never a way to gain right standing with God. The law was given 1500 years before Christ so as to show people their sin and their inability to keep the law so that when Christ arrived on the scene they would see their need for a Saviour.

MacArthur names the chapter devoted to the Sermon on the Mount, "The Way of Salvation". He says that this sermon is "gospel". It is not gospel. Gospel supplies what the law never could. The sermon is even a more heavy-duty reading of the law than the Mosaic law since Jesus raised the bar on the already strict Old Testament laws. So apparently MacArthur feels that these laws are binding on New Testament Christians and that they are somehow "good news" in that by keeping them we can be saved, when combined with faith of course. Again faith plus works = salvation.

In the story of the rich young ruler, MacArthur again fails to recognize this as Jesus playing the law card in order to get the rich young ruler to despair of his own self righteousness and turn to Jesus. MacArthur again calls this exchange a gospel message as if had the rich young ruler done what Jesus was telling him to do he would have been saved. Not only is this not a gospel message, the rich young ruler did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (God Incarnate) so no faith or salvation was possible even with obedience. Perhaps Jesus would have revealed Himself to him as the Messiah if he had obeyed but that is speculation since the story took a different turn. Again MacArthur is strongly suggesting a works component to saving faith.

I can only imagine the frustration and despair of those who look to law keeping (plus faith of course) to be saved. Again I want to emphasize that good conduct and behavior are important in the life of the Christian. They come about through the process of sanctification which is life-long and progressive. It is a work of the Holy Spirit working in our spirit and we have a responsibility to respond positively, humbly and submissively to that work in order to see the good fruit. It is a mistake for us to be ever looking inward at ourselves to produce the fruit by our own self efforts. The law always causes us to look ever at ourselves and our own resources and abilities to be acceptable to God. The gospel causes us to ever look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. A truly born again Christian will want to follow and obey the Lord, not to attain acceptance, approval and right standing with God but because he loves the Lord of mercy and grace who made him acceptable by His work. Combining law and grace is disastrous because it tries to improve on the Lord's finished work and those who trust in that combination are deeply deceived because to the human mind it seems so right.

Quickly, james 2 does not deal with saving faith. The context is showing partiality and helping someone in need.

Believing that there is one God is not how we got saved, we got saved by believing in Jesus Christ.

Got to run, but thats the context.

That's the common "Free Grace" interpretation of that passsage. I would'nt be surprised if you got it from Joseph Prince. I honestly didn't think anyone here would resort to that interpretation of that passage. I'm sure most here will see through that kind of clear, willfull misinterpretation of that passage.

The context is indeed speaking of saving faith vs a non-saving supposed "faith". James is addressing the Christian community, so he takes for granted that they all profess to believe in Christ as the Messiah and atoning sacrifice for our sins. To say that James is warning them about only believing in God and not believing in Christ makes no sense at all.

In verse 19 he brings up the point that even demons have an orthodox belief (mental assent) about God and that a mere mental assent about God is not enough to save anyone. This is clear from the context.

In verse 21 he brings up the example of Abraham's saving faith which was evidenced by his obedience/works. James says clearly in verse 22 that Abraham's "faith was working together with his works". Then in verse 23 James quotes Genesis 15:6 which declares that Abraham was declared righteous through the faith which he exercised, a faith accompanied by obedience/works.

There has been some confusion in history regarding trying to reconcile James and Paul in Romans. Paul says in Romans that we are justified by faith alone apart from the works of the law, and James says we are justified by a living, genuine faith which produces works/obedience.

We must understand that Paul and James were addressing two different issues. Paul was confronting the belief that works of the Mosaic law can justify, the thing which non-believing Jews believed and taught. Paul says in essence, "Trusting in your works will only doom you. We are justified by faith in Christ apart from trusting in any works for justification." James on the other hand was confronting those who claimed to be Christians but showed no evidence of having a genuine saving faith. We can see this also in other portions of James epistle, such as in ch. 1:21-25 where James makes the point that it's not simply the hearers of the Word that are justified but the doers of the Word. The context there is clearly in reference to dealing with sin(1:21). Again, throughout James' epistle we are warned about continuing in willful, habitual unrepentant sin.

It's amazing to see to what great lengths some will go in their interpretation of God's Word in order to retain this easy-believism doctrine.

I'm curious, what do you do with passages like 1Cor.6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 which clearly declare that those who practice sin will not inherit God's kingdom? The common "Free Grace" interpretation is that those scriptures refer to losing some reward in God's kingdom. Is that your interpretation also? Do you not see how off that interpretation is?

Or what about scriptures like Eph.5:3-7 which declare that God's wrath comes upon the children of disobedience?

I believe that those who hold to and teach this cheap grace doctrine are either deceived and not saved or saved but deceived on this crucial point. If you are indeed a born again Christian but perhaps have fallen for this cheap grace doctrine, please, don't continue on this path in which you will be leading precious never-dying souls into a false hope. I'll end this post with this warning from Ezekiel 3:17-19:

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: 18 When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."

From the article shared here earlier:

In his chapter on justification, MacArthur begins by quoting R. C. Sproul (87): "The difference between Rome and the Reformation can be seen in these simple formulas:

Roman view

Faith + works = justification

Protestant view

Faith = justification + works."

I think that that should be enough to prove that MacArthur does NOT teach salvation by works. Those who insist that he does are grossly misrepresenting him. We know that we are not saved by works but by God's grace through faith in Christ.

What is true saving faith? James tells us that faith if not accompanied with works is dead faith, i.e. not faith that can save you. James 2:20-26.....

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. "
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
"Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? "
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also”.

Is James saying we need faith plus works? No not at all! He is explaining the difference between true saving faith and a mental belief type faith that has no action (works). True faith he explains is always seen by what one does or how one behaves, it is the evidence of the faith you profess to have in God. This corresponds exactly with how the book of Hebrews describes what faith is.....

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrew 11:1.

Faith then is the evidence of things not seen (i.e God or the things God has said), so to be evidence it must be seen otherwise cannot be evidence and therefore not true faith.
We could explain it this way. Faith, a gift of God is a virtue like patience. If one says they have patience, but when put to the test only show impatience, you would conclude that their patience is not real, but just dead words. In exactly the same way faith that does not demonstrate itself in a life is dead words.

Now is this true saving faith something only required at a moment in time or is it an ongoing reality?

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”……….

"Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip (we should drift).”

"For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;” Hebrew 1:1-2 &2:1-3

We are exhorted clearly here that God has spoken to us by His Son and we need to take heed to His word lest we drift (let it slip) and neglect so great a salvation. If we do neglect salvation we will not escape a just retribution (KJ says reward). So continuance in faith is required.

"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”
"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin”.
"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;” Hebrew 3:12-14.

This is addressed to ‘brethren’ to not depart from the living God and you are only partakers of Christ if you continue to the end.

"And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;"
Colossians 1:23

To be presented holy and unblameable and unreprovable in His sight is dependent upon our continuing in the faith.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” Hebrews 10:26-27

"For ye have need of patience (endurance), that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. "
"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. "
"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him”.

"But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” Hebrews 10:36-39

We have need of endurance in doing the will of God, so we might receive eternal life and not perdition (eternal destruction).

Let’s be clear about this. We are not talking about works for salvation. It is not faith plus works or even works plus repentance. True faith will always manifest itself in evidential works(acts or fruit) and repentance is one of those works. To repent and believe IS true saving faith. One must remain in this faith if they want to inherit eternal life because eternal life is in the Son.

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:12.

Do you have the Son, not at some time past, but now?

There has been some talk in this thread that seems to imply that the Sermon on the Mount is not for New Covenant believers.

I agree that if we look at what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and see it as a list of rules that we must accomplish of ourselves then it is no different than Old Testament law keeping. But if we see it as it was intended, as more than just a standard but part of the New Testament declaration of how completely "other" Jesus is from a natural man, then it will have its perfect work of causing us to face that we will never be that standard in ourselves. I think we all have to come to that place of despair first before the Holy Spirit can conform us to Christ.

But the next thing the Holy Spirit shows us is how it can be accomplished, but the first lesson must be learned, everything in God's order. God clears the ground for the fullness of Christ to come in.

In Christ,

I am not in agreement with either side of the OP.

I find Dr Stanleys comments very disturbing!

Oracio you have brought some good thoughts to the table, In my oposition to the Lordship view, I almost found myself siding with easy believism and the so called cheap grace.
And I do not want to do that! I do not want to defend them!
I do not want to silence the truth that has been brought forth, it needs to be considered and taken very seriously.

At the same time it is very important to make a distinction between "Lordship salvation doctrine" and serving Jesus as Lord.
Things are becoming foggy by the notion that if I oppose "Lordship salvation doctrine" I am opposing The Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I am all for repentance, faith, turning away from sin,following the Lord ect.
That is a natural willingness of one looking to the Cross for forgiveness and it is a natural outcome of one whom has looked to the Cross for forgiveness. but those things are not what we are to trust in.

I want to confess that the first day of comments I made, I felt clear , after that what I posted I felt right, and felt rebuked afterwards and begain reliezing that I was silencing some of the truth that had been brought forth.

Quote: Jesus clearly said the reason that that he said to them 'depart' was because He never knew them and they practiced lawlessness.

If you believe in the once saved always then these people in your way of thinking can never be Christians, however if your like me and say a Christian can lose there salvation, then the reason they lost there salvation was because of lawlessness.

Quote: According to your definition of lawlessness, then everyone who is not sinless will be be told to depart from from Jesus based on what He said there. That is why your definition is clearly wrong.

My definition: Sin is lawlessness, Sin (lawlessness) should not reign in our mortal body.

Quote: You think that repentance is a work and that it is wrong to claim the necessity of it along side faith to be saved to eternal life.

Quote: Repentance as you probably know means a change of mind. So we are required to change our minds about what is sin and righteousness.

Repentance is a change of mind and a change of mind is required to be saved, but even that change of mind occurs because of the Holy spirit working in the person.

Lordship salvation doctrine - says that a repentance is ceasing from sinful acts prior to being saved. That is wrong and which I class as a work.

Quote: Do you believe that Jesus must be accepted as Lord as well as Saviour? If yes what does that mean to you?

Jesus demands to be Lord and Savior and one point in my life, I would have said that he was both, however in my dealings I have found out that self sits on the throne and that Sin is so deeply engrained into that self.

Yes I am born again - yes I have prophesied - yes I have cast out devils but can you see where I come why should I run about declaring that Jesus is Lord of my life, when the Lord of my life is me.

I have heard a lot of sinlessness nonsense being thrown at me, all that I want, all that I expect is an exchange, my self life for his Lordship, my imperfect Sin laden life for his perfection.

Quote: I think that that should be enough to prove that MacArthur does NOT teach salvation by works.

Snippets of John MacArthur book - The Gospel According to Jesus

- faith encompasses obedience.
- obedience is an integral part of saving faith.
- obedience is bound up in the very definition of faith.
- Thus any concept of faith that excludes obedience must be rejected because obedience is indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing.
- In fact, the character of true faith is nothing less than the higher righteousness of the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-11.8
- And he quotes with approval Rudolf Bultmann's dictum, ‘To believe’ is ‘to obey.

Here is a quote from the Lordship doctrine preacher - Paul Washer "Idolatry of Decisionism"

Do you know if you have believed? Do you believe the pure gospel? Do you KNOW that you are saved? Based on your belief or your works? Or both? If you base it on anything but belief, you will never know for sure if you are saved.

Faith Alone or Faith plus works?

Snippets of John MacArthur book - The Gospel According to Jesus

- faith encompasses obedience.
- obedience is an integral part of saving faith.
- obedience is bound up in the very definition of faith.
- Thus any concept of faith that excludes obedience must be rejected because obedience is indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing.
- In fact, the character of true faith is nothing less than the higher righteousness of the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-11.8
- And he quotes with approval Rudolf Bultmann's dictum, ‘To believe’ is ‘to obey.

I think you may have gotten that from this anti-MacArthur, anti-Lordship piece:
http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/John-MacArthur-Teaches-WORKS-SALVATION.html

Here's another portion from that same article:

The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur.

It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-8, titled "Questions and Answers--Part 36."

A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 2001 by John MacArthur

Question to John Mac Arthur: I know that you take a Biblical view of salvation by faith alone.

John Macarthur: Yes, by grace through faith--not by faith alone. By grace through faith.

Question (continued)

Ok, but I’m a little confused as far as the implications of Lordship to the non-Christian at the point of salvation.

> (Part-a) How much of it can they really comprehend in terms of the Lordship issue?

> (Part-b) And then along with that, are you saying through your series on the Lordship that the call to salvation is synonymous with the call to discipleship?

John Macarthur Answer:

I am saying that explicitly, that a call to salvation is indeed a call to discipleship.

I am saying that it is obvious that a person coming to faith in Jesus Christ will not fully understand the implications of his Lordship.

They will not fully understand the reality of their sin, but there must be a call to that. In other words, when you call a sinner to repentance and you call a sinner to submit to Christ, they don’t fully understand the implications of that. But, they will understand as much as they can understand.

Now, let me say something that is very, very important for you to understand.

I do not believe that an incomplete presentation of the gospel - in other words, if you just present the gospel that Jesus died for your sin and rose again and graciously offers you forgiveness by faith in his name;

if that’s all you presented,

> and you didn’t talk about Lordship,

> and you didn’t talk about being a disciple,

> and you didn’t talk about repentance,

> and you didn’t talk about turning from sin -

even an incomplete presentation of the gospel - now listen - could not prevent someone from being saved whom God was saving. Got that? Because if you didn’t talk about sin, they’d be feeling the conviction. And if you didn’t talk about submission, they’d be coming to that submission.

What I am saying is that when we present a shallow gospel, we don’t prevent the elect from getting saved; we make people think they’re saved who aren’t. That’s the issue. Do you see the distinction? That’s the issue.

And so what we have - just imagine this now! - what we have then are a lot of people who think they’re Christians. And we have a lot of churches that are run by congregational rule, which means that a lot of churches are being run by what? Non-Christians!

That’s a frightening reality. I’m quite sure there are Christian organizations being operated by non-Christians.

So, I don’t want to say that… You know, somebody said to me, "Well, I didn’t know all about Lordship when I was saved. Am I not saved?” No. The issue is, "Do you understand that Jesus is Lord and is it your heart’s desire to love Him and serve Him?”

And if the answer is yes, then you understand it. So, that’s the point you have to understand.

Now, Jesus called men to follow Him in discipleship. He called them to obey Him. We’ve shown all of that and we’ll even go into more detail when the book comes out.

I believe that when you present the gospel - now listen carefully to this - you can make it as difficult as possible! That’s what Jesus did. He made it as difficult as possible. [1]

Why? Because salvation is a work of God, not based on the cleverness of the one giving the gospel, [2] but based on the power of God.

So, if a person is being saved by God, then you want them to fully understand their salvation. And if God isn’t doing it, you want to make sure that they’re not coming in on some illusion.

Regarding this last excerpt from MacArthur I just posted, I believe the reason he chose to say that salvation is not by faith alone but rather by faith is because he did not want to imply that faith is alone as easy-believism teaches. It's been said, we are saved by faith alone, but that faith is never alone.

proudpapa wrote:

I am not in agreement with either side of the OP.

I find Dr Stanleys comments very disturbing!

Oracio you have brought some good thoughts to the table, In my oposition to the Lordship view, I almost found myself siding with easy believism and the so called cheap grace.
And I do not want to do that! I do not want to defend them!
I do not want to silence the truth that has been brought forth, it needs to be considered and taken very seriously.

At the same time it is very important to make a distinction between "Lordship salvation doctrine" and serving Jesus as Lord.
Things are becoming foggy by the notion that if I oppose "Lordship salvation doctrine" I am opposing The Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I am all for repentance, faith, turning away from sin,following the Lord ect.
That is a natural willingness of one looking to the Cross for forgiveness and it is a natural outcome of one whom has looked to the Cross for forgiveness. but those things are not what we are to trust in.

I want to confess that the first day of comments I made, I felt clear , after that what I posted I felt right, and felt rebuked afterwards and begain reliezing that I was silencing some of the truth that had been brought forth.

Colin wrote: "Snippets of John MacArthur book - The Gospel According to Jesus

- faith encompasses obedience.
- obedience is an integral part of saving faith.
- obedience is bound up in the very definition of faith.
- Thus any concept of faith that excludes obedience must be rejected because obedience is indivisibly wrapped up in the idea of believing.
- In fact, the character of true faith is nothing less than the higher righteousness of the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-11.8
- And he quotes with approval Rudolf Bultmann's dictum, ‘To believe’ is ‘to obey."
___________________________________________________________

You are really not understanding what faith is. You seem to give the impression that faith is just some sort of mental thought, or maybe just a feeling of confidence in God. Now it may include those, but is much, much more. Faith always displays itself in works. So McArthur is right when he says it encompasses obedience and that obedience is integral to faith. He is NOT saying obedience is an add on, but it defines what faith is. Please read what I wrote earlier to try and explain how we should view faith. As TMK rightly said much earlier in this discussion, faith and faithfulness are the same word in the original Greek, so you could replace the words 'faith' with 'faithfulness'. That would give you an easy way of seeing the practicality of faith.

Faith could be put in very simple terms as 'Trust and Obey'.
When my children (when they were younger) asked me to tell them how do a task, if they had 'faith' in me they would trust that what I said was correct and obey my instructions. If they did not do what I said, but trusted their way was better, then they were showing they had no faith in me.

We need to change our thinking about what faith is and then we won't keep seeing it as an 'add on' when someone says faith demands obedience, but as a definition of faith.

The same is true of 'believing'. In our western thinking we have a wrong biblical concept of this word. We limit it to a simple mental acknowledgement of truth. Whereas biblically it means to trust and rely on the person or object of your belief. Again it is an active verb. When Jesus said to His disciples 'believe in me'. He did mean believe I exist! He meant trust me, rely on me for eternal life. Also most times when used in the bible of 'believing on Christ' it is in the present continuous tense, so John 3:16 could be translated as 'whoever believes and continues to believe in Him (Christ) should not perish but have eternal life'. Better still, because of our Greek/Western unbiblical mind set it may be even better to put it as 'Whoever trusts and relies on me and continues to do so will have eternal life'.

Sin - Anything done, whether good or evil, apart from the Life and Power of God.

Both "trees" are represented in that definition, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the Tree of Life. It doesn't matter whether it is pre-salvation or post-salvation. In the beginning God's original thought is that mankind would function according to His Life and Power. It's as simple as that. He made full provision to bring us back into that kind of fellowship.

There is an obedience that is of the flesh even after the new birth. It is what I have heard referred to as "sanctification by works". The Indwelling Life of Christ is our Sanctification. The Law of the Spirit of LIFE sets us free from the Law. If we walk according to the Law of the Spirit of Life, and not according to the Spirit of the Law, true Righteousness is automatically kept more and more as the Holy Spirit puts His finger upon things that you perhaps didn't know about before, such as fleshly obedience, natural wisdom, and earthly zeal, or whatever else it may be.

God is gracious and understands these things about us. Thank God He is more merciful than us. If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us of ALL sin. How do you know how many candlesticks your brother has lit? Perhaps the Lord has not put His finger upon something in your brothers life yet because He has been working on something else that must first go. That leaves NO room to tell another true Christian what they ought or ought not to do as a Christian. You are putting them under your law and if they submit you are causing one of His "little ones" to stumble.

In the matter of teaching and doctrines, there are unborn again people in visible Christianity who are teaching the multitudes, they usually have a very large following, having gathered disciples unto themselves. Christ's sheep know His voice, and an imposter they will not follow. If any man is willing to do His will, they shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, and the Spirit of Truth will lead him in ALL Truth. Take your eyes off of man and look up, know the voice of the Master and if you don't hear His voice in a particular preacher/teacher, don't listen to him. They can only instruct your head, but when the Lord speaks through someone by the power of the Holy Spirit, rest assured it will instruct your heart. True men of God usually don't waste time arguing or proving their doctrine in their sermons, nor disproving others. There may be some warnings and such but they definitely aren't going to give you an intellectual conversion to a doctrine. They are way more concerned to pierce through the human intellect straight through to the heart, and lead you to the Holy Spirit of Promise so that you can hear from the Lord yourself. They could care less if you follow them, as a matter of fact they will exhort you to go to the Lord and the Scriptures to see if what they are saying is true, and if it is not to throw it out and disregard it. The Kingdom of God lies not in the words or doctrines that are preached, but in the Power and Life in which it is taught, preached, and even in the Life and Power in which it is received.

Hopefully this is helpful to someone.

Rich

After reading this thread for the past couple of days you can see that some of you are just opposed to preachers that preach repentance. I understand the feeling, growing up in that enviroment.
I also see that some seem to be saying that one must submit to the Lordship of Christ to be truly " saved".

My question to you is how in the world can a dead person do that? Must something take place FIRST before that is even an option? Like new birth?
So how does that new birth come?
Through hearing and hearing of the word of God Rom 10:17 - AND our response to that hearing that must take place - repentance, belief, confession.

TMK wrote :
True or false: a truly born again person WILL submit to the lordship of Christ.

No one really answered this so I will. ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!

This to me is what should be asked, not " Do you agree with the Lordship Salvation doctrine"

Ravenhill : "many people will be reciting their precious doctrines in hell."

If one is truly born again he WILL be in submission to Jesus as his Lord.
Ananias or Jesus did not tell Paul as he was being broken under the hand of God to submit to the Lordship of Jesus and you will be fine. He submitted based upon that experience he had. God moves first, we respond.
I believe that most of us agree with that, but this doctrine comes across as though it removes all of the power of God in someones life and places it all on the man. We DO have a responsibilty to respond to the Gospel through repentance and confession. But us even being able to do that comes from God. Even after that, our submission to His Lordship on a continuos basis is contingent upon His Spirit in us giving us the power to do so. Because at the moment of conversion we enter into a war with our flesh that we never had before, because before we were led by our flesh and our spirit was dead. Now our spirit is alive and the war has begun. But the motivation to let our spirit win on a minute by minute basis is our Lord Jesus whom we want to live for and please. And his instructions on how to do that is do die daily, take up our cross.

Can we not just trust in God that if someone has truly been born again then they will submit to Jesus? OR does it make us feel more secure in OUR salvation that we DO all of these outward things and others don't? We are the elitists type mentality. We need to be careful.
Faith without works is dead. Dead = dead , not living, zero life in it, like my great great grandpa- DEAD.
To act as though this isn't talking about actual FAITH to defend your view of "Easy Believism" or whatever it is, is pretty rediculous and far reaching.
So then can we jump to the other side and say that faith WITH works is alive? Not necesarily, because of Matthew 7 where all of these people did outwards works, but were not saved. And Christ addressed outward works of the Pharisees continuosly as being hypocritcal and deeds of the devil.

Can we not trust God that if He has truly changed someone through regeneration that they will produce a life of true faith which includes submission to the Lord Jesus, holiness, a desire for the will and things of God? It almost seems to me that we are trying to bail God out. That we cannot trust God that a person has been truly born again so we set up a stipulation that you must do A , B and C to prove that you know God. Whenever it should be God that proves Himself through us.

True fatih produces works
True works come from the Spirit
The Spirit is only allowed to work through us to the extent that we submit to Christ
We can/will only submit to Christ because we find Him all sufficient and all satisfying and the only purpose of our existence. And as being the only Way Truth and Life.
Before we find Him in those ways, our hate for Him must be turned into love for Him.
That happens at regenration.

Quote: We need to change our thinking about what faith is and then we won't keep seeing it as an 'add on' when someone says faith demands obedience, but as a definition of faith.

We doesn't need to do anything - I will go with faith alone - now if you want to change the way you think about faith - go ahead with faith plus your meritorious obedience.

So Colin-- how do you define faith? Mere mental assent?

Remember- the demons believe- and tremble. Don't you think that satan knows and believes all the facts of who Jesus is and what He did? If so, why is he not "saved?"

How can we even compare the demons to us?

It was actually James that gave the comparrison! :)

This morning I listened to an audio sermon by MacArthur titled "The Cost of Discipleship". Imo it's one of the most powerful and clear sermons on that subject I've heard. He makes a strong biblical case for the terms "disciple" and "believer" being synonymous, and for the call to self-denying discipleship which our Lord stressed in the Gospels being the same as the call to salvation. So I thought I'd give a plug for it here in case anyone may be interested. I won't post the link to it here (I think I've posted a lot of links here already); I'll simply encourage googling it as it's easy to find that way, and it's freely available online as a download or for online streaming.

Quote: He makes a strong biblical case for the term "disciple" and "believer" being synonymous, and for the call to self-denying discipleship which our Lord stressed in the Gospels being the same as the call to salvation

I agree with that 100% and that is a huge problem that I see with most Gospel presentations, they look nothing like they way Christ did it. I am not a huge MacArthur fan just for my own reasons and what I believe to be a deceived view on the gifts , but that's for another thread. But I do agree with that truth.
Even if there was a difference between the two, Christ said to make disciples. So if all your doing is making "believers" and not disciples, you are not obedient to His command.

I am not a huge MacArthur fan just for my own reasons and what I believe to be a deceived view on the gifts , but that's for another thread. But I do agree with that truth.

Tuc said:

"Christ did not die for demons. His atonement on the cross was for mankind.

It is impossible for a demon or satan to be saved. Sure they may even know the facts about Christ and the cross but salvation does not apply to them. They can NEVER be saved.

How can we even compare the demons to us?"

Yes, but James' point in making the comparison was not that demons could be saved, but rather that mental assent or belief in certain facts as true does not save anybody. There must be repentance followed by obedience.

How can an evangelist honestly say to the lost - Salvation is a free gift from God if it requires obedience.

How can an evangelist honestly say to the lost - Salvation is a free gift from God if it requires obedience.

But nowhere in the Bible do we get the idea that one can be a true believer/Christian without being a disciple. Acts 11:26 tells us that the disciples where first called Christians in Antioch. So before they were called Christians they were called disciples. That says clearly that the terms disciple and Christian are synonymous. You cannot be one without being the other.

Here's the passage in Luke 14:

"25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it-- 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. 34 "Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? 35 It is neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill, but men throw it out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!"

So tell us murrcolr, what is your take on that passage? Is there not a cost involved according to our Lord's teaching there?

"How can an evangelist honestly say salvation is a free gift from God if obedience is required?"

"And once made perfect He has become the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

Maybe he could say it like that?

What will an evangelist tell a man he is being saved to if not obedience?

He ought to tell him THIS is what he is being saved to, which is an expanded view of the one word "obedience".

12 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. 4 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. 6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; 7 if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; 8 the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Here are a few more....

"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?

"when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels,
in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”

Seems quite a normal thing in scripture to equate believing with obedience and unbelief as not obeying.

"And once made perfect He has become the source of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."

Maybe he could say it like that?

So the question then becomes, did Jesus command sinners to obey the call to repent for the forgiveness on their sins? Of course He did. We see that all throughout His evangelistic ministry as recorded in the Gospels. He says in Luke 5:32, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." That clearly is not some call to some "second-level” Christianity but a call to salvation.

But someone might say, "Christ’s message as recorded in the Gospels is a different message from the one we are to preach today, since Christ was still under the Old Testament era and Law.” But Luke tells us that Christ commanded His disciples to preach that same message after His resurrection:

"Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”-Lk. 24:46-47

No dear friend, the same gospel of repentance and faith which our Lord preached is the same gospel we are to preach today. The same call to self-denying discipleship which our Lord gave to the multitudes is the same call we are to give today to the lost. Otherwise we water down His gospel and/or promote an easy-believism false gospel, doing a great disservice to souls.

Colin wrote:

"How can an evangelist honestly say to the lost - Salvation is a free gift from God if it requires obedience."

Salvation does not require obedience- i.e. the "entering" does not. It requires repentance, which is the changing of the mind about who is now in control (i.e. not me, but Christ). The immediate effect, and the one pressing desire of the person who is saved, is to obey his new Master. Jesus is King- in fact he is the Supreme Emperor of the Universe, and is not to be quibbled with.

If a person has a "conversion experience" but does not have the immediate, or very close to immediate, desire to obey and to serve Jesus as Lord (which He in fact IS, whether a person chooses to submit or not), then they are not truly converted. They have not truly "entered in."

Gal.3:10, For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;
for it is written,Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law,to do them.

Rom.8:14 For as many as are led by The Spirit of God, THEY ARE the sons / children of God.

Rom.8:14 For as many as are led by The Spirit of God, THEY ARE the sons / children of God.

Indeed. Everyone who is led by the Spirit of God will submit to Jesus Christ as Lord.

"Free Grace" teachers like pointing to the first part of Romans 8:1, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus", but they ignore the rest of that verse, "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."

So let's consider the implications there for a moment. According to that verse, those who are not under the condemnation or wrath of God are those who do not walk according to or after the flesh but according to or after the Spirit. So if you are not walking after the Spirit but instead are walking after the flesh you remain under the condemnation or wrath of God. Again I'll ask, does that mean sinless perfection? No, otherwise it would mean you remain under God's condemnation or wrath unless you are sinless. It's speaking of a way of life, a pattern of life, a bent of the will, a deep-seated or deeply rooted desire to follow and obey the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.

As I have pondered the idea of "free gift", I can not help but wonder if our human reasoning is causing some of us to stumble. Could some of our thoughts about "free" be in vain?

For example, it may seem "illogical" or "un-reasonable" to our human logic to consider salvation as a "free gift" with stipulations and conditions.

Is God bound by our "logical" concept of "free"? Is it possible that our own human logic is faulty or vain?

Who says that just because God calls men to repent and believe in order to receive the "free gift" of salvation - this in and of itself would mean that salvation is not truly free? What if it is really our own thoughts about this that are vain?

We already concede that the "free gift" is limited to the few who will find it. We also know that only those who "believe" will receive it.

If God has chosen to require men to repent and believe the good news as a stipulation for receiving the "free gift", who are we as humans using a logic as far below His own glorious mind as the earth is below the heavens to argue that any stipulation or requirement placed upon the recipient is contrary to the true idea of the gift being free?

Can God consider His gift to be completely free and still set the terms and conditions upon which His free offer must be accepted? Will we accuse Him of being unjust if this is how He chooses to offer His free gift?

Could it be that our thoughts about what we consider to be genuinely free are vain in His eyes. Is it possible that our human wisdom in this regard is futile?

Perhaps we should be careful not to place too great a confidence in our "logic" about what we consider to be "free"?

Has not God chosen the foolish things to confound the wise?

I thought I'd try to take a shot at explaining how God can offer His saving grace freely as a gift while at the same time requiring repentance and faith in Christ.

I believe that the two-sided coin of repentance and faith is the channel through which God bestows his free gift of eternal life to us. The two-side coin of repentance and faith in Christ is like a hand that we extend to receive God's gift.

What is debatable among believers is whether or not a lost person can choose to repent and believe the gospel from their own will. But regardless of where one stands on that, I believe both "traditional" views (whether reformed or not) say that we need God's enabling grace to help us to repent and believe the gospel unto salvation. So in the end it's all of grace and there is no room for boasting. God begins a good work in us and completes it by the power of His Spirit. And it's all because of the cross of Jesus Christ, because if His shed blood for our sins and His resurrection from the dead.

I can guarantee this truth: No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 GW)

No one has ever yet been "volitionalized" into the kingdom of God; that is, so appealed to in their wills to make a decision, and to determine to be in the kingdom of God, as by the strength of that decision and that determination to have got through. It cannot be done. A great deal of mistake has been made in that connection, and an entirely false position has been brought about for multitudes of people because the effort has been made along those lines, and they have been appealed to along those lines to exercise their own reason, and their own feelings, and their own wills, as though that would regenerate them.

Thus interest and activity in Christianity is one thing, but being in the kingdom is quite another. Multitudes of good-meaning people are interested in Christianity, and are active in Christianity. They see the value of the Christian standard of life, and Christian teaching, and have thought if only it could be applied, how different the world would be. So they have become busy in Christianity, and have thought they were in the kingdom of God. Not at all! You can have all the interest in Christianity without being in the kingdom. This is what the Lord Jesus said, in effect, and in other and more concise words, to Nicodemus. The only way in is by our receiving Divine Life as a gift through faith in Jesus Christ, and that becomes the new basis of the new creation, the basis upon which everything begins and is carried through, the basis of Divine Life. That Life has in it all the qualities and energies of the new creation. It constitutes our being in what is called the Kingdom of God.

By T. Austin-Sparks from: The Meaning of Divine Life - Chapter 1

makrothumia wrote: "Who says that just because God calls men to repent and believe in order to receive the "free gift" of salvation - this in and of itself would mean that salvation is not truly free? What if it is really our own thoughts about this that are vain?"
___________________________________________________________

Absolutely agree! We need to accept what God reveals as required and lay down our reasoning.

However it is not that strange a concept to us. Consider the prodigal son story. He was freely accepted back by his father and freely given his inheritance. However he had to first turn away from his rebellion and return back home. This included humbling himself and admitting he was wrong before his father. Had he not, he would still be in the pig pen, despite the fact that the father was waiting to forgive and give freely.

To us that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the gift of salvation is free, because the Giver paid the ultimate
Price, to Him it was certainly not free. Repentance is for one thing and one thing only and that is if God grants it, that is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

1 John 5:10-13 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The son that returned to the father from the pig pin was already a son and when he remembered it he returned to his father still as a son. His worldly inheritance is not the Grace inheritance we have as by the Son of God birthed in us
making us fellow heirs of the Father by the Christ that is in us, for He is our Glory.

Colossians 1:26-29 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

It is by His working not mine and my repentance is by Him because the Father has Granted it.

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Who gives repentance and why?

2 Timothy 2:25-26 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

In Christ: Phillip

Peter declared - "The God of our Fathers raised Jesus, whom you siezed and crucified upon a tree. This one God exalted to be both ruler and savior, in order to GIVE REPENTANCE unto Israel and the forgiveness of sins."

God through His Son sought to give repentance unto His own people Israel, but they rejected God's purpose and will for themsleves. By this rejection, they judged themselves unworthy of eternal life in the same way that the stubborn and jealous Jews in Antioch did when Paul preached to them.
This was the point of the parable of the prodigal. Tax collectors, drunkards, and prostitutes had repented when John preached, but the Pharisees like the proud older brother were proud in their self-righteousness.

Jesus said that these same men - "rejected God's purpose for themselves." Luke 7:30 God's purpose was to grant repentance to ALL Israel, but just like their fathers before them, many stubbornly refused God's purpose because of their evil unbelieving hearts and the love of the praise of men. They were broken off because of their unbelief , but even this would not damn them if they did not persist in it - because by faith they could be grafted in again.

It is by faith we have gained access into this grace wherein we stand. This grace has appeared to ALL men, because God wills for ALL men to repent and this is why Paul commanded. ALL men, EVERYWHERE, to repent and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Thanks makrothumia for giving the context for the parable of the prodigal son.

This parable of the lost son was given by Jesus along with the lost coin and the lost lamb, all to make the point that the Father's heart is to seek and to save that which is lost! He even says at the end of the parable that the prodigal was lost and now found, was dead and is now alive.

It is a simple truth that God seeks the salvation of all those who are lost. If we try and look too deeply into details of the parables to make something of them that was never intended we miss the simple point they were given to teach. The fact is, all men are made in the image of God and were created for Him and so He seeks all men to come to repentance and be saved from sin and death.

Amen makrothumia, excellent and convincing post on the issue of man's responsibility and accountability before God. Indeed, if we refuse to receive God's salvation through repentance and faith in Christ our blood will be upon our own head; we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for rejecting so great a salvation.

I think SonsofLevi also brought up a good and important point with that Sparks quote. Being born again is nothing less than receiving God's Divine Life through repentance and faith in Christ. I believe repentance and faith and the new birth all occur at the same time, they are all connected. So if the new birth is a gift of God's grace, genuine repentance and faith in Christ are also gifts of God's grace. Again, leaving no room for boasting in ourselves but only in Christ. As Paul said, "But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."-Gal.6:14.

Oracio,

Sorry to take so long to reply, have other things on the go.

Its all about Jesus, every last thing, its not about repentance or the lack thereof, or any other thing that seems so important. Its Jesus and Jesus alone. If 'free gracers' that you know do not preach that then they missing the point.

That's the common "Free Grace" interpretation of that passage.

Which leads to my next point, because we are under grace and not under the law it does not mean we don't belong to someone. We now belong to Christ.

James is addressing the Christian community

The context is indeed speaking of saving faith vs a non-saving supposed "faith".

'if you show partiality, you commit sin' james 2:9 'For whoever shall keep the whole law' ”“ James 2:10a All the moral requirements which seems to be the only sins you think exist, 'yet stumble in one point' james 2:10b i.e. showing paritiality James 2:9, He is guilty of all.

James 2:11-12 He shows that all of us stumble at some point in the law so treat people with grace because we will be judged by the law of liberty.

So based upon everything he has said before he sets off:

James 2:14 What does it profit...

The context is that of interpersonal relationships and how we deal with people that are believers.

He brings up another interpersonal matter. A brother naked and destitute of daily food. James 2:15

He shows that if you bless them with your words but don't physically give them something to eat and wear your faith in Christ is empty rhetoric. How poignant for our time.

Thus also faith by itself- james 2:17 Think you could say 'Love by itself, if it does not have works, is dead because faith expresses itself in love ”“ Gal 5:6

In verse 19 he brings up the point that even demons have an orthodox belief (mental assent) about God and that a mere mental assent about God is not enough to save anyone.

In verse 21 he brings up the example of Abraham's saving faith which was evidenced by his obedience/works. James says clearly in verse 22 that Abraham's "faith was working together with his works". Then in verse 23 James quotes Genesis 15:6 which declares that Abraham was declared righteous through the faith which he exercised, a faith accompanied by obedience/works.

James 1:19-26 Deals primarily with the words that were coming out of the mouths of the saints, thats the context

I'm curious, what do you do with passages like 1Cor.6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21

which clearly declare that those who practice sin will not inherit God's kingdom?

But have you read how addresses the corinthians. To those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints- 1cor 1:2. Grace to and you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 1:3

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: 18 When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."

I think this generation of believers by and large live in Romans 10:3

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Preachers make light of the law and just how perfect it is. And because of that the absolute pre-eminence of Christ Jesus is diminished. He is our only hope. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord. 2 Cor 4:5

Just in regards to the obsession that repenting is attached to sin, let me ask this question does God Sin?

Quoute: Salvation does not require obedience.

Thank you

Quote: If a person has a "conversion experience" but does not have the immediate, or very close to immediate, desire to obey and to serve Jesus as Lord.

Why did you go and blow it?

My testimony is a out of the church conversion, the woman who was in my bed (who was married to another man) was battered and bruised from my violent out burst she had been in there two days, I just finished rolling a joint.

I put the joint down, said a prayer "God change me I am fed up being this way" as I lay down in the bed a wind left me from my stomach, after that a wind blew into my stomach after which I sat up and started speaking in tongues.

God's work had begun in me, however within 30 minutes I had smoked that Joint.

It was 3 months later before I went to church, no one invited me, I knew that I had to go, so I went to church only to find that God had planned to speak to me through the preacher that was the night I received the call of God for my life, a violent angry adulterer that used drugs.

By the way that woman is know my wife, she was 3 months pregnant the night I first believed.

It was two weeks later before I went back to church, a church member contacted me and asked me to come on Sunday, during the service I found that a India man had flown from India and arrived at the Pastor's door saying God wanted him to preach at his church. He was going to preach that night.

During the service as I listen to this man his testimony of violence was like mine at the end he ask those who didn't walk a righteous should stand up. I stood up as he started praying something knocked me off my feet, the man next to me picked me up but I was shaking like a leaf and was soon surrounded and was set free and a demon cast out. I can remember to this day the awful smell in my mouth.

About two weeks after that a group of Christians from Hong Kong came to the church sharing there testimonies of deliverance from drugs and of course I went out for prayer, I can say nothing happened at the time. But when I was at home in my bed overwhelming love swept over me and I just sat and wept as it dawned on me just how much he loved me.

God's abounding grace...

Edit to add

ZekeO, in answer to my question about 1Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal. 5:19-21 you wrote:

Absolutely there is vast difference in leaving Egypt and making it into the promised land. So my question is were those that left egypt saved or only those who entered into the inheritance.

But have you read how addresses the corinthians. To those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints- 1cor 1:2. Grace to and you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 1:3

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that in 1Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 those who will not inherit the kingdom of God will still be saved? I think that's what you're saying but I want to make sure.

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that in 1Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 those who will not inherit the kingdom of God will still be saved? I think that's what you're saying but I want to make sure.

Thank you ZekeO. I don't think we need anymore clear proof of deliberate twisting of God's Word and doing word-gymnastics around it. You also did that with James. I find it too hard to try to reason with you. I tried. But I'm done. Again, take care.

Quote: So tell us murrcolr, what is your take on that passage? Is there not a cost involved according to our Lord's teaching there?

It's a way of saying in a parable count everything as loss in order to gain Christ.

Quote: Could it be that our thoughts about what we consider to be genuinely free are vain in His eyes. Is it possible that our human wisdom in this regard is futile?

Quote: Perhaps we should be careful not to place too great a confidence in our "logic" about what we consider to be "free"?

The simplest of men understands the concept of a gift - a item given to someone without the expectation of payment. It seems that the foolish things do confound the wise.

Oracio's question and Zeke's answer are about as straightforward as anything I have seen that asks for a plain admission to grave error and gets it affirmed unequivocally.

It's a way of saying in a parable count everything as loss in order to gain Christ.

But notice these verses that surround those two analogies about counting the cost of being a disciple of Christ:

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.”
"So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.”

Notice also this verse:

"Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”-Matt.16:24

Again I ask, is there not a cost involved in becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ? Does God’s Word really teach that one can simply believe without turning from their wicked ways, without following Christ, without seeking to obey Him?

Notice also Jesus' words in John 14:21-24; 15:10,14:

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.”

"You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.”

Seems clear to me based on our Lord's teaching there that those who love the Lord and are His friends will seek to keep His commandments, and He will manifest Himself to them and to none other. Is that speaking of a second-level experience? I don’t think so. It’s speaking of a genuine saving relationship with Christ.

Notice also these verses from 1John which confirm and echo the same teaching:

"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.”-1Jn. 2:3-5

So is it possible for someone to know God/be saved while not seeking to keep His commandments or His word? Not according to those scriptures. Isn't that the clear and plain meaning there?

"If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”1Jn.1:6-7

So is it really possible for someone to have a right relationship/fellowship with God and be saved while walking in darkness at the same time? Again, not according to that passage.

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.”1Jn. 2:29

According to that verse it is only those who practice righteousness that are born of God or born again. By contrast, those who practice unrighteousness are not born of God. Can it get any clearer?

Also, consider Revelation 21:8:
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

What’s your take on that verse? Considering that verse and others like it, is it really possible for someone to live a life wherein they practice those sins and still be saved? Again, not according to that and other clear scriptures like it, unless you want to twist the clear and plain meaning of those clear scriptures.

"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.”-1Jn. 2:3-5

Quote: So is it really possible for someone to have a right relationship/fellowship with God and be saved while walking in darkness at the same time?

Do you keep his commandments, has the love of God been perfected in you?

"If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.”1Jn. 2:29

Quote: According to that verse it is only those who practice righteousness that are born of God or born again. By contrast, those who practice unrighteousness are not born of God. Can it get any clearer?

So why do you practice unrighteousness?

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Quote: What’s your take on that verse? Considering that verse and others like it, is it really possible for someone to live a life wherein they practice those sins and still be saved?

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer - well is it possible?

Oracio,

you make me smile in a nice way, really

I don't think we need anymore clear proof

deliberate twisting of God's Word and doing word-gymnastics around it.

You also did that with James.

Again, take care.

Dolfan

Oracio's question and Zeke's answer are about as straightforward as anything I have seen that asks for a plain admission to grave error and gets it affirmed unequivocally.

I had this scripture in mind Matthew 26:65-66:

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death

Which I am sure is probably how you feel.

When I listened to this sermon:

Steve Lawson ”“ It Will Cost You Everything (about 11 min.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQOBMi4QS8 

I thought of all the Peters listening to the message, being stirred by a rallying call to lay down all and follow Christ, to be a beacon of righteousness in a dark and depraved world. And them proclaiming with great sincerity:

Matthew 26:33
Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.

And people will applaud and shout glory, you making a stand for Christ. And Jesus turns around and says:

Matthew 26:34

"Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.

Thats not very encouraging Jesus, these men are you crew, they are your apostles.

And the Peters just to make sure there is no doubt to where their colours are nailed says:

Matthew 26:35

Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.

This does not sound like a broken man. He and his friends still thought that Jesus was a man to be followed and didn't realise that Jesus wanted more than that. He wanted men who so understood their weakness that he could give them his very own life to live in and through them.

John 6:53
Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you.

My dear brothers, Jesus Christ is everything! Everything comes from him, everything is for him. Everything points to him, the life that we are called to live is his life in us by faith. Anything else has its source in self and will be doomed to failure.

edited:formating

murrcolr wrote:

Do you keep his commandments, has the love of God been perfected in you?

So why do you practice unrighteousness?

I will also remind you of 1Cor.6:9-10 and Gal.5:19-21 which clearly declare that the unrighteous, meaning those who practice sin will not inherit God’s kingdom, meaning they will not go to heaven.

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer - well is it possible?

My whole point is this I cannot understand why people who are involved and are in someway influenced by the Lordship Salvationist Doctrine preachers happily gleefully point out the failing in others. They name them free gracers - easy believist and call them false converts.

At the end of the day Lordshiper, free gracer or easy believist - obedience has not been perfected in them, and as such the they don't Love God perfectly meaning that thier surrender to Christ Lordship is not perfect.

The whole reason why I won't say I surrendered to Christ Lordship at salvation is because I didn't and still haven't, until self is dethroned and Christ is enthroned I will never declare it to be so.

When the rubber hits the road Lordship Salvationist Doctrine followers have to rely on the same grace as the much detested free gracers - easy believist rely on.

Rev.21:8 - You want a answer

Justification or Positional justification is the "legal standing" we have been granted in Christ. We are justified when we believe in Christ from that moment on, God sees us as righteous. Although we have been declared righteous, the fact is that we still sin, even after we've been saved.

Justification or Positional justification is the "legal standing" we have been granted in Christ. We are justified when we believe in Christ from that moment on, God sees us as righteous. Although we have been declared righteous, the fact is that we still sin, even after we've been saved.

murrcolr when those scriptures in 1John speak of knowing God, are they not referring to salvation, to being born again? What else can they possibly refer to?

Rev.21:8 - You want a answer

Justification or Positional justification is the "legal standing" we have been granted in Christ. We are justified when we believe in Christ from that moment on, God sees us as righteous. Although we have been declared righteous, the fact is that we still sin, even after we've been saved.

The whole reason why I won't say I surrendered to Christ Lordship at salvation is because I didn't and still haven't, until self is dethroned and Christ is enthroned I will never declare it to be so.

If you have not bowed the knee to Christ and surrendered your heart and life to Him, and if self is still enthroned on the seat of your heart, according to the clear testimony of the Word of God you are not saved. That's not my teaching murrcolr, it's the Word of God. Again I will say, if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with Him and His Word. I'm simply a messenger relaying His truth.

For anyone else who might be reading this who thinks they might fit the above description, I encourage and exhort you to heed the warning given in 2Cor.13:5 to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith. You don't want to play the hypocrite and stand before Christ on Judgment Day only to hear Him say to you, "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness. I never knew you."

Quote: If you have not bowed the knee to Christ and surrendered your heart and life to Him, and if self is still enthroned on the seat of your heart, according to the clear testimony of the Word of God you are not saved. That's not my teaching murrcolr, it's the Word of God. Again I will say, if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with Him and His Word. I'm simply a messenger relaying His truth.

Friend - I put my testimony on how I got saved a few post back, God did a tremendous work in my life, there was a time that I would have said that Christ was Lord in my life, however after deep dealings of God's, I find self on the throne and that self is riddled with sin, it would hypocritical of me to claim to be under Christ Lordship.

What I am saying to you, is your no different, but you seem to be blindly unaware of your condition.

Oracio,

I see you are farther along and more perfect according to your testimony than the following were according to their testimonies:

John Wesley
Martin Luther
Andrew Murray
A.W. Tozer
A.B. Simpson
D.L. Moody
F.B. Meyer
Watchman Nee
Madame Guyon
William Law
T. Austin-Sparks
J.N. Darby
Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf
Samuel Rutherford
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
Evan Hopkins
H.C.G. Moule
C.T. Studd
Norman Grubb
George Muller

This is not an exhaustive list but you will do well to see what they had to say on the subject and also to read about their lives.

Here is a quote from so claimed Lordship Salvationist - Charles Spurgeon

Understand, then, that the old nature of the Christian is a body; it has in it a substance or, as Calvin puts it, it is a mass of corruption. It is not simply a shred, a remnant””the cloth of the old garment, but the whole of it is there still. True, it is crushed beneath the foot of grace; it is cast out of its throne; but it is there, there in all its entireness, and in all its sad tangibility, a body of death. But why does he call it a body of death? Simply to express what an awful thing this sin is that remains in the heart.

This messed up new doctrine called Lordship Salvation have spawned a new error called "One Naturism”.

This teaching (to my best understanding) is that upon "coming to the knowledge of Christ” (whatever that might mean to some) the old sin nature is eradicated/destroyed thus leaving nothing remaining but the new nature provided by Christ which WILL automatically produce good works ”” or you are not "saved.”

Hence we see Oracia declaring himself the messenger of truth - declaring I am not saved. Now I may laugh at his foolishness, but this is the terrible reality that going on within the church.

Stones are being picked up and thrown, we saw not that long ago 600million Christians were viciously labeled false, while we see the disciples of Lordship salvation doctrine acting in the same way, so willing to label anyone unsaved or false. Yes a strong religious spirit is at work within this group.

So Oracia be done with this modern doctrine that romanticises the narrow path, while in reality it is the old lie and your on the broad path that all of the worlds religions take and that is works for salvation.

The narrow path is Christ - he is the way, the truth and the light and no one gets to the Father expect through him.

murrclor,

This teaching (to my best understanding) is that upon "coming to the knowledge of Christ” (whatever that might mean to some) the old sin nature is eradicated/destroyed thus leaving nothing remaining but the new nature provided by Christ which WILL automatically produce good works

For the record, I have not declared anyone on this thread unsaved. The key word in my last post is the word "if".

I see you are farther along and more perfect according to your testimony than the following were according to their testimonies:

John Wesley
Martin Luther
Andrew Murray
A.W. Tozer
A.B. Simpson
D.L. Moody
F.B. Meyer
Watchman Nee
Madame Guyon
William Law
T. Austin-Sparks
J.N. Darby
Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf
Samuel Rutherford
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
Evan Hopkins
H.C.G. Moule
C.T. Studd
Norman Grubb
George Muller

This is not an exhaustive list but you will do well to see what they had to say on the subject and also to read about their lives.

SonsofLevi, I do not understand your post there. Are you accusing me of preaching sinless perfectionism? Have you really skipped such a huge chunk of this thread? I hope you are not jumping into conclusions too quickly here.

Zeko

Consider what is said in the Spurgeon quote

Understand, then, that the old nature of the Christian is a body; it has in it a substance or, as Calvin puts it, it is a mass of corruption. It is not simply a shred, a remnant””the cloth of the old garment, but the whole of it is there still. True, it is crushed beneath the foot of grace; it is cast out of its throne; but it is there, there in all its entireness, and in all its sad tangibility, a body of death. But why does he call it a body of death? Simply to express what an awful thing this sin is that remains in the heart.

Zeko you would agree with me if say that there is a remnant or a shred of the old nature left after conversion,

What I would say and it is what Spurgeon is saying in the quote, is that is not simply a shred or a remnant but the whole that is there. He quotes Calvin and says "it is a mass of corruption"

Now I depart slightly from Spurgeon as he says "it is crushed beneath the foot of grace it is cast out of its throne; but it is there, there in all its entireness" While I say it can't be cast from the throne if it's there in all of it's entireness.

I would say it is crushed but not removed from it's throne, because as Spurgeon says "what awful thing this sin is that remains in the heart" I see the heart as the very seat of self, the throne room of a human being.

kardia: 2588 - the seat and center of all physical and spiritual life, "the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors.

When your born again it's your spirit that reborn, what you inherited from Adam is gone and your reborn of that life-giving Spirit. But your heart is another matter altogether and the Holy Spirit needs to transform this area.

The carnal mind is enmity against God Rom 8:7, you could say the carnal kardia (heart) is enmity against God because it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, what does Paul say "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" Rom 12:2. We can translate that to say be transformed by the renewing of your Kardia (Heart).

Hope you are grasp were I am coming from in such a short post.

So Oracia be done with this modern doctrine that romanticises the narrow path, while in reality it is the old lie and your on the broad path that all of the worlds religions take and that is works for salvation.

I agree that a lot has been written on this thread. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of what is being proposed- at least as to what **I** am proposing, so I will try to summarize it succinctly.

1) Jesus **IS** Lord: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ””this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36

2)That Jesus is Lord is surely part of the gospel that must be believed. If Jesus is Lord, an affirmation of His right to rule and be Lord and Master would make it necessary that we **make it our aim to obey Him**, or else we deny that which we profess:

"They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." Titus 1:16

3) To me, "easy-believism" applies to someone who claims to have been born again because they raised their hand in a Sunday school class 20 years ago but have no intention of submitting to (i.e. obeying) Jesus as Lord **now**. That person is not saved, and that is the danger.

4) A person who claims be to born again and is trying, despite repeated failures, to follow Jesus, and is trying to forsake his own claims to his life, despite failures, is likely born again, and via the work of the Holy Spirit will grow more in Christ and his failures should become less frequent.

Zeko you would agree with me if say that there is a remnant or a shred of the old nature left after conversion

Jesus didn't just die for my sins verb, but he died to sin noun.

2 Cor 5:21
God made Him who knew no sin(noun) to be sin(noun) for us that we might be the righteousness(noun) of God in him.

The transaction wasn't partial it was total. Thats why the law has no hold on a dead person. Rom 7:1

What I would say is that there is still an aroma of a sinful life that still wafts through our members. Very much like there being gasoline smell left in a container even though there is no gasoline left in the container.

Thats my take anyway.

murrclor,

Maybe to ask this question, to see where you at. What made us sinners, the fact that we sin(verb) or that we are sinners(noun)?

TMK writes:

4) A person who claims be to born again and is trying, despite repeated failures, to follow Jesus, and is trying to forsake his own claims to his life, despite failures, is likely born again, and via the work of the Holy Spirit will grow more in Christ and his failures should become less frequent.

Thank you for bringing this up. I made mention of it in my previous post and I think it needs repeating. If we tie our salvation to performed obedience we get into trouble for who can say that they obey perfectly all the time? Then the next question is how much can you fall short of perfect obedience and still be saved? Going down this sort of speculation and reasoning becomes a promotion of legalism.

However, when we stop obsessing over the "outside of the cup" and realize that all conduct and behavior is a product of what is in the heart we come to true understanding and wisdom. The born again experience (regeneration) occurs when one exercises faith in Christ and repentance from sin. Faith is more than mental assent to doctrinal truth. It involves TRUST which speaks to relationship and adoption as sons and daughters of God. Repentance involves having a sincere intention and desire to turn away from sin and to live a life pleasing and submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ. In the early stage of the Christian life repentance as evidenced by performed obedience is never perfect. In my own life when I became born again there were many sins and habits that fell away like dead skin but there were some besetting sins that still plagued me. I know however that I was not a false convert because I never was comfortable with having known sin in my life. I even had a Romans 7 type experience to get me out from living a life of self-improvement, trying to perfect myself instead of trusting and relying on the Holy Spirit and the indwelling life of Christ to overcome. Sanctification is a life-long process and I am still on this journey.

I think we would do well to not put the cart before the horse and focus solely on conduct and behavior without taking into consideration the person's heart. The pharisees were scrupulous in outward religious behavior and I'm sure that all the Jews thought they were so holy and godly. Jesus saw their hearts and called them offspring of the devil in spite of their good works. They lacked a loving relationship with God. They were playing a selfish game of trying to earn right standing and acceptance with God by relying on self effort to perfect themselves.

At the judgment Jesus will tell many of His followers to depart from Him and they will be shocked by this. They will list their good works to Him and He will call them "workers of iniquity". If you read this and think that "being saved" or "getting into heaven" is about doing good works or acts of obedience and therefore we have to try harder, you will have missed the most important point. He said "I never knew you". They didn't have a close intimate relationship of trust and reliance upon their Lord. If they had pursued this type of relationship their good works and obedience would have followed naturally.

While I don't think it is possible to put a fine line upon where exactly the level of "good works" or "obedience" displays or reveals a state of salvation or reprobation, if a person lives in a state of repeated and habitual gross sin without any distress in that state, I think it is safe to say that such a person does not have a saving relationship with Christ. I also think that there is such a thing as a carnal Christian but such a state is one of dangerous plunging toward shipwrecking one's faith. Nobody should feel comfortable being carnal or want to stay there. Anyone wanting to stay carnal and feels OK with that state does not realize that at some point their relationship with the Lord will become meaningless and they will fall away completely. The Lord will tell them, "Depart from Me, I never knew you". The key is their relationship with the Lord. Are they pressing in and pursuing the Lord in love? If so, their obedience will follow. And since sanctification is a process, obedience in this life will never be perfect but we should want it to be such and when we fall short we will be hurt, not because we think we lost our salvation but because we missed an opportunity to bring delight to our Lord.

While I don't think it is possible to put a fine line upon where exactly the level of "good works" or "obedience" displays or reveals a state of salvation or reprobation, if a person lives in a state of repeated and habitual gross sin without any distress in that state, I think it is safe to say that such a person does not have a saving relationship with Christ.

TMK wrote:

I agree that a lot has been written on this thread. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of what is being proposed- at least as to what **I** am proposing, so I will try to summarize it succinctly.

1) Jesus **IS** Lord: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ””this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36

2)That Jesus is Lord is surely part of the gospel that must be believed. If Jesus is Lord, an affirmation of His right to rule and be Lord and Master would make it necessary that we **make it our aim to obey Him**, or else we deny that which we profess:

"They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." Titus 1:16

3) To me, "easy-believism" applies to someone who claims to have been born again because they raised their hand in a Sunday school class 20 years ago but have no intention of submitting to (i.e. obeying) Jesus as Lord **now**. That person is not saved, and that is the danger.

4) A person who claims be to born again and is trying, despite repeated failures, to follow Jesus, and is trying to forsake his own claims to his life, despite failures, is likely born again, and via the work of the Holy Spirit will grow more in Christ and his failures should become less frequent.

But again, a true believer will not be comfortable with any known sin in their life but will grieve to the point of being willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of any known sin. I’ll share this quote from MacArthur which I think explains it well:

"A Christian isn't somebody who buys fire insurance, who signs up for an escape clause to keep him out of hell. Puritan William Perkins wrote these words, ‘The true Christian, is of this disposition of mind; that if there were no conscience to accuse, no devil to terrify, no judge to arraign or condemn, no hell to torment, yet he would be humbled and brought to his knees for his sins; because he has offended a loving, merciful and longsuffering God.’ That’s the difference. The truly repentant sinner is devastated by the way he has offended God with his sin. He’s not whimsically looking for some fire insurance. A true disciple loves, a true disciple obeys. We don’t love perfectly, we don’t obey perfectly. Sometimes we love very imperfectly and disobey. But the pattern of life is obedience and love for the Lord. And even when we fail to love Him we feel the guilt, we fail to obey Him we feel the guilt, because we do belong to Him. We have that intimate relationship which God in His grace has given to us."

Zeko ”“ to answer your question - we are born sinners.

Quote: The transaction wasn't partial it was total. Thats why the law has no hold on a dead person. Rom 7:1

Our position in Christ: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Our New Position constitutes a new beginning for the believer, neutralizing the effects of our previous position in Adam. Our New Position is totally the work of God 1 Cor. 1:30

God sees every Christian as being "in Christ." We have this new position in Christ because of our justification by faith. We are in Christ we are identified with Him in His death, burial, resurrection and exaltation.

He [God] made Him [Jesus Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" 2 Cor 5:21

When God justifies the sinner he actually counts them righteous when they are not.

quote: "When God justifies the sinner..."

That is the burning question here. "When" does this happen?

The sinner is justified when he is born of the Spirit and his human spirit is quickened alive and is in union with Christ.
There is a repentance which is of the flesh by self-effort. that is not acceptable to God. This is what you see the multitudes doing. There is also a repentance which is the office of the Holy Spirit and not an act of the will alone which is true repentance.
Most of what is being preached and taught in the matter of modern day preaching of "Lordship Salvation", even these so called leaders that write exhaustive concordances, is of the first type in which the Scriptures refer to as "a form of godliness being taught but denying the power thereof". They do nothing but puff up the "self-life" to do good and feel smart because of human wisdom. It is a powerless gospel that preaches self-effort repentance. All the saints in whom their works have abided and are abiding the centuries and ages have testified that true repentance by grace is an act of the Holy Spirit and not man. A.W. Tozer is a good and true example of Lordship salvation preached but did not deny the power thereof. A true believer knows whether what is being preached has the power of the Holy Ghost in it or not.

quote:

"true repentance by grace is an act of the Holy Spirit and not man."

Then why did Jesus, John the B, Peter and Paul command men to repent? If it was not in their power to do so, it wasn't very nice of them to tell men that they must. Kind of like commanding my 3 year old grandson to cook a 5 course dinner.

quote: "When God justifies the sinner..."

That is the burning question here. "When" does this happen?

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness Rom 4:3

When you believe God...

Quote: Then why did Jesus, John the B, Peter and Paul command men to repent? If it was not in their power to do so, it wasn't very nice of them to tell men that they must. Kind of like commanding my 3 year old grandson to cook a 5 course dinner.

If God so decided to command your 3 year old Grandson to cook his 5 course meal, and your Grandson believed what God said; then we would find that God would also supply him with the ability (grace) to cook the 5 course meal.

All things are possible...

Quote:It is a powerless gospel that preaches self-effort repentance. All the saints in whom their works have abided and are abiding the centuries and ages have testified that true repentance by grace is an act of the Holy Spirit and not man.

Self-effort repentance is a old covenant message

Andrew Murray THE TWO COVENANTS

In the Old Covenant man had the opportunity given him to prove what He could do with the aid of all the means of grace God could bestow. That Covenant ended in man proving his own unfaithfulness and failure.

In the New Covenant, God is to prove what He can do with man, all unfaithful and feeble as he is, when He is allowed and trusted to do all the work.

The Old Covenant was one dependent on man's obedience, one which he could break, and did break. The New Covenant was one which God has engaged shall never be broken; He Himself keeps it and ensures our keeping it: so He makes it an Everlasting Covenant.

quote: "When you believe God..."

How do we know that Abraham believed God? Better yet, how did God know?

Quote: How do we know that Abraham believed God? Better yet, how did God know?

Is this a real question, are you being sincere?

100% sincere. (because the Bible says so is not the answer I am looking for. I should have said, why does the Bible say that Abraham believed God?)

If someone ... asks you how you know you are going to heaven when you die (which is the same as how you know all things work together for good), I hope that ... you will not be content to answer, "I know that I am going to heaven because I prayed one time and asked Jesus to come into my heart." Instead, I hope that we will answer something like this:

"I know that I am going to heaven because God chose me for his own and predestined me for glory. He has born witness of this in my life by calling me effectually out of rebellion and unbelief and by giving me the declaration of acquittal in his Word. I am justified””my sin went onto Christ, his righteousness went onto me.

"And now my confidence rests in the covenant oath of God that he will cause me to walk in his will. He who did not spare his Son but gave him up for me, will he not work in me that which is pleasing in his sight (Romans 8:32)? By his Spirit he will cause me to fulfill the just requirement of the law (Romans 8:4), sin will not have dominion over me for I am now under the rule of sovereign grace (Romans 6:14), and that grace will reign through righteousness unto eternal life (Romans 5:21).

"The Father planned it ages ago. The Son purchased it centuries ago. The Spirit is causing it today in my heart. It is he who is at work in me to will and to do his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). And he who began in me this work will complete it at the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6). It is as sure as the oath and power of the sovereign God. And therefore I know that I am going to heaven, for THOSE WHOM HE JUSTIFIED HE ALSO GLORIFIED."

Thoughts?

Better yet, how did God know?