EDIT 2: At the bottom of this article I'm going to give you Mark's latest itteration of his witnessing, in his own words. I ask the reader to see if what I have rendered varies at all from what Mark expresses. Please feel free to comment on this.
There is a fine line between being helpful and pride.
After spending some quality time with a Brother in the Lord this weekend past and listening to his counsel I’ve changed my course a bit. It’s not lost on me that this article must be helpful. If it is going to be helpful then it can’t just be about who is right and who is wrong. Those things will clearly enter the fray but they can’t be the focus. Realizing you are wrong, or telling someone they are isn’t really helpful until you equip them in some way to be “right.”
I confess that Mark’s Lordship Salvation (LS) presentation did not convert me to the LS point of view. Yet even still, I recognize how Mark’s passion could be compelling, especially in person. I totally relate to how those who seek Christians to live a victorious life and for the Lord to be exalted in our lives find Lordship Salvation theology to be enticing.
The issue at the start of all this was that Mark claimed there was not one single person who both understood LS theology and rejected it. I considered the likelihood of this being true as unreasonably low, but possible. What I was (and am) absolutely sure of is that from Mark’s point of view LS is so plainly true that he can’t imagine someone understanding it and rejecting it.
So I find myself looking at a massive article that includes four versions of Mark’s position in the form of witnessing, and 78 comments filled with details and definitions. There is a huge amount of information to sift through. I've done my best and I hope that is good enough to help the reader.
In order to understand what Mark was saying in his presentations I asked him to define the terminology he was using. I would then insert those definitions into his presentations. Mark mostly agreed, and finally didn’t offer any correction. However, he still indicates that my last interpretation of what he was saying showed signs that I didn’t understand.
That’s enough disclosure to give this article some context I think. If you need any more information about the discussion I had with Mark you can find it all right HERE.
We got into the definitions of many things that are important for a deeper study of LS and to show how LS theology expresses its self in the beliefs of the person who holds to it. Most of the things discussed in that thread don’t need to be brought up here again. I was striving for a full understanding. I wanted to understand LS as Mark believes it, and to understand Mark too.
The real discussion that is important is that which will have us answer the question: What is faith?
Mark declared that Salvation is by Grace through faith alone in Christ alone. He told me “Matthew 11:28-30 serves as [his] personal model for a salvation presentation.” In order to understand his presentation I asked him to define “faith” and he gave me answers to this on several occasions. Here are some of his explanations;
Saving faith is that which is seen Heb 11:8-19
Mark 8:34-38 is the definition of saving faith which he explained as a “faith that desires to follow after Christ.”
In Mark’s desire to ensure I properly understood what he believes to be the definition of “saving faith” he explained this;
Secondly, I've maintained all along that characteristics or evidences of saving faith are manifested in the taking of His yoke upon you and learning from Him. Any "coming" to Him that stops short of taking His yoke upon you and learning from Him indicates that there was no coming at all; and no "faith" at all.
Again, no evidences of faith - taking His yoke upon you, and learning from Him - then there is no true authentic saving faith.
Mark explained the concept of being yoked at length but I believe he was most clear at this point;
Take My yoke upon you... Kevin a yoke was a wooden beam that was placed across the necks of oxen in order to keep them together. In the Bible a yoke came to symbolize servitude. Christ wants to place His yoke on you so that He can direct your life. You are to respond to Him in obedience. THAT is what is at the core of the Christian experience; obedience to Christ.
One thing that Mark and I agreed with, at least on one level, right from the start is that Eternal Salvation has the requirement of having “right standing before Holy God.” The Bible calls this “Righteousness.” The person who attains, or is given Eternal Salvation must also attain or be given righteousness. Mark and I both describe this as a “gift.” I believe that Eternal Salvation is the natural result of being given right standing before Holy God, and that Eternal Damnation is the natural result of not having right standing.
One might say that Christians are saved from not having right standing. Mark indicates this when he answers my question about what we are saved from with “From God’s coming wrath.”
Both Mark and I quote Ephesians 2:8-9 with passion when we talk about Salvation being a gift.
Mark’s definition of Faith speaks of things like desiring to serve Christ, to being yoked to His directing your life, and obedience.
Mark tells me his presentation is based on Matthew 11. There however the Lord promises the one who takes on His yoke “rest” not work. The word rendered rest means a “cessation of motion” not to be “at ease” from worry but to be The Lord calls the hearer to be linked up with Him, because HE has done the work so the believer can merely “rest.”Such is the character of every answer given to any person who asks what they must do to be saved. When a person asks what work they can do, they are told to believe, not work.
Mark tells us that unless one has the same faith described in Heb 11:8-19 that a person is not saved. In actuality this passage describes Abraham’s willingness to obey God because he trusted God. Abraham had to have faith to do this, but it was not his faith that had inspired him to obey. His faith allowed him to do so. God inspired him to obey, it was his trust in God that let him actually follow through. His obedience demonstrates to us that he trusted God, but his obedience wasn't the trust. We read this same concept in James 2, where men are justified before other men by their works – but justified before God by faith alone.
The first verse of Hebrews 11 defines faith for us. It says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for. Faith is trust. So we read verse 8-19 knowing that it is because Abraham trusted God that he obeyed. His obedience isn’t his faith.
We also know this because Abram, which is the name that Abraham had before God changed it, was accounted as righteous before Holy God way back in Genesis 15. The Apostle Paul makes it plainly clear that faith and works are not the same using the Genesis 15 account. Paul tells us that that Justification before God not only is not “by works” but is “apart from” works. That the one who believes on God and DOES NOT WORK is saved.
He writes in Romans 4:1-4
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”
One must go back to the event of Abram being justified to see this plainly.
Gen 15:1 reads After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.”
Abram was afraid, and did not trust the Lord. He says to the Lord in Gen 15:2-3 But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!”
The Lord God assured Abram with Gen 15:4-5 4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
And then it happened.
Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
This is exactly the same as how Heb 11:1 defines faith. He trusted God’s promise. He did not express desire to serve. He did not come under some yoke of obedience. He trusted God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.
Paul tells us clearly in Romans 4 that this is how we are justified before God.
All the theology that leads a person to adopt LS theology can be argued over in various venues. There can be cries of misrepresentation and misunderstanding coming from those who support and deny LS theology. None of it matters to our discussion here today. The logical end of those theologies is the Lordship Salvation position which does not define saving faith the way the Bible does.
I may or may not understand the doctrines of sin, regeneration, election or repentance as they pertain to Lordship Salvation. I believe that I do, and I believe this is evidenced very clearly through my discussion with Mark. All of these things are moving targets when you try to challenge them because people hold their beliefs close to their hearts. But none of it matters. The Bible tells us that Salvation is by grace through faith and LS defines faith in a way that does not match what the Bible says.
Mark noted absolutely no disagreement with regard to what Salvation is, or what Grace is. I have used his word for word definitions of what saving faith is. CLEARLY I understand the position of Lordship Salvation as presented by Mark. I believe I have honored my promises, and I’m thankful that Mark participated in honor of his.
The brunt of the argument is that the Bible says that saving faith is assurance. Lordship Salvation uses incorrect grammar and says that saving faith is a faith that desires to serve Christ. Faith can’t desire something. To say that faith desires something is to commit the logical fallacy of reification.
Any time I have pressed the LS advocates on this I’ve been met with accusations of misrepresenting. To give the LS proponent the benefit of the doubt, one might consider that they would say that the life of one who has faith would be characterized by a desire to serve. However, the Bible makes no demand of this type of desire to serve to attain Salvation on the sinner (or the Believer to maintain salvation for that matter). I have presented Mark's own words, and quoted Scripture so I will leave the reader to compare what he says to the Bible’s definition of faith which is “assurance.”
In light of this one issue, I can not accept Lordship Salvation as truth. There are many other aspects of the theology that are worthy of discussion but based on this one point I can unequivocally state that the Bible is at odds with Lordship Salvation and I choose Scripture over man.
As it says “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
How about some help then?
Again and again the words "You're dealing with a teenager" came up this weekend past. Not that Mark is in his teenage years... but that he's still growing up in the Faith. We are each where we are on our own "walk towards Christ." I'm where I'm at, you're where your at, and Mark is where Mark is at. It is obvious from Scripture that Christians are created for Good Works. And while I hold that the only "evidence" we are told will show us as Christians is our love for each other, I DO believe that we will see fruit of the Spirit in the lives of those who walk by the Spirit. As Christians mature, that fruit becomes more and more visibly consistent. There is no getting around that. However, these are not terms for Salvation. One is no more or less saved if they do good works, if they are willing to do good works, or if they are disorderly.
As Paul tells us, we are Justified apart from works. We don't have to desire to do anything, we simply trust.
And that brings up the last point. When Mark was witnessing to me he did share that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day. However, he did not share why this is "good news." Christ died for our sins "in accordance with the Scriptures." He died as a sacrifice that fullfilled the complete requirements for our Salvation. His sacrifice was accepted and so He rose to life again. When the Apostle Paul preached this message he shared why it was good news for everyone who receives it. Paul told us that if we receive this message that we are not only baptized into Christ's death, but also into His resurrection. That is our hope, that through dying in Christ we shall also live in Him for evermore.
What is saving Faith? It's trusting the Gospel of Christ. Period. No more. No less. No different at all. The Apostle Paul declares this Gospel and tells us the hope we have if we have received it.
1 Cor 15:1-11
1But I make known to you, brethren, the glad tidings which I announced to you, which also ye received, in which also ye stand,
2by which also ye are saved, (if ye hold fast the word which I announced to you as the glad tidings,) unless indeed ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you, in the first place, what also I had received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures;
4and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day, according to the scriptures;
5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain until now, but some also have fallen asleep.
7Then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;
8and last of all, as to an abortion, he appeared to *me* also.
9For *I* am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called apostle, because I have persecuted the assembly of God.
10But by God's grace I am what I am; and his grace, which [was] towards me, has not been vain; but I have laboured more abundantly than they all, but not *I*, but the grace of God which [was] with me.
11Whether, therefore, I or they, thus we preach, and thus ye have believed.
Please compare the Apostle's presentation and my own descriptions with that of Mark's own words.
I used Acts 20:21 as the lead-off in my gospel presentation "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. I am convinced that salvation cannot take place without one coming to a place of realizing that their lives are completely in disobedience to the Word of their Creator, and their utter lostness that results from that. They realize it is time to stop in their tracks, which lead to certain judgment, and to embrace God's Word. (Repentance)
That one so convicted then comes to put their trust in the truth of God's Word that Christ paid in full for their sins. "It is Finished" were among His dying words on the cross. Indeed it was finished. There remained no more payment for sin. Christ bore The Father's wrath on all our sins. That individual, fully assured of these truths submits his life to Christ as his Master, Controler And Supreme One in authority. (Faith).
Hence my going to the center-piece of my gospel presentation - Matthew 11:28-30. There Christ summons those to come to Him and to take His yoke upon them ( a wooden beam, which came to symbolize servitude) and to learn from Him.
127 comments:
I've been given links to comments that indicate it is a recognized fact that some people who understand LS Theology also reject it.
This has been a worth while exercise. Though Mark was the presenter, it's not really about him in particular.
Kev
When we read the "heros of the faith" chapter which is Hebrews 11 we would do well to see a couple of things.
First, these people experienced much failure in their faithfulness.
Second, their works were done BY faith, not AS faith. The scriptures don't even say that it was because of their faith that they did these things..
Only that they did them by faith.
The things they did required them to trust God.
NOT that their trust required them to do these things for God.
The difference is the difference between Christianity and any other works based religion.
Check it out yourself Hebrews 11
Kev
Kev:
The Lordship Salvation debate (for me) always boils down to what LS advocates claim are the requirements for the reception of eternal salvation, not what should be the natural results of a genuine conversion.
Front-loading faith with a commitment to or a promise to perform as a Christian is according to men like John MacArthur the requirement to BECOME a Christian.
That is works and clearly identifies LS a man centered, non-saving message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
Of course, this can be demonstrated from MacArthur’s own books, but men like Mark will howl with the shrill cries of “misrepresentation” when their star LS apologist is proven to have strayed from the Scriptures.
Lou
Hi Lou,
Thanks for dropping by!
I'll be interested to see how(if?) Mark responds to this. I've simply used his own words and compared them to Scripture.
Can he say I've misrepresented him or his position? I don't think so. I've gone to great lengths to ensure I both heard and understood his position. In the end using his own words even...
You are absolutely correct in that most conversations with LS gets into what a person ought to do once they are saved as though such is a requirement to BE saved.
The conversation quickly becomes about what "assurances" a person has of their salvation.
I LOVE how Scripture deals with even that... Abram was assured before he said/did/intended anything. It was assurance based on what God had promised that God called "righteousness."
My assurance for Salvation is that Christ paid the price for it. That's all I need to be sure.
Kev
Second, their works were done BY faith, not AS faith.
This is precisely the thing and is also the reason for this:
Front-loading faith with a commitment to or a promise to perform as a Christian is according to men like John MacArthur the requirement to BECOME a Christian.
It is JM's expressions such as saving faith IS a commitment to Jesus Christ that make it wrong. Also there is his quote from TGATJ where he says real faith obeys. This of course immediately takes the focus off of the object of faith and puts it on faith itself to discern what kind of faith it is. Is it faith that works/obeys? This makes faith per se and works the focus instead of Christ Himself and IMO makes it impossible to actually produce the effects that they desire to see in the life of the believer. 2 Cor 5:18 says "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." It is by beholding the glory of the Lord that the Spirit transforms us into His image. We do not need to go fruit chasing or asking what kind of faith do I have? You either behold Him and are changed into His image accordingly, or you don't and are not. But analyzing faith and beholding Christ are mutually exclusive inasmuch as you cannot look at Him and at yourself at the same time. If there is concern that a person is not saved due to lack of fruit, the answer is not to preach fruit bearing at them but to preach Christ and their need for a Savior.
You are right Kev. All this talk about the results/work/fruit is not really the issue at all. Somewhere along the line it was allowed to become the issue and that has generated a whole lot of heat and no light at all.
It is just as you have said, what is saving faith?
JanH
Kevin,
The fact that you drew up revisions in that conversation with me, doesn't that indicate that you were not able to articulate my position back to me at the outset. It shows that at the beginning of that post and thread that you were, at that point, unable to repeat my position back to me in such a way that I could say unreservedly that you have accurately presented my position back to me. If you really did understand my position you would have been able to repeat it back to me right after my first comment, which was, by the way, an over-view of my gospel presentation - something you seemed to ignore throughout your subsequent interaction with me.
In short, that very post and thread proved my theory, in your case at least, that you have no understanding of the LS position. Your opposition is based on misunderstanding.
Other thoughts: it is written that "the kingdom of God is...righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit", Romans 14:17. Yes, the kingdom of God on this side of Christ's second coming is realized in disciplship. It is His rule in the lives of His subjects. Note that the words "peace" and Joy" describe this experience. Discipleship is not drudgery. This verse makes that very clear.
Consider the Thesssalonian church. They came to Christ and endured persecutions and tribulations from the start. Why? Because they were suffering for the Kingdom of God - for walking as disciples of Christ, His yoke upon them. See 1 Thessalonians 1:3-12. Note in verse 3 that their faith grew, exceedingly, and their love abounded towards one another. Sounds like discipleship thrived there - amidst tribulation and persecution. Remember, the Kingdom of God is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" - in other words, in discipleship is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit". Clearly the Thessalonians found in discipleship a place of growing and thriving.
The LS position states that "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" equals conversion. At the point where one is justified - by faith in Christ alone, not by works - at that point coversion simultaneously takes place and they come from that faith encounter as a disciple, or convert. It is the work of God the Holy Spirit in the new believer's life.
Question: Could you lead anybody to Christ from either Matthew, Mark or Luke?
Time for the readers to have something to think about. They have now seen the two positions in the lordship debate. Some will side with Kevin, others with me. Many other people, in many other blogs and other forums, will keep this debate alive for a good long time to come. Some say the debate started with Newell, others say it started with Chafer who was answered by B.B.Warfield and Philip Mauro. This debate will rage for many years to come. Neither did Kevin nor I myself bring any resolve to this issue. Our interaction may be drawing to a close, but the debate will rage on.
By the way, I participated here, and on the other witnessing post, all by myself. To my knowledge none of my friends know of these posts and threads that I have participated in here. Coming here I've been called a jerk who also reasons as a tean-ager. Hmmm. Do you have the courage of conviction to go on a blog that is completely hostile to your position? My blog is currently on hiatus, and will be so until my son has recovered from his operation. At that point I will open my blog up. Will you be brave enough to participate there?
Kev:
Here is Mark, "Your opposition is based on misunderstanding."
This really becomes comic, so predictable.
The LS mantra, "You don't understand, you can't understand, you are misrepresenting LS."
The elitism of LS advocates is wide spread. We just haven't arrived or we'd understand LS and agree with it. Pathetic, such arrogance!
LM
I will ask the readers to study Matthew 11:28-30. Do your own word-study and arrive at your own conclusions of what the Lord was talking about concerning "rest".
Kev:
Here is Mark again, “The LS position states that ‘repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ’ equals conversion.”
Classic example of using the right terms, but not disclosing how the LS advocates redefine the biblical terms to force them into conformity with Lordship’s man centered message.
Let’s have MacArthur define the terms “repentance” and “faith” as he does to bolster his Lordship theory.
In the 20th Anniversary edition of The Gospel According to Jesus John MacArthur defines repentance as specifically a turning from one’s sins (pp. 177-180). MacArthur suggests that in order to receive eternal salvation one must turn from all of his sin, unrighteousness, ‘…a complete turnaround, a full change of direction,’ and keep on doing so (pp. 72, 121, 177-180).
Here is MacArthur’s personal assistant (Nathan Busenitz) defining Lordship’s repentance
“If I truly hate my sinfulness, and am broken over it, I will be simultaneously inclined to stop doing it. And as I earlier pointed out, the inclination (or desire or willingness) to stop sinning is the inclination to start obeying. And an inclination to start obeying is a change of allegiance (from self to God).”
Back to MacArthur:
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.”
“Forsaking oneself for Christ’s sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.”
Oh, and I can hear the shrill cry of, “misrepresentation.”
This is an example from Mark above of the disingenuous way they present LS to the unsuspecting, which is why some fall into the trap of LS.
LM
Hi Mark,
I haven't read all of your posts here but I will later.
You say that I have failed to understand your position, and you note that I had to post revisions as your proof. You also state that if the person you are speaking with doesn't indicate that you have understood then you haven't.
Well, that's not entirely true. If the person you're speaking with refuses to admit that you understand their position it does not mean that you don't.
If I have failed to understand your position it is ONLY because you fail to be witness to it. It is absurd to think that the Gospel is such a hard thing to understand that one must read every LS theologian and spend as many hours as I did with you in this discussion to understand it.
Anyway, I will read your other posts and respond. It is not my intention to spark an argument, but I have to note the absurdity of saying that my disagreement with LS is because I don't understand it...
Kev
That didn't seem very productive.
Lou, do you ever wonder why the LS camp always seems to be getting discipleship mixed up with what one must do to be saved? Please read my answer to Luke in the other thread and consider that the #1 misunderstanding of LS you have is that you think that we frontload salvation with works because you see “salvation” for the Christian in strictly past tense terms only.
Even Luke said that ”salvation from sin is a life-long process and then we are saved from our flesh and this world”, a clear indication that beneath the surface, he does indeed see salvation as an on-going process. Can one be justified before God and skip sanctification and go on to be eternally saved? The answer that everyone seems to not want to answer here is “no”.
When we say obedience is necessary for salvation, we are meaning that one cannot die and go to heaven (be saved in this sense) unless one is experiencing the power of God working in them to fight sin and follow Christ (indicating the Spirit lives in them, hence justification has taken place).
Try to look at it this way: You say sanctification is not necessary to be saved (go to heaven), would you also say that glorification isn’t necessary to be saved (go to heaven)? That's how we see it Lou. Do you see how the term “be saved” can be used interchangeably?
If you get nothing else out of all of this, I sincerely hope that you’ll finally see that LS does not frontload “salvation” (justification) with works. It’s a clear fallacy.
Bridget
p.s. Mark, you've shown a lot of patience here, brother. I appreciate what you're doing.
It is only when LS advocates understand that not only do they commit sin but they ARE sin that the gospel will clear up for them.
Bridget, thanks, sister!
Kevin,
Let's cut the nonsense. You are wholly incapable of articulating my position back to me so that I can say without reservation that you have done so acurately. Just admit that so we can move on.
Back to Hebrews 11. Verse 7 indicates that Noah's faith inspired godly fear. Verse 8, faith inspired Abraham's obedience. Faith inspires onward looking to eternal things, verses 13-16. The very faith by which Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6 was put to the test in Genesis 22, Hebrews 11:17; James 2:21-24. In Abraham's obedience in not witholding Isaac we see that justifying faith is an obedient faith.
Sorry Kevin but the WHOLE chapter 11 of Hebrews serves as a definition of saving faith, not just the first couple of verses.
BP, do you agree with Mark P. that the saving response to the gospel ("faith") involves a commitment to obey and do works for Christ?
Mark, you inspired me to admire Kevin's patience.
By Mark's quibbling, Greg came to admire Kevin's patience.
However, I wouldn't say that admiration is part of the definition of quibbling.
In other words, there is a difference between a basis for an action (i.e., Mark's quibbling; faith) and the subsequent action (i.e., admiration of Kevin; obedience).
-- Greg
Mark
You wrote:
"Kevin,
Let's cut the nonsense. You are wholly incapable of articulating my position back to me so that I can say without reservation that you have done so acurately. Just admit that so we can move on."
If a grown man cannot articulate your position, then how would you expect a child do it? The position of the gospel is that it is simple enough that a child can understand it. The complexity of your position is a proof that it is not on solid ground.
Greg,
While I question the wisdom of admiring any portion of my character your post does well to articulate the difference between LS and the Gospel.
Thanks, especially for giving me a giggle.
Kev
Mark you said
Kevin,
Let's cut the nonsense. You are wholly incapable of articulating my position back to me so that I can say without reservation that you have done so accurately. Just admit that so we can move on.
Yes, indeed, let us cut the nonsense. How about you "articulate" your position without hidden and double meanings in your words.
Please will you, for the 4th time, take a stab at defining saving faith.
Mark, what must I do to be saved?
BTW Greg is correct in noting that I'm merely exercising my patience with you.
I believe that you Mark are AFRAID to properly articulate your position.
It is also DEMONSTRATED by your response in this thread that even if I only use your own words you are not willing to admit that I have properly articulated your position.
How many questions must an unsaved person ask you before you tell them what you really mean anyway?
Kev
Mark you asked me a question,
Question: Could you lead anybody to Christ from either Matthew, Mark or Luke?
Yes of course, but why would I limit myself to just a bit of Scripture? Is it cool to do that? No, it is just plain foolish.
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN.....
I do not consider myself smarter or more clever than God... so I'll just do and use what He says to do and use...
Kev
Hi Mark,
I've made a couple of posts to you, which could make your responses confusing.
Please answer in ONE POST what I misunderstand about your position. Please explain both what you think I misunderstand. You have not articulated what you think I understand about your position. By your stated logic this means that you don't understand what I understand about your position.
Since I have written PAGES of info to you about your position, you could offer one single post to me.
Also, once you have clearly stated what I misunderstand then I expect you to clearly state what you believe the truth to be.
No more leaving anything out.. no more using words that might mean something to you that they don't to me.. no more playing games.
You claim to define saving faith by the statement that one would be willing to give up their life for the Lord and the Gospel but you SEEM TO ME to be treating the presentation of that Gospel as a game.
Please show me that you are not afraid to say what you really believe.
Please show me that you really do believe what you claim other people have to believe to be saved.
Kev
Hi Bridget,
You're back to the not being saved until you actually make it to Heaven bit again I see...
the #1 misunderstanding of LS you have is that you think that we frontload salvation with works because you see “salvation” for the Christian in strictly past tense terms only.
We've done this all before... but this is a Straw-Man Argument.
We don't say that Salvation is "strickly past tense" it is on going... but it is in the Paste Tense also. A person comes to faith and they are SAVED. Done deal. Nothing can change that. There is no more requirement.
Now of course you agree in Security so you will move on to assurance - which is really just clouding the waters of what your original statement says....
When we say obedience is necessary for salvation, we are meaning that one cannot die and go to heaven (be saved in this sense) unless one is experiencing the power of God working in them to fight sin and follow Christ (indicating the Spirit lives in them, hence justification has taken place).
See even in your single post you move from what it "takes" to be saved to what it takes to "indicate" Salvation...
Abram was "assured" of his hope in the MOMENT and that was accounted as Righteousness.
You can mess with the assurance of Christians all you want, but you will give account at Judgement.
Assurance is on the Gospel, not the person. Paul is clear in 1 Cor 15 that their assurance of being resurrected to Eternal Life was that the Gospel is true - not that they lived a life that showed evidences of the Spirit working in them.
Bridget you can claim that you don't preach a works based salvation all you want - your claims are empty words. Your preaching preaches salvation by, through, and only with works.
If you remove works the person is not saved, therefore you preach a works based salvation.
You never ever ever ever point back to the Cross and indicate that a person can be PERFECTLY ASSURED that they are going to Heaven based on what Christ did.
You point back to the Cross as a MOTIVATOR for work.
Kev
Kev:
To Mark you wrote, “I believe that you Mark are AFRAID to properly articulate your position.”
I have long seen this as widespread among LS men. They will not speak of their views, defining them the way they truly believe them, because if they were fully transparent LS would have little success in the NT church.
You read how JMac and others define their views. They couch their theology in orthodox terms, but are very subtle about defining their terms.
Just look at how I used JMac to expose Mark’s using “faith” and “repentance” (earlier in this thread), but his NOT defining them, the way LS men do. Mark’s reply to JMac defining LS’s faith and repentance: Crickets. Why? Because this is where LS fails the test of Scripture, which is why they have to go to the Bible and force into or extract from it whatever they must to float LS.
In any event, we need to remember that the gross errors of LS come primarily from their blending salvation and discipleship as though they are one and the same. This is why they also are afraid to discuss what is REQUIRED in the LS system to become a Christian always preferring to redirect to what should be the natural RESULTS of becoming a Christian.
LS’s upfront commitment to “good works” (Eph. 2:10) based, man-centered requirement to BECOME a Christian is the soft underbelly of LS, which is why LS men try to evade that area of discussion.
LM
BP, do you agree with Mark P. that the saving response to the gospel ("faith") involves a commitment to obey and do works for Christ?
Greg, I’ll simply give the FG thinks we see faith and then the reality of how we see it:
FG: Before a sinner can be justified, he must have faith in Jesus and promise to obey and do good works for Him.
LS: When a sinner comes to Jesus by faith, that faith will manifest itself in good works and obedience to Christ (however imperfectly).
Mark can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t recall him ever saying that faith is obedience, but rather that a person who has true faith will desire obedience or else they don’t have true faith. It’s not faith + the promise to be obedient = justification, but that the very act of coming to Christ by faith indicates a heart that is convicted of sin and rebellion against God and desires to turn from it and follow Christ. Do you agree that if a person is convicted of their sin and believes that Jesus was brutally tortured and died for this sin, that they will not then come to Him with a hard heart that desires to continue in the sin and rebellion He died for?
But, I really think the bottom line is that the definition of faith isn’t even the issue here. The issue is that salvation in the Christian’s life is a work in progress and since one can not skip justification, sanctification or glorification and still go to heaven (be saved), then one cannot be saved apart from any of them. This is the real crux of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
We don't say that Salvation is "strickly past tense" it is on going... but it is in the Paste Tense also. A person comes to faith and they are SAVED. Done deal. Nothing can change that. There is no more requirement.
Kev,
First you said salvation is “on going”, and then you said that a person comes to faith and they are saved. Done deal. Can’t you see the confusion in your own statements?
Kev:
bp wrote, "This is the real crux of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations."
Like clockwork, Laugh with me!
Lou
Kev:
This is almost becoming comical the ignorance of or willful dodging of what LS really teaches. Here again we have an LS advocate (bp) making statements that are anti-thetical to how their chief LS apologist defines the LS terms FOR eternal salvation. MacArthur in his TGATJ writes,
“Thus in a sense we pay the ultimate price for salvation when our sinful self is nailed to a cross. . . . It is an exchange of all that we are for all that Christ is. And it denotes implicit obedience, full surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nothing less can qualify as saving faith.”
In LS evangelism the unsaved person is told that if he does not turn from sin, surrender, have a willingness to obey, fulfill the demands of discipleship, etc., then he cannot be saved.
Does the Bible call on the lost to, “pay the ultimate price for salvation?” Is receiving the gift of eternal life conditioned on an “exchange” of “obedience” and “full surrender?” Dr. MacArthur’s LS saving faith not only implies, it demands the “exchange” of a commitment to life long obedience and submission to the Lord, to receive His free gift of salvation. At salvation there only has to be surrender to what the Holy Spirit is convincing and convicting of at the moment. Future issues of discipleship may not even be on one’s mind.
Lou
Lou,
Yes she is right on cue. As funny as it is, I can't bring myself to laugh though.
Bridget,
No I don't see the issue. We're told that He who has begun a good work will finish it until the end. Those who are saved, are saved. There is no need to see if they continue in the faith or not.. they ARE saved.
By the Gospel those who are saved, are saved, being saved and will be saved. These are three different things that are dependent on the same initial thing.
We are saved by Grace through faith - this is Eternal Salvation.
Those who are Eternally Saved are "being saved" by the working of the Holy Spirit, this is sanctification and we read about it clearly in Hebrews 12.
Those are Eternally Saved, will at the resurrection be saved which is glorification.
Notice that Scripture says these shall happen, not that they will only happen if the person stays in the faith....or lives up to the faith they claimed.
Just exactly like I said you would, you've jumped from "what is required" for Salvation to your view of "what is required for assurance of salvation."
Neither of your views are Biblical, but I'm still facinated by two things. One the ease with which you simply switch topics and pretend like you are still talking about the same thing and two that just like Lou noted you seem to willfully ignore what the actually theologians of LS theology teach.
You've bought their sales pitch without checking under the hood. I can't take your view seriously because you are only able to articulate the sales pitch, not the theology.
Kev
Bridget,
You said
It’s not faith + the promise to be obedient = justification, but that the very act of coming to Christ by faith indicates a heart that is convicted of sin and rebellion against God and desires to turn from it and follow Christ.
OK so the person doesn't actually "promise" to obey then?.. is that the big misunderstanding? This is akin to your complaint about the person's ability offending God bit... and it is sadly funny.
They just WANT to obey... and it's the WANTING to obey (however imperfectly) that makes the difference between true and false conversion?
How much do they have to "want to obey (however imperfectly)" to qualify for Salvation?
Do you agree that if a person is convicted of their sin and believes that Jesus was brutally tortured and died for this sin, that they will not then come to Him with a hard heart that desires to continue in the sin and rebellion He died for?
There ya go with turning the Cross into a motivation speech again....
Bridget, are you PERFECTLY SINLESS? The answer to that question answers yours of me. If you have ANY SIN, and ANY DESIRE TO SIN, then the answer is YES a person can look at the Cross in all it's horror and still desire to continue to sin.
Your position is illogical, unbiblical and indefensible - hence yours and Mark's unwillingness to CLEARLY and SIMPLY state what the requirements for Salvation are according to LS.
You dance and dance around the subject. Mark talked about what these two threads prove about my understanding of LS... but I think these two threads say a lot more about how LS proponents hide what they really teach than it does about anyone's understanding of LS.
The both of you remind me of Antonio who wouldn't answer a simple clear question for a year and a half of me asking him. Why didn't he want to answer? Because the answer exposed his preaching as Heresy. Everyone knew his answer... he was only playing games.
The other people you remind me of is the teachers of molecules to man evolution. Everything is left very open to interpretation so you can always change the subject, or the meanings of the words in case you're caught in something that isn't quite true.
Bridget, GOD BREATHED SCRIPTURE says that SAVING FAITH is "assurance" in what God says.
Anything other than that is not Biblical.
The question "What is faith?" is the issue. Dressing the argument up with all kinds of other things is merely intentional distraction.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Antonio- What do you have to hide? If you have a belief and you really do think it's the truth then share it.
What must I do to be saved?
Kev
I have just added the following to the start of the article.
If you think I have a misunderstanding of LS Theology then I invite you to CLEARLY (without the use of terminology which you do not cleary define) explain what EXACTLY I misunderstand, and what EXACTLY the truth of LS Theology is.
If you are UNABLE to comply with this then any comment about how I'm "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" LS is not welcome.
Please keep this as peaceable as possible. My intention is to come to CLARITY not pick on people. Tempers flare up... but they shouldn't be the driving factor in our discussions.
Kev
Kevin,
In the previous thread you paid absolutely no attention to the very first comment in that thread where I gave you a complete and precise overview of my gospel presentation. You did not pay attention to the form of it at all. Instead you went about to arrange some of my descriptions of the characteristics of saving faith in your own order, while also adding some thoughts of your own. In doing so your reconstructed presentation bore NO resemblence to what I gave you in my very first comment. Since your attempts at reconstruction were becoming rather tedious I felt compeled to witness to you live.
Therefore I say that your misunderstanding of my position was apparent in your recontruction attempts on my gospel presentation. I'll let the readers go back to see for themselves.
Faith - conviction, assurance, STRONGS 4102.
Lord - supreme in authority, controler, Master, STRONGS 2962
Repentance - reformation, reversal, STRONGS 3341
I used Acts 20:21 as the lead-off in my gospel presentation "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. I am convinced that salvation cannot take place without one coming to a place of realizing that their lives are completely in disobedience to the Word of their Creator, and their utter lostness that results from that. They realize it is time to stop in their tracks, which lead to certain judgment, and to embrace God's Word. (Repentance)
That one so convicted then comes to put their trust in the truth of God's Word that Christ paid in full for their sins. "It is Finished" were among His dying words on the cross. Indeed it was finished. There remained no more payment for sin. Christ bore The Father's wrath on all our sins. That individual, fully assured of these truths submits his life to Christ as his Master, Controler And Supreme One in authority. (Faith).
Hence my going to the center-piece of my gospel presentation - Matthew 11:28-30. There Christ summons those to come to Him and to take His yoke upon them ( a wooden beam, which came to symbolize servitude) and to learn from Him.
Now Kevin,
Please try to restate my position back to me so that I can say that you have done so accurately, please.
BP, it is difficult to see how you could agree with Mark where he defines the condition of salvation as affixing a yoke of servitude without also agreeing a commitment to works is necessary.
You said, "It’s not faith + the promise to be obedient = justification, but that the very act of coming to Christ by faith indicates a heart that is convicted of sin and rebellion against God and desires to turn from it and follow Christ."
Earlier Mark pointed out that following Christ involves forsaking all. Commitment to forsake all or to carry your cross is different than simple belief. Do you believe a person could be saved by faith in Christ, apart from a commitment to do good works and apart from the commitment to forsake all for Christ? Let's just say there is no commitment to give one's life in servitude for Christ. Can that person be saved or not?
I believe this something that should come subsequent to regeneration, after the person receives the new nature.
In fairness, I will also answer your question:
"Do you agree that if a person is convicted of their sin and believes that Jesus was brutally tortured and died for this sin, that they will not then come to Him with a hard heart that desires to continue in the sin and rebellion He died for?"
First, I don't believe the phrase "brutally tortured" is a necessary component of the gospel.
Second, yes, there is a certain "softness" involved in believing the gospel. However, that means the person is agreeable to the fact he is a sinner in need of salvation and the truths of the Gospel which center on what Christ did for Him. This does not mean he is going to be "soft" with regard to every area of his life and every demand of the Christian life which are not even issues in the Gospel.
Third, a person is going to have a nature that desires sin before, during, and after salvation -- all the way until he is glorified. It's called the sin nature. If eliminating the desire of one's heart to sin were inherent to the fact of believing the gospel, at what point could a person ever honestly say he eliminated all desires to sin? Couldn't he be unaware of his own deep-selfishness (Jer. 17:9)?
Fourth, here's an analogy that demonstrates my point. If someone is driving a car, he had to have the money to buy the gas. But we don't conclude, "since money was required to drive, we need to see if that person has money in his wallet to know whether he is truly driving."
In the same way, if someone has believed the gospel, he had a certain softness toward the truths of it. But Scripture does not conclude, "since a softness was required to believe, we need to see if that person is still soft in all areas of his life to see if he believed." Scripture is of people who "believed" but do not continue to display the attitude you require (e.g. John 12:42; 1Cor. 3:1-3; Gal. 3:2-3).
I do agree with you that since you do not see salvation as a settled issue, you will not be able to understand the gospel anyway. But I should leave that for a separate post or other posters.
"My intention is to come to CLARITY". Why the need to come to clarity if you already fully understand it?!?
We are saved through faith, not works or commital of life. Let's be clear on that. Any claim that LS teaches otherwise constitutes a misunderstanding of LS thinking, plain and simple.
So Greg, in answer to your question of whether or not somebody can be saved without also submitting to His Lordship - the answer is NO!
No lordship, no faith.
Greg/Kev:
Mark worte, "So Greg, in answer to your question of whether or not somebody can be saved without also submitting to His Lordship - the answer is NO!"
Classic Lordship heresy. Commitment to the works OF a disciple is the requirement FOR salvation.
No reception of eternal salvation without upfront submisison to His lordship. Which means the lost are required to make an upfront commitment (just as MacArthur describes) to do the good works expected of a Christian to BECOME a Christian.
We thank Mark for clarifying LS's false non-saving additions to the Gospel of grace.
LM
So Lou,
Please go one step further, and in the words of the apostle Paul, let me be accursed, please, just come out and say it.
ATTENTION ALL
This conversation is about LS theology, not any person. It is MOST SURELY not about a conversation that happened at some other website at any time in the past.
If you are not commenting on the subject here then your comment is not welcome.
I have deleted several posts that mention another website, and I'm going to read some more and delete any that are about a person and not our topic.
If there is helpful content in a post that also has unhelpful content then the helpful content is going to be deleted along with the bad.
If you can not conduct yourself as a respectful adult then your opinions about Theology are probably not valuable enough for my reader's time.
Kev
Alrighty,
Here are Marks' own words.
That individual, fully assured of these truths submits his life to Christ as his Master, Controler And Supreme One in authority. (Faith).
Need I say more?
This does not at all match Abram's belief in Gen 15, or Paul's Gospel in 1 Cor 15, or any other witnessing encounter in the entire Bible.
Therefore it is not Biblical.
I have added your words to the main article.
I believe you have stated your position exactly as I have described it.
Kev
Mark,
We are saved through faith, not works or commital of life. Let's be clear on that. Any claim that LS teaches otherwise constitutes a misunderstanding of LS thinking, plain and simple.
Did you forget what you wrote here?
You said "That individual, fully assured of these truths submits his life to Christ as his Master, Controler And Supreme One in authority. (Faith)."
AND/OR are you forgetting what you said here?
Where you said "So Greg, in answer to your question of whether or not somebody can be saved without also submitting to His Lordship - the answer is NO!"
I have been trying to avoid being mean, prideful and sarcastic... but Mark, are you confused by your own presentation? could it be that it is YOU who doesn't understand LS Theology?
Kev
Mark you asked Lou to "come out and say it"
Believe it or not, this thread is not "about you."
The fact that you're wrong about the Gospel is not the great issue. The great issue is that because of the teaching you've endured, you can be so wrong about the Gospel and still so sure you're correct.
I hope that nut is cracking....
No one wants you to be "accursed." There's no satisifaction in winning an argument with you... there's no joy in showing that "Mark is wrong."
If that were my goal I would have linked to a number of other things specifically posted by you and argued against all of that.
Instead, I have asked you again and again to define your position with clarity. It seems you have finally done so... although you and I BOTH know that I understood your position based on all the other things you've posted in the year or so that I've known you.
I asked you to go through this process because I wanted the world to see how easy it is for a BELIEVER to be deceived by FALSE TEACHERS.
The mantra of "misrepresentation" can only last so long... as anyone who visits this blog can see, your final presentation matches what I described from the very first of my posts.
It's upsetting, I understand, because once you have clearly presented your position it can be ACCURATELY tested against Scripture.
When we carry out that testing, in full view of you and everyone else reading, LS fails to maintain fidelity to the Scriptures.
Continuing to preach that impure gospel message once being shown that it is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in fact violates the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what will leave you in danger.
Thank you for stating your position clearly. That was brave of you.
Kev
MP & BP, I am not sure how committal to servitude can simultaneously be required in the condition of salvation and not be required in the condition of salvation.
We've heard a couple different things. We've heard that a) committal to works is part of the definition of faith; and b) committal to works is a necessary accompaniment to faith.
You guys are pulling the old "Cup and Ball" trick. When you're asked to admit A, you switch to B. When you're asked to admit B, you switch to A.
You've got a couple cups on the table covering a ball. When you're asked to lift one, you use sleight of hand to switch it to another.
This is all Mark is doing when he keep claiming Kev doesn't understand.
Do you realize this?
-- Greg
Kevin,
You are left with Matthew 11:28-30. Therein you have repentance toward God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. It's clear as day...unless you've found some way to dispensationalize that portion of scripture away.
Furthermore, what I stated here is NO different than what I said to you in the other thread. I've always maintained that the Saviorhood of Christ cannot be presented apart from His Lordship. The idea that one can do so is of classic dispensational origins.
Oh, and here is one of your gems, a perfect example of your misunderstanding of LS...
"Lou, Jan, Jimmy, and Mark even if you're reading still.
Lou wrote:
I appreciate your notes above. Calvinism’s extra-biblical regeneration before faith (RBF) is critical to understanding how LS advocates arrive at their system.
I've just come to what I think is a break-through in my thinking. I've been preaching against RFB, and LS for nearly as long as I've been a believer, I was believing LS for a short period of time.
I tend to call LS a works-based salvation message. I do believe this is true. HOWEVER, the conversation is always complicated by the LS advocate's bizarre questions about who gets credit for what... if the person is Regenerated then God gets the credit so it's not works based... and if the person isn't regenerated at they "choose" Christ then THEY must get the credit instead of God....
It gets, forgive me, stup id very quickly.
When I was working on my Tripping Tulip series I realized that the crux of the error of TULIP is that it teaches are person must be "good enough" to get to Heaven.
LS, likewise can be described as a "goodness" based salvation message.
here's how it works;
The person is lacking all goodness, and it takes goodness to please, see, know about, call one, desire, or even suspect that God exists. (Total Depravity/Inability)
The person is supernaturally transformed (regenerated) into someone "good enough" to "choose" God. Because they are now "good" they can't help but surrender and worship God unconditionally. (Unconditional Election & Irresistible Grace).
These are the same people that God choose in eternity past and applied their sins to the Cross. So legally God could change them to be "good enough." (Limited Atonement)
And they STAY saved because they are "kept" "good enough" to go to Heaven (perseverance of the saints)
The basis for the salvation that the LS Gospel is a person's "goodness" not the Sacrifice of the Cross. In the LS extension of the TULIP system the Blood is only effective to make it legal for God to regenerate someone. Their actual Salvation is based on their "goodness."
This system obviously makes a mockery of the Scriptures, and removes the truth that Righteousness is IMPUTED."
===============
Kevin, that was a laugher! Do you really think LS will take you seriously after that one?
I also like Matthew 11:28-30, but I do not think it is a difficult passage. It's not teaching that committal to works is part of the condition for salvation.
There are two parts to it -
1) v. 28 - Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Describing salvation rest/assurance)
2) v. 29 - Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Describing discipleship/ dependence Christ's enablement)
V. 28 describes an action with terminus - "Come to Me". This terminus is found in several salvation invitations which emphasize the permanent result of coming (cf. John 6:35, 37). In this verse, Christ promises an immediate rest which describes assurance in contrast to the works-righteousness of the Pharisees.
V. 29 describes a continual action (i.e., "learn of Me" or better "learn from [apo] Me") that is logically subsequent to the coming. This describes a continued activity, and there is also rest that goes along with it. This describes a discipleship rest that is only possible because the person is assured of his salvation.
This dual invitation is especially appropriate in the context where people are already trying to work for salvation under the works-righteousness of Pharisees. I do this same thing when I speak with people who have a legalistic mindset toward salvation. These people lack assurance of salvation because they are working for it.
I tell them the whole deal is better. I say, first of all, if you would believe in Christ's finished work, you could have assurance of salvation right now! And then, instead of struggling in your flesh to do all these works to obtain/maintain God's favor, you'll be able to serve God by His grace out of thankfulness for the fact you're already saved.
Charlie Bing has some good notes on this verse and context at:
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/dissertation.asp
See chapter 5.
-- Greg
Greg:
Thanks for your participation here. Your “cup and ball” analogy of Mark’s and BP's participation here is spot on.
Also, thanks for linking to Dr. Bing’s materials. He and I have known each other since 1997. He has been a valuable resource and friend in defense of the Gospel against Lordship's works based message.
I link to him from my blog and just a few days ago published his article, The Content of the Gospel of Salvation
Lou
Mark,
Do you believe regeneration comes before faith?
Let's just say there is no commitment to give one's life in servitude for Christ. Can that person be saved or not?
Greg, you are once again using the term “be save” in terms of justification and so I will answer your question in two ways and hopefully you’ll see the distinction I’ve been trying so hard to make.
In terms of justification, a person “is saved” by grace alone through faith in Jesus alone. (I could go on to say what having faith implies, but I'll leave it at that).
In terms of a person professing to believe in Jesus and then living with zero commitment to Christ and zero works, dying and “being saved”, the answer is no. Not because they need works to be justified before God, but because works happen as part of the sanctification process, and if you’re not experiencing sanctification, then you never experienced true repentance, faith and justification.
I do agree with you that since you do not see salvation as a settled issue, you will not be able to understand the gospel anyway.
Well then I'm in good company Greg, since Paul and Jesus didn't see salvation in every sense of the word, as a settled issue either. I see the justification part of salvation as a settled issue for the believer. I do not see salvation in its entirety as a settled issue. Even Luke and kev have agreed that it is on-going. Scripture teaches it is on-going. Something that is on-going cannot be settled. That doesn’t mean that I believe we are justified before God by our works. Why do you continue to dodge this issue?
Kev,
I have clearly defined your misunderstandings. I hope many of your readers can see them, even if you cannot. I have shown clearly from your very own words how you see salvation as both on-going and a done deal for believers. The problem is, you give lip service to the process by which we are “being saved” (sanctification), and the process by which we “will be saved” (glorification), but then you refuse to allow me to talk of salvation in these terms..terms that the Apostle Paul and Jesus both used. And you accuse me of promoting works, even though I have explained over and over and over and over that we are "justified" by grace alone through faith alone.
Call my interactions game playing, trickery, or switching subjects if you wish. I just wish you could see your duplicity in saying that salvation is both a done deal and on-going, and then refusing to refer to it in this discussion in any tense but the past.
BP,
If I understand you correctly, you are not saying someone can loose justification. You are saying that justification guarantees sanctification. So if progressive sanctification is not happening in the person's life, that proves justification never occurred. Does that accurately describe your view?
Or are you saying someone who is justified can loose it if he does not continue in sanctification?
Also, do you believe regeneration comes before faith in the ordo salutis?
-- Greg
And Greg,
About the "cup and ball trick". Have you considered that you guys have a couple balls under the cups?
"Salvation is a done deal. Salvation is on-going. Salvation is a done deal. Salvation is on-going."
yes, I am saying that a believer cannot lose their justification. The question is: Were they ever really justified? False conversions and all.
Yes, I believe that regeneration is the spark of faith. But it happens instantaneously.
BP, I will answer your question about the nature of salvation in a post I'm writing right now.
However, in light of the fact you believe regeneration comes before faith (at least logically), it is actually disingenuous of you to argue over the condition(s) of salvation.
You don't believe there is a condition of justification. You believe God unconditionally "zaps" someone with regeneration/ salvation (at least in one sense), and both faith and works are the result. Therefore, wouldn't it be more accurate to say you believe there is no condition for regeneration/ justification, but you believe faith and works are inevitable results?
BP,
I am not sure which posts to which you were referring, but I will tell you how I see Scripture presents salvation:
The Bible uses the word "save" for various sorts of salvations. Related to our discussion, there is:
1) Salvation from sin's penalty to a permanent reconciled relationship with God in Christ;
2) Salvation from failure or despair in the Christian life to fulfilling the objective of honoring the Lord through the power of Christ;
3) Salvation from the presence of sin to glorification with Christ;
Let me clarify the fact I put it in a 1, 2, 3 list like that does not mean each has the same relationship to each other.
First Tense Salvation
The first and third are tied together. Someone who is saved in the first sense ("justification") is guaranteed salvation in the third sense ("glorification") due to his unchangeable position "in Christ". The moment someone believes in Christ, these issues are settled. Even the issue of glorification is settled--not in the sense the person as experienced it--but in the sense it is guaranteed. There are no subsequent conditions the person must fulfill after justification to experience glorification.
That is what the Bible clearly teaches in many passages. For example, Ephesians 2:5 and 8 speak of salvation as a settled issue. So Paul can say to the Ephesians, "you have been saved". In light of this, it is undeniable that salvation--in whatever sense Paul speaks here--is a settled issue in the life of a believer. Paul describes their salvation, that even while these saints lived on earth, they had been...
"made alive with [in] Christ" (v. 5)
"raised up together" (v. 6)
"seated together in the heavenlies in Christ" (v. 6)
...so that God's grace would be displayed in them "in the ages to come".
Paul's description fits the first sense of salvation I listed, and it is also very clear the third sense is settled--the believers, while still alive on earth, were already RAISED up together with Christ and SEATED in the heavenly places in Christ. They weren't "on their way". They were already there! This couldn't be said if their glorification still hanged in the balance!
This passage emphasizes the Ephesians completed salvation and new, unchangeable identity "in Christ". It also emphasizes that this salvation was received upon the sole condition of "faith" (vs. 9), not works. This passage contradicts Calvinism and your view of salvation for several reasons, one of which is salvation is not an issue hanging in jeopardy for believers. It is reported as a certain, completed fact for these believers. Paul spoke of their salvation as a matter of fact--something they could be certain about due to their faith, not works.
Passages that use the word "save" or "salvation" in this sense emphasize:
- It is a settled event for the believer (Luke 7:50; Rom. 8:24; 1Cor. 1:18-30; Eph. 2:1-10; 1Tim. 1:15; 2Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5)
- It is offered to all the lost (Mat. 18:11; Lk. 19:10; John 5:34; 12:47; 1Tim. 1:15; 2:4; 2Pet. 3:9-15)
- It is provided on the simple condition of faith in Christ (Luke 7:50; 8:12; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; 1Cor. 1:21; Eph 1:13; 2:8)
All of this contradicts Calvinism which teaches, a) subjectively, salvation is never settled for the adherent; b) it is offered only to the elect; and c) there is no condition for this sense of salvation--salvation/regeneration come before faith.
-- Greg
Third Sense of Salvation
Since there is an unbreakable link between the first and third sense of salvation (to the extent its hard to divide the categories), I am going to follow the previous post with some observations related to the third-sense of salvation:
Romans 13:11 is a good example of a passage that uses the term "salvation" in the third sense:
"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed."
This passage is perfectly fitting with what I've said to this point. The word "salvation" here is used for the third sense--salvation from the presence of sin to glorification with Christ at the rapture. This does not deny the Roman saints were already "saved" and seated it heaven. The issue of their glorification was settled when they "first believed". The actuality of glorification was approaching, and Paul wanted that settled fact to motivate them in their lives.
Several other passages also connect glorification to the first sense of salvation by indicating the glorification issue was settled specifically at the moment a person believed (e.g. John 6:40; 11:25; 17:20-24; 2Thes. 1:10; 2:13-14).
The point about the first and third senses of salvation being settled in the lives of believers is clear in many other passages. For example, Christ taught in many places that the moment a person believes Him, he already possesses eternal life; he shall not come into judgment; he shall never be cast out; but he has passed from death to life (e.g. John 3:16; 4:13-14; 5:24; 6:35; 6:37-40; 6:47; 11:25-27).
Many other church age passages also emphasize Paul's point above about believers possessing an unchangable, perfect position in Jesus Christ that guarantees their glorification (e.g. John 17:20-24; Rom. 5:6-11; 8:29-30; 8:33-34; 1Cor. 15:52-57; 2Cor. 5:1-5; Eph. 1:5; 7; 11; 13; 18; 2:1:1-10; 4:30; Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:13-14; 3:1-4; 1Thes. 4:13-17; 5:9-10; 2Thes. 1:10; 2:13-14).
Romans 8:29-30 is a favorite passage that mentions both the first and third sense of salvation that I described. They are connected in the unbroken chain of God's eternal decrees and guarantees which are true every believer:
"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom. 8:29-30)
Notice what is missing in this unbroken chain of guaranteed steps to conform every believer to the image of Jesus Christ. Both justification (sense 1 salvation) and glorification (sense 3 salvation) are mentioned. Progressive sanctification (sense 2 salvation) is not. Also, notice that it can be said, "whom He justified, these He also glorified" as if it already happened. Although glorification has not yet occured for believer, it's as good as done in God's mind, and He wants us to know the issue is settled.
What I think these verses and observations undeniably prove is that salvation in the first sense and the third sense are settled issues the moment a person believes the gospel.
Regarding the second sense of salvation (sanctification), I would be happy to outline the Scriptural teachings on that. Lord willing, and if I have an open door to do that on this forum, I'll work on that tomorrow. However, one thing is for sure. If Scripture shows justification and glorification are settled issues for believers, nothing about progressive sanctification will change that.
-- Greg
Mark,
You've made an unsubstantiated claim that I misunderstand you again....
However, the instructions that have been given are clear.
You have violated these instructions.
Kev
Greg,
Thank you for that. History of discussion/argument between Bridget and I can get in the way of being productive.
You haven't written anything she hasn't already been presented with but I'm glad you took the time anyway. It is valuable for the conversation.
Thanks,
Kev
Greg,
You said;
What I think these verses and observations undeniably prove is that salvation in the first sense and the third sense are settled issues the moment a person believes the gospel.
Very well stated.
Regarding the second sense of salvation (sanctification), I would be happy to outline the Scriptural teachings on that. Lord willing, and if I have an open door to do that on this forum, I'll work on that tomorrow. However, one thing is for sure. If Scripture shows justification and glorification are settled issues for believers, nothing about progressive sanctification will change that.
Yes you have an open door to do so. I'm enjoying the clarity of your posts. I'm also enjoying your even tone.
Amen to your comment about how there being nothing about progressive sanctification that can change justification or glorification. As you have discussed I would add to this comment only that progressive sanctification is not an accurate indication of justification and glorification.
Kev
I'll be back to respond in a while as I must share the computer with my son. I'll be back when he is done.
Greg,
Nowhere in your posts do you deal with the fact that Paul talks about salvation in the future tense, yet you refuse to allow me or any LS proponent to talk about it in the same manner. Why will someone not answer this question of mine? I keep asking but nobody will answer me.
Why do you accept the Apostle Paul speaking of the believer’s salvation in future tense, but you refuse to allow me, Mark or JM to do the same? Why do you automatically assume whenever I, Mark or JM says that a person cannot (future tense) “be saved” without any fruit of obedience to Christ that we are promoting a works based salvation because we must mean they cannot be “justified” without these things? Was Paul promoting a works-based salvation when he said:
”…much more then, having now “been justified” (past-tense) by this blood, we shall “be saved” (future-tense) from wrath through Him.” – Rom 5:9
”For if when we were enemies we “were reconciled” (past-tense) to God through the death of His Son, much more, having “been reconciled” (past-tense), we “shall be saved” (future-tense) by His life.” – Rom 5:10
See how he speaks of salvation in both the past and future tenses even in the same sentence? Yet when I, Mark or JM use the future tense you cry, “Works! It’s a done deal!” Why don’t you say Paul is teaching works because he’s telling believers that they “shall be saved” when they already are? Is it Scriptural for me to ever say that a believer “will be” saved? Is it Scriptural for me to ever say that a person cannot be (future tense) saved unless they have been (past tense) justified and are being (present tense) sanctified? These are the questions I want you to answer.
Writing long posts on how Scripture shows believers are already positionally sanctified and glorified will be of no value because I understand very well the “already” but “not yet” sense of salvation. I understand a true believer’s position in Christ, that one who is justified will be sanctified and will be glorified. We are not disputing that. Please just answer my questions here, because I believe this is at the root of your misunderstandings.
Bridget
Bridget,
You wrote;
I understand a true believer’s position in Christ, that one who is justified will be sanctified and will be glorified. We are not disputing that. Please just answer my questions here, because I believe this is at the root of your misunderstandings.
I don't think you read Greg's comments closely enough.
Kev
BP, my posts weren't that long that you had to gloss over them like that. I did comment on third tense salvation including Rom. 13:11. My comments on Rom. 5:6-11 fit exactly with what I said there... glorification (the third sense of salvation) is guaranteed with justification (the first sense of salvation).
The verses you mentioned in Romans 5 demonstrate this same point, the one who is justified will be glorified without any extra conditions.
I will make another post showing that the first and third sense of salvation are completely secure, even when the believer is not experiencing progressive sanctification.
-- Greg
P.S. It is important to see that BP (and I am assuming MP) does not believe there is a condition for salvation/regeneration. God zaps the unsaved with regeneration before they believe. So, for her, the only salvation left for someone's involvement in any sense is in progressive sanctification.
I also like Matthew 11:28-30, but I do not think it is a difficult passage. It's not teaching that committal to works is part of the condition for salvation.
=================================
I agree; It's not teaching that committal to works is part of the condition for salvation- Where have I said that it was?! We are saved, by grace, through faith. LS is carefull on this. It is by faith alone in Christ, alone; that one is saved.
==================================
''There are two parts to it -
1) v. 28 - Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (Describing salvation rest/assurance)''
==================
I agree... In comming to Christ one is justified. Neither I, nor LS, have a problem with this. We are in agreement here.
==================
''2) v. 29 - Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Describing discipleship/ dependence Christ's enablement)''
==================
I agree
==================
''V. 28 describes an action with terminus - "Come to Me". This terminus is found in several salvation invitations which emphasize the permanent result of coming (cf. John 6:35, 37). In this verse, Christ promises an immediate rest which describes assurance in contrast to the works-righteousness of the Pharisees.''
==================
Again, I agree. No problem here
==================
''V. 29 describes a continual action (i.e., "learn of Me" or better "learn from [apo] Me") that is logically subsequent to the coming. This describes a continued activity, and there is also rest that goes along with it. This describes a discipleship rest that is only possible because the person is assured of his salvation.''
=================
Right on!
=================
''This dual invitation...''
====================
This is where you're wrong. There is no ''dual invitation'' here. As I see Matthew 11:28-30 it is a SINGLE invitation; Only an artifficial, system-driven approach to this verse would say otherwise. A natural reading of this portion of scripture does not yeald to the idea of a dual-invitation taking place here.
=====================
''...is especially appropriate in the context where people are already trying to work for salvation under the works-righteousness of Pharisees.''
=====================
Again, This is one, single, invitation. Not two... as your system demands. You see, the actual problem is; can it really be said that one has truely come to Christ if that one does not go on to take his yoke upon him and to learn from him? I say no. Anyone comming to Christ in Matthew 11:28-30 who draws back from taking his yoke upon them and learning from him, it cannot be said that they have truely come to Christ. Remember, Christ is dealing here with those who ''labor, and are heavy laden'', or those convicted of sin, and their need for the Savior. This contrite heart will not draw back from taking his yoke upon him, and learning from Him.
Mark,
You said someone cannot be saved without committal to works.
You also said committal to works is in the definition of faith.
But now you say again that committal to works is not a condition of salvation.
I have two questions -
1) Do you believe faith is a condition of salvation?
2) What would be a better word to describe the relation of committal to works than "condition"? How about "requirement"?
Regarding your comments on Matthew 11:28-30, your point comes down not to the text of it, but to an assumption that you get from your theological system (as you almost seemed to state). So it is not a difficulty for us.
-- Greg
Lets consider water baptism. We see what it comes to symbolize in verses like Galatians 3:27 "...have put on Christ"; or Romans 6:3-4, "...baptized into His death, ...that just as Christ was raised from the dead...we should walk in newness of life"
Our baptism is a symbol of what has taken place internally in our regeneration experience. It shows that the Lordship of Christ is received simultaneously with His Saviorhood.
Mark, I have another question for you with Matthew 11:28 in mind. Are you absolutely certain of your salvation? Do you know for sure that you have been saved from hell and ultimately be glorified with Christ? Or would you say your assurance is only partial?
Mark,
I asked if faith is a condition of salvation and what would be a better word to describe the relation of "committal to works" to salvation than than the word "condition". You replied:
Lets consider water baptism. We see what it comes to symbolize in verses like Galatians 3:27 "...have put on Christ"; or Romans 6:3-4, "...baptized into His death, ...that just as Christ was raised from the dead...we should walk in newness of life"
Our baptism is a symbol of what has taken place internally in our regeneration experience. It shows that the Lordship of Christ is received simultaneously with His Saviorhood.
So are you saying that faith, committal to works, and baptism are all necessary outcomes of regeneration to show one has already been regenerated?
"Mark,
You said someone cannot be saved without committal to works."
============
Where did I say that? Please quote me word for word. We are saved through faith, period.
============
"You also said committal to works is in the definition of faith."
======
Where did I say that? Please quote word for word. Real faith does not shy away from taking Christ's yoke upon you. Any shying away from such is NOT truely having come to Christ, or having "faith" in Him.
=================
"But now you say again that committal to works is not a condition of salvation."
==========
Right. We are saved through faith.
==============
"I have two questions -
1) Do you believe faith is a condition of salvation?
==============
We are saved through faith, but I do not see it as a condition. It is the gift of God, Eph. 2:8-9.
==============
"2) What would be a better word to describe the relation of committal to works than "condition"? How about "requirement"?"
===============
No requirements. We are saved through faith alone.
==================
"Regarding your comments on Matthew 11:28-30, your point comes down not to the text of it, but to an assumption that you get from your theological system (as you almost seemed to state). So it is not a difficulty for us."
=========
Actually, you ignored my point that a natural reading of that portion of scripture yields the idea that it is ONE invitation, not a dual invitation.
Mark
"Mark, I have another question for you with Matthew 11:28 in mind. Are you absolutely certain of your salvation? Do you know for sure that you have been saved from hell and ultimately be glorified with Christ? Or would you say your assurance is only partial?"
===========
I am COMPLETELY assured of my salvation. I personally hold to objective assurance, as did Calvin, contra MacArthur.
8:05 PM
"So are you saying that faith, committal to works, and baptism are all necessary outcomes of regeneration to show one has already been regenerated?"
=============
In my own words taking His yoke upon me and learning from Him is the fruit of genuine saving faith.
My baptism thoughts were the result of our comments crossing eachother and were not an attempt to answer one your questions. However please address it anyways.
Mark, what did you want me to address about baptism? I didn't see the question.
Do you believe regeneration comes before faith in the ordo salutis?
I will be gone for a while but will try to respond tonight.
Thanks,
Greg
"Mark, what did you want me to address about baptism? I didn't see the question."
==========
If one comes to Christ as Savior alone, and does not also simultaneously come to His Lordship, does that not mean his water-baptism is a sham? I mean does one get saved first, then commit their life to Christ later in order for the baptism to be a symbol of a reality? In other words does baptism symbolize our salvation experience, or does it symbolize a later commital of one's life to discipleship?
=================
"Do you believe regeneration comes before faith in the ordo salutis?"
=========
Like Ryrie I see it as simultaneous. God brings us forth by His word, James 1:18; we are also saved by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5. It is too hard for me to see a time sequence here. I see it as the applying of God the Father the benefits of Christ's cross-work to His elect.
===============
I will be gone for a while too but will try to respond tomorrow.
Thanks,
Mark
Greg/(Kev):
You asked Mark, “Do you believe faith is a condition of salvation?”
Mark replied, “We are saved through faith, but I do not see it as a condition. It is the gift of God, Eph. 2:8-9.”
In Mark’s answer we see another extra-biblical presupposition that is arrived at to under gird the works based Lordship Salvation.
What Mark is claiming for the verse is that faith, NOT salvation is the “gift of God.”
You see this is a parallel to the false teaching that regeneration, i.e., salvation (becoming a born again Christian) comes before and apart from faith in Christ. See- The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith
It is tragic to witness the way in which Lordship advocates twist and abuse the plain sense of Scripture to force it (the Bible) into conformity with and to bolster the man-centered, LS message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
See- The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God by George Zeller.
Lou
Wrong Greg. Faith is a gift of God. I believe what Scripture says: we are saved by grace through faith (unlike you who believe we are saved by grace plus faith). But I'm the one doing the believing, so obviously I’m involved. Don’t you think it a little silly to suggest that if God enables our faith we don’t have to have faith?
Do you believe your sanctification is being accomplished because it is God who works in you to will and to work for His good pleasure? (Phil 2:12), or do you think your doing it in your own strength? If you agree with Phil 2:12, does that mean that you don’t have any involvement in your sanctification? God’s grace enabling us to believe (by grace you are saved) does not negate my involvement at all. It enables my involvement.
Btw, I want to throw out a big thanks to all of you guys for answering my question that I have been repeating in post after post after post. The fact that all of you refuse time and time again to acknowledge it or answer it makes it pretty clear to me that you just don’t want to answer it. May I encourage you to seriously contemplate why that is.
bp writes, "Faith is a gift of God" and thereby joins Mark in propagating an unbiblical presupposition view to float the works based LS.
LM
See- The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God by George Zeller.
Just to let you guys know too. The reason you keep thinking Mark is contradicting himself is because he is using "be saved" in past, present and future tenses, just like Scripture does.
He says, We "are saved" by grace alone through faith alone. True.(past tense justification).
He says, One cannot "be saved" apart from committment to God. True. (present tense sanctificaition and future tense glorification).
I wish you could see the irony in your comments Lou. I really do. Accusing us of teaching that you have to do something to be saved and at the very same time fighting with everything in you to prove that the sinner enables his own faith.
BP, so there is a different condition/requirement for justification than there is for glorification?
BP, I said you don't believe there is ANY condition for regeneration because a person is regenerated in your order salutis prior to faith. Therefore, you are not involved in receiving the "first tense" salvation. Your involvement starts when that is complete. No?
Mark, is this post from BP true:
He says, We "are saved" by grace alone through faith alone. True.(past tense justification).
He says, One cannot "be saved" apart from committment to God. True. (present tense sanctificaition and future tense glorification).
If this is true, it appears you believe a person can be saved initially through faith alone, apart from a commitment to serve God. But then, the commitment to serve God has to become a reality later on to prove that salvation happened in the first place?
Second Sense of "Salvation"
I am going to make this post very short and basic. If you read my three posts on the three senses of salvation, you will see it is very simple and consistent. It can be stated very simply without equivocation:
The moment a person believes in Christ, he is reconciled to God (first sense of salvation) and guaranteed glorification with Christ (third sense of salvation). After he believes, God wants him to live a life honoring to God through Jesus Christ in contrast to the opposing forces of the world, Satan, and the sin nature (second sense of salvation). This sense of salvation is related to the joy of living consistently with his nature as a child of God and the eternal value of his life, but it does not change the fact of his justification or future glorification.
In my earlier posts I mentioned these distinctions between the way the words "saved" or "salvation" are used with respect to justification, sanctification, and glorification:
1) Salvation from sin's penalty to a permanent reconciled relationship with God in Christ;
2) Salvation from failure or despair in the Christian life to fulfilling the objective of honoring the Lord through the power of Christ;
3) Salvation from the presence of sin to glorification with Christ;
A few example passages which I believe speak of second-tense salvation include 2Corinthians 1:6; 7:10; Phil. 1:19; 1:28; 2:12; 1Timothy 2:15; 4:16; James 1:21; 2:14;
I believe all of these passages have to do with continued choices of the believer and continued dependence on the Lord. In the context, not one of these passages speaks of the issue of salvation from hell or a condition to go to heaven.
These passages (and the second sense of salvation in general) deal only with believers in Christ. Their justification is already complete and glorification is already guaranteed. This sense of salvation deals with their ultimate objective as believers in Christ while still on earth. It is salvation from squandering the opportunity to honor the Lord in this lifetime with the spiritual resources the believer has as a new creation in Christ.
For example, in 2Cor. 1:6, Paul says, "Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation."
We should ask, "salvation from what?" Paul wrote this to "saints" (1:1) whose glorification was already guaranteed (1:22; 4:14; 5:1-5). The salvation had nothing to do with going to heaven or hell. The description of the second sense of salvation I gave above is very fitting.
The same point could be made with each of the verses above. The authors of each of the passages above identified the subjects of salvation (i.e., their readers or themselves) as saints in Christ. The issue had to do with the real possibility of failure for real Christians.
Mark, I believe baptism symbolizes salvation. And the verses you mentioned (Gal. 3:37 and Rom. 6:3-4) deal with spiritual identification by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor. 12:13), not with water baptism.
The point of the passages is that in salvation, believers are given a new spiritual identity in Christ. Based on this new spiritual identity, they should see they are complete/equal in Christ and thus do not need any works/rituals to complete their standing before God (cf. Gal. 3:27ff). They should also see that their life should reflect the one they are identified with and that they are no longer legally bound to obey the sin nature (Rom. 6:1ff).
The believer should live in light of his position.
No believer is aware of every spiritual blessing he receives at the point of salvation. I believe one of the points of water baptism is to demonstrate the invisible identification that took place with Christ.
-- Greg
Mark & BP,
If we are so confused because you are using the word "saved" in a sense different than we would understand, why don't you just say whatever sense you are talking about when you say it?
I do not know if Mark agrees with BP, but BP does not use the term "saved" anywhere close to Scripture. Scripture does not equivocate like BP. It talks about salvation from hell to heaven (justification and glorification) as SETTLED issues in the lives of the believer. Although glorification is not yet "experienced", it is nevertheless settled/guaranteed.
BP seems to seize upon this issue that glorification is not yet experienced.
For her, glorification is both "settled" in some abstract theological sense and not settled in a more real, practical sense.
She agrees theologically glorification must be guaranteed at justification, but she simultaneously argues glorification depends on the process of sanctification.
These are contradictions.
Hi Greg,
Great posts. I just want to offer a bit of encouragement here.
Bridget will move back and forth between 2 to a maximum of 3 positions as you discuss with her.
Do not be surprised if she changes what she claims she is talking about unexpectedly.
I'm not sure what question it is she wants answered.. I've often found it hard to discern when she's asking a question she wants answered or is making some sort of point.
Bridget, if you're reading this post please consider - the only questions I've seen you ask openly show that you haven't read Greg's posts.
You've asked things of Greg that he has answered explicitly in his posts already.
It's possible that I (and others) don't understand what you're asking. How about examining to see if Greg has already answered you, and then stating this question you think we're all ignoring openly in a single post so we don't miss it?
Kev
Greg said...
Mark, is this post from BP true:
He says, We "are saved" by grace alone through faith alone. True.(past tense justification).
He says, One cannot "be saved" apart from committment to God. True. (present tense sanctificaition and future tense glorification).
If this is true, it appears you believe a person can be saved initially through faith alone, apart from a commitment to serve God. But then, the commitment to serve God has to become a reality later on to prove that salvation happened in the first place?
Greg,
I’ve already stated that I agree with Mark - that the act of repentance and faith signifies we are turning from sin to follow Jesus - But I didn’t want to go down that road. Why? because your arguments can be proven false even without this circular debate of whether or not the act of repentance and faith means a person is actually turning from their sin to believe in and follow Christ or simply changing their mind and believing in the facts of the gospel.
If I say that a person cannot “be saved” (future tense) if they are not growing in love and obedience to Christ, is this a correct statement? Or can they “be saved” (future tense) without sanctification?
She agrees theologically glorification must be guaranteed at justification, but she simultaneously argues glorification depends on the process of sanctification.
These are contradictions.
Glorification doesn’t “depend on” sanctification in the sense that it is “based on” it. But again, is it ture that a Christian can go on to be (future tense saved) glorified without being (present tense saved) sanctified? yes or no.
Kev,
One way to determine if I’m asking a question is that it has a little squiggle at the end of the sentence. Like this: ?
I’ll just copy and paste a couple:
“Why do you accept the Apostle Paul speaking of the believer’s salvation in future tense, but you refuse to allow me, Mark or JM to do the same?”
“Nowhere in your posts do you deal with the fact that Paul talks about salvation in the future tense, yet you refuse to allow me or any LS proponent to talk about it in the same manner. Why will someone not answer this question of mine? I keep asking but nobody will answer me.”
Greg,
I also would like you to answer this question in response to your comment about God-enabling faith.
Why is it that if God enables our growth in Christ, it doesn't mean that we don't participate in sanctification, but if God enables our faith in Christ, it means that we don't participate in our justification? thanks.
"Mark, is this post from BP true:
He says, We "are saved" by grace alone through faith alone. True.(past tense justification).
He says, One cannot "be saved" apart from committment to God. True. (present tense sanctificaition and future tense glorification).
If this is true, it appears you believe a person can be saved initially through faith alone, apart from a commitment to serve God. But then, the commitment to serve God has to become a reality later on to prove that salvation happened in the first place?"
========================
A person is saved through faith alone, period. He is justified at the moment of saving faith, BEFORE ANY GOOD WORKS ISSUE FORTH. Glorification is part of the inseparable link to being justified. It is a done deal, just as one's justification. The one justified is glorified, period. But at this point we must consider that the one justfied/glorified is now in a new relationship to the Triune God. That relationship is covered in Romans 7:6 and Romans 8:1-16. It is the life of serving in newness of the Spirit. This serving in newness of the Spirit does not affect our justification or ultimate glorification at all.Those are done deals. However if there is no evidence of one serving in newness of the Spirit then that is evidence that they are not sons of God, not led of His Spirit. Romans 8:14.
"Mark, I believe baptism symbolizes salvation. And the verses you mentioned (Gal. 3:37 and Rom. 6:3-4) deal with spiritual identification by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor. 12:13), not with water baptism."
=============
So you separate salvation from spiritual identification by the Holy Spirit? How much time elapses between the two. What makes spiritual identification by the Holy Spirit a reality then if not the salvation experience?
Kev:
You correctly noted about BP as follows,
"Bridget will move back and forth between 2 to a maximum of 3 positions as you discuss with her. Do not be surprised if she changes what she claims she is talking about unexpectedly."
Which is why I finally had to her ask to stop posting at my blog months ago.
I don't have time for or the deire to wade through her convulted ramblings, not to mention false interpretation of the Gospel of grace.
Lou
Kev:
This will be a repeat from yesterday I did not want Mark or bp to miss this or the article links to be missed by your readers.
Greg:
You asked Mark, “Do you believe faith is a condition of salvation?”
Mark replied, “We are saved through faith, but I do not see it as a condition. It is the gift of God, Eph. 2:8-9.”
In Mark’s answer we see another one of the extra-biblical (false teachings) that is arrived at to under gird the works based Lordship Salvation.
What Mark (and bp) is claiming for the verse is that faith, NOT salvation is the “gift of God.”
You see this is a parallel to the false teaching that regeneration, i.e., salvation (becoming a born again Christian) comes before and apart from faith in Christ. See- The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith
It is tragic to witness the way in which Lordship advocates twist and abuse the plain sense of Scripture to force it (the Bible) into conformity with and to bolster the man-centered, LS message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
See- The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God by George Zeller.
Lou
Bridget,
It can be hard to tell if what precedes a Question Mark in your writing is actually a question or not because often what appears to be a question follows the explanation of that exact topic.
So I'm not sure if you're really asking..
Anyway..
You wrote,
"Why do you accept the Apostle Paul speaking of the believer's salvation in future tense, but you refuse to allow me, Mark or JM to do the same?"
Because when the Apostle does it he isn't making it dependent on works, a desire to work, or a faith that is "evidenced" by these things. When the Apostle does it he's pointing out the surety of this future event for everyone who has "received" the Gospel.
The Apostle isn't hanging the risk of it not happening over the heads of believers. He's inspiring hope, and fruitfulness because it is sure to happen.
"Nowhere in your posts do you deal with the fact that Paul talks about salvation in the future tense, yet you refuse to allow me or any LS proponent to talk about it in the same manner. Why will someone not answer this question of mine? I keep asking but nobody will answer me."
Actually Greg was perfectly clear, he invested some effort in being clear with you on this. He even spelled it out in a single sentence that I then quoted. Justification and Glorification are settled at Salvation, and Sanctification is a work of the Spirit on the Believer that neither is indicative of or required for the other two.
Maturity is indicative of, and required for, maturity and fruitfulness. This is "discipleship." It is a ongoing process that requires sacrifice and dedication of the person being discipled hense the "ship" part of the word. Justification and Salvation are things that are done on behalf of and to the person hense the "tion" part of the words.
Kev
Mark, you wrote
A person is saved through faith alone, period. He is justified at the moment of saving faith, BEFORE ANY GOOD WORKS ISSUE FORTH. Glorification is part of the inseparable link to being justified. It is a done deal, just as one's justification. The one justified is glorified, period. But at this point we must consider that the one justfied/glorified is now in a new relationship to the Triune God. That relationship is covered in Romans 7:6 and Romans 8:1-16. It is the life of serving in newness of the Spirit. This serving in newness of the Spirit does not affect our justification or ultimate glorification at all.Those are done deals. However if there is no evidence of one serving in newness of the Spirit then that is evidence that they are not sons of God, not led of His Spirit. Romans 8:14.
Is it correct to say (and I know that it is I just want you to confirm) that you believe that if these things do not present as evidence of Salvation that the person never had faith in the first place and so was never saved?
What do you do in the case of historical Biblical accounts of saved people who did not finish well?
Kev
"Is it correct to say (and I know that it is I just want you to confirm) that you believe that if these things do not present as evidence of Salvation that the person never had faith in the first place and so was never saved?
What do you do in the case of historical Biblical accounts of saved people who did not finish well? "
==========
It IS correct to say that, yes.
Now, it depends on which indiviuals you are talking about. In our look at those individuals you must assume that they never repented. If there is no biblical data either way, whether they did or not, then none of us can be dogmatic in using them as cases of whether or not they finishes well.
Greg,
It is true that none of us knew all the things that go into following Christ at the beginning of our walks. That is why we take His yoke upon us and learn from Him. He disciples over time.
Mark,
If you think you are a Pastor please go practice that elsewhere. I didn't appreciate your "advice" to Lou just now.
That comment is deleted.
Kev
Mark,
How about Moses who made it to the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ but who did not finish well?
How about Solomon?
How about all the people in Heb 11 who at various points in their life did not do very well at all... and some did not finish well.
Should they have questioned their Salvation during the "down times"?
Kev
Kev/Greg:
Mark’s subtle reaffirmation of LS’s “never saved in the first place,” mentality is just another example of the disconcerting fallout that comes from Lordship Salvation’s corruption of the simplicity that is Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).
On the “carnal” Christian John MacArthur says, “The tragic result is that many people think it is fairly normal for Christians to live like unbelievers. . . . As I noted. . . . contemporary theologians have devised an entire category for this type of person—the “carnal Christian.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: What is Authentic Faith?, p. 138.)
Walter Chantry (who also rejected carnal Christians) and John MacArthur must and does ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to arrive at the conclusion that the “carnal” Christian has been “devised,” invented or fabricated only in recent times.
How does the Lordship advocate arrive at a position that is contrary to the explicit statements of Scripture on the fact there are Christians who are and/or do become carnal? The answer may be found in John MacArthur’s rejection of the believer having two natures, a new nature and the old nature.
“I believe it is a serious misunderstanding to think of the believer as having both an old and new nature. Believers do not have dual personalities…there is no such thing as an old and new nature in the believer…. Salvation brings about a radical change in the nature of the believer…The old man has ceased to exist.” ( Freedom from Sin, pp. 31-33.)
With LS you have errors start, middle and finish.
Start: the extra-biblical presuppositions that regeneration (being born again) precedes faith and that faith, NOT salvation, is the gift of God.
Middle: the commitment to a works based, man centered message of Lordship evangelism.
Finish: the errors on the carnal Christians.
LS is tragic theology that we must refute and biblically contend (Jude 3) with.
Lou
"Mark,
How about Moses who made it to the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ but who did not finish well?"
==============
I do not regard Moses as one who did not finish well. God the Holy Spirit said that, "Moses also was faithful in all his house, Hebrews 3:2,5. Also we have the testimony of God after his death... "After the death of Moses the servant of the LORD..." Joshua 1:1. And, "Moses the man of God"...Deut.33:1. The fact that Moses was not allowed into the promised land does not mean he did not finish well. His spirituality was quite intact at his death.
================
"How about Solomon?"
==============
I see Solomon showing signs of life in Ecc. 12:13-14
================
"How about all the people in Heb 11 who at various points in their life did not do very well at all... and some did not finish well.
Should they have questioned their Salvation during the "down times?"
================
Down times are a reality. There is a war that takes place in each believer. It starts at the moment they come to Christ, and lasts until the grave. It is a war where God the Holy Spirit, Who takes up residence within the believer, and flesh battle. I've lost many a battle. But God be praised, I'm guarenteed the victory in Christ.
Mark
================
Lou,
Those ones Paul called carnal repented in 2 Cor. 7:6-11. These were not stuck in a static state. They were responsive.
I must get ready for work now. The Lord willing I shall be back tomorrow. Have a good day.
Mark
I don't have time for or the deire to wade through her convulted ramblings
Lou, I wish you'd at least wade through my ramblings long enough to see that you give lip service to sanctification, but you do not believe it’s necessary at all.
You don’t believe that a progressive life of holiness (sanctification) is certain for the Christian, do you? Since your future glorification is assured to you on your initial profession of faith, but sanctification is not a guarantee, then the only way you can maintain your assurance is to believe that holiness is not necessary for final salvation (glorification).
So you don't believe in experiential sanctification as necessarily happening at all. Only postional. It's a wonder that you believe we'll one day experience glory!
"Why do you accept the Apostle Paul speaking of the believer's salvation in future tense, but you refuse to allow me, Mark or JM to do the same?"
Because when the Apostle does it he isn't making it dependent on works, a desire to work, or a faith that is "evidenced" by these things.
"Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness, without which no one will (FUTURE TENSE) see the Lord." -Heb 12:14
“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things (idolatry, sorcery, enmity etc) will not (FUTURE TENSE)inherit the kingdom of God.” –Gal 5:21
“For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and patience (FUTURE TENSE)inherit the promises.” – Heb 6:10-12
“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may (FUTURE TENSE) obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm…” 2 Thessalonians 2:13–15
I could just go on and on and even bring up the whole book of 1 John, but I know you’d chop suey that to pieces.
Kev, can a Christian go on to experiece future glorification (be saved) without experiencing present sanctification (being saved)(?)<---(that would be a question) yes or no.
Btw Kev, when you have time, can you show me where specifically I've done this? :
Bridget will move back and forth between 2 to a maximum of 3 positions as you discuss with her.
Bridget you asked if I could show you were exactly you've switched between topics as I described.
You have done so at the following URLs no I don't have time or inclination to sift through thousands of posts to show you your behavior.
http://onmywalk.blogspot.com
http://indefenseofthegospel.com
http://www.biblicalevangelism.net
I'm not aware of other areas.
Kev
Bridget you asked,
Kev, can a Christian go on to experiece future glorification (be saved) without experiencing present sanctification (being saved)(?)<---(that would be a question) yes or no
That depends on what you mean by "experiencing."
Heb 12 is pretty clear that we all "experience" discipleship.
However, I believe Heb 12,and the full remainder of Scripture is clear that we are not all successful disciples, and we are OFTEN disorderly.
If you mean do we experience the chastening of the Lord? Then Yes.
Do you mean we all become more and more Christ-like (in this present life)? Then No.
Do you mean that we all are willing participants in our discipleship? Then No.
Thus, my often clearly stated position which is driven FROM Scripture that our present "sanctification" is not an accurate indicator of our Justification. It is ONLY an accurate indicator of our current maturity in Christ.
Can't wait to see how this gets turned around...
Kev
Bridget you wrote,
I could just go on and on and even bring up the whole book of 1 John, but I know you’d chop suey that to pieces
It's amazing how easy it is to "chop suey" proof-texting. It's easy but exhausting.. and frankly I'm tired of answering your proof-texting over and over again...
Just try for once to read more than the verses you've quoted there.. it TRULY isn't hard to see what the Writer was writing if you just let Him get more than the words you want to hear out.
Kev
You know what Kev? I almost got snagged into going down the same old winding road again, with you systematically going through Scripture to show me that it doesn’t actually mean what it says. I’m just as tired of that as you are and I’m not going on that trip.
I didn’t even realize how far out in left field you guys have become until I realized and read that you don’t even believe that believers are being transformed into the image of Christ from one degree of glory to another in this life. (2 Cor 3:18). *Please don’t bother showing me how this doesn’t mean what it says either.
I started out here sincerely wanting to show you that so many of your misunderstandings of LS stem from your misinterpreting us when we say a person cannot “be saved” (future tense) apart from sanctification. But what’s the point anymore when you don’t even believe experiential sanctification will necessarily happen.
I give up again kev. Every time I’m in contact with you it seems like you’re getting farther and farther “out there” with your ever-changing beliefs and interpretations of Scripture. I can’t imagine where this will all lead you in the end. I just pray for all those souls who read your book and sit back in their big comfy chair staring at pornography with no desire in their hearts whatsoever to turn from their sin or love and follow Christ. As they slip down deeper and deeper into sin and hardness of heart, they got your book on their shelves assuring them that, yeah, they’re going to miss out on a few perks in heaven, but they’ve got their fire-insurance proof right there in your book. They “believe” in Jesus. I feel for you bro. I know you’ll mock all of this dramatics and turn it around to show how your preaching the simple gospel of grace and I’m adding works, but I feel for you and I fear for you, and for all those souls slipping into hell thinking they're saved because of you and others like you.
Sincerely,
Bridget
Yes Bridget I can tell how much you "feel" for me.. you know what my book says before you've even read it.. and you know how people are going to react to it as well...
Knowing what something says before you read it is a fairly consistent character trait of yours.
I trust that the Lord will deal with this too.
Kev
All,
This is getting to be a very long thread but I hope that you're "hanging in there" I think there is progress being made.
Greg's discussion with Mark seems most valuable to me.
I take note that Bridget's final post moves from asking questions to accusations of "telling [her] that Scripture doesn't mean what it says."
I guess she didn't like the answers to the questions she asked.
I do not mean to mock her concern for me I actually trust that it is real. However, please take note that no matter how well Greg has shown her that her view of our current sanctification is not supported by Scripture she still bases her accusations on it.
Her well meaning concern, just like the theology she has put forward is based on an idea, not on the Scriptures themselves.
However, it is an idea that she identfies herself with and that makes it very valuable to her. It's not that she's any worse than anyone else for behaving this way, we all do it to one extent or another.
The Lord is not done with her.
Kev
Bridget,
You are one powerful sister in the scriptures. You've fought well here. I'd be honored if you were to join my team at Blue-Collar blog. That blog is currently on hiatus until about Thanksgiving due to the fact that a whole lot is going on right now and I don't have the time to devote to blogging. Bless you, dear sister!
Kevin, I think that you should have treated Bridget with dignity. I'm sorry that you did not.
My time today is limited due to errands I must run. If I can't make it back today, then, the Lord willing, tomorrow.
Mark
No Mark:
Bridget is a confused, doctrinally unsound sister in the Lord whose convoluted, self-contradictory ramblings have been all over the show.
Greg and Kev have proven that you and Bridget contradict yourselves time and again. It seems to me your slavish loyalty to the works based teaching of John Macarthur’s Lordship Salvation (LS) has seared your conscience until and I don’t know which:
You are deliberately twisting the Scriptures to bolster LS, or simply can no longer discern truth from error even in the face of overwhelming proof from the Scriptures that your views are a radical departure from the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
This is the sad tragedy and the usual fallout for those who embrace the extra-biblical presuppositions of regeneration before faith, then that faith NOT salvation is the gift of God and finally Lordship Salvation’s corruption of the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3).
And finally it is quite interesting for you to suggest Kev has been less than dignified in his treatment of Bridget. Her absurd doctrine, convoluted posting and condescending remarks would have caused a lesser man to respond in kind as you would, but in your case you do so without provocation.
You would do well to tend to, “the beam that is in thine own eye” when it comes to personal interaction in the blogs. How many times did Kev have to admonish you to stay within the rules here and you would happily break those rules. Your emotions get the best of you and they will be your undoing unless you learn to give them over to the Lord for Him to control for you through His Spirit.
You can take what I shared above anyway you like. I do not mean to injure, but I do rebuke and admonish you for your false teaching and poor behavior choices.
Lou
Lou,
FYI, I feel no rebuke when such comes from a no-lordshiper. I'm only amused.
All your arguments against Bridget and myself come about only when you take what we say and refashion our statements. In the end you end up arguing against something that neither Bridget or myself have said.
Bye for today.
Mark
And with this last comment by Mark it is apparent that I need to close this discussion down.
Mark volunteered to be the primary presenter of the LS position, and agreed to behaviours I detailed in the articles.
In this last we see Mark write;
All your arguments against Bridget and myself come about only when you take what we say and refashion our statements. In the end you end up arguing against something that neither Bridget or myself have said.
While Mark was directing this comment at Lou, there is absolutely no difference in the argument that I make against LS and that which Lou does.
I have quoted Mark EXTENSIVELY throughout these two threads. So much that if the reader reads the article he or she will find Mark's own presentation word for word.
It is obvious to all those who I have discussed this topic with that the common LS objection of "misrepresentations" and "misunderstandings" is a calculated defence against the theology being tested.
I will let the reader determine if I have properly understood Mark's position and if Marks position is an accurate representation of what Scripture says. I myself am confident in both my understanding, and the unbilical nature of LS Theology.
No matter if it has been presented by laypeople such as Mark and Bridget, or heralded theologians like John MacArthur and John Piper LS Theology fails any testing by Scripture.
LS Theology indeed has an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Kev
Post a Comment