Featured Lordship salvation vs Easy believeism

Dr. Tom Cassidy addressed this already in another thread. Nothing else needs to be said, but thank you Tom for both your insight and prospective.

 

No, not at all. To believe we are "saved through behavior" one must believe that works must happen in order to be saved. We STRONGY believe against any works in order to be saved. So let's put this one to rest. All you are doing now is saying false things about others.

Yes, that's what the Bible teaches. It doesn't teach that any works or obedience or behavior have to happen in order to be saved, but that good works, obedience, behavior will be produced after one is saved. We've said this many times already.

obedience happens after salvation, not before.

No, there are no works that can do anything to help save us.

Just like James does. True faith produced works. James 2:17.

Because when we are saved, we have a new heart Ezekiel 36:26 , we have a new nature 2 Corinthians 5:17, will after savation produce good works I John 3:6, eph 2:10.

No, not at all. True faith is evident in works. Faith does not become true by works. No one believe that. That's just saying false things again.

Again, no one says you have to have obedience in order to be saved. Not one. So stop saying that because now it will be just lying about others.

If you want to disagree with me and others, that's fine. But don't' say things that others don't believe. I'm not going to do that to you.

 

You're not tying the loose ends together. Of course no one in the Lordship Salvation camp is going to plainly state that works are a necessary component for salvation.

But you also won't be honest enough to allow the logical outcome to flow, either.

Will you answer this? - suppose a man has faith, but has no works....will he be saved?

Yes or no will suffice. According to your doctrine, the answer is right there in James 2:14. It's been well noted by many scholars that it's a rhetorical structure, demanding a negative answer.

So, how about you get real honest and simply answer. If a man has faith, but no works, will he go to heaven?

Yes or no?

 

I'd say yes He will;
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
In other words if a man is counted righteous what else would he need to be saved. Since it is God who judges men whether they are righteous or not.
MB

 

That is a completely biblical answer

Amen. Amen. Amen.

 

Excellent post. Lordship salvation, a works gospel, not the one of the Bible.

 

Because we don't believe works are a necessary component for salvation.

You are just not listening. NO WORKS BEFORE SALVATION. Works AFTER salvation. Get it?

No works are required for salvation. So yes, of course. Works are ONLY evidence of faith. works have NOTHING to do with being saved. So of course one can have faith and no works and be saved. (Titus 3:5)

Answered above. Works are ONLY AFTER salvation, not before. So no works are required to go to heaven.

Now please. If you want to disagree with me and others on something, that's fine. But don't make up stuff that isn't true.

 

Lordship salvation does not teach a works gospel. No works are required to get saved. Works only happen after salvation. Works are only evidence of faith, not requirements for faith.

 

The way I've come to understand this, faith and works are the same thing. You agree?

 

Here is how I see it from my simple and often naive place. Works are a referent to moral and ethical conduct (or immoral). I can perform no works which can procure a status of salvation for myself, however, as a synergist I recognize that I must acknowledge and confess that Christ is Lord and savior. God is certainly big enough, smart enough, wise enough (all those "omnis") to know my plight as a creature with feet of clay. The whole thing about "Lordship" as I see it is in fact the journey of life involves our efforts with the presence of the Holy spirit to mold and model our lives according to the life and principles taught by Jesus and throughout the pages of scripture. As "new creatures" the intent of our hearts should now have a kernel of seeking to be obedient and pleasing to our God, while understanding that failure, sin and transgressions will still be a life long companion.

 

Then why is it necessary to readdress the issue after salvation? Why is there a different name than salvation, ie LS. When someone comes to Christ by grace though faith, the work on the cross is enough or sufficient to complete the process. Everything needed from justification to glorification is there. We do not need a part 2 step added called LS. I am well aware of the relationship between faith, works and salvation. It is called the book of James. If it is not a works gospel, then it assumes the first salvation was not sufficient. The level of fruits and works after salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit, and not the opinion of others or the will of the individual. Pharisees memorized a bunch of rules and tried to keep them with their own self will. The term LS should have never been invented by man.

It is really not rocket science. Works before salvation is like filthy rags to God. No works after salvation and faith is dead. There are those Christians (ie Heb 6:1-3) that have not matured and the writer tells them it is time to move on. They are called babes in Christ and no doubt they have not produced much fruit, the that is not the norm. The norm is after salvation growth in Christ grows and so does fruit or works. It is under the timing and power of the Holy Spirit, not man's opinion or what someone expects the level of behavior and fruits to be at a given point in time. It is all of God, nothing of man. The term LS is actually redundant. Its meaning is incorporated in the original meaning of salvation.

 

We don't. LS is actually a pejorative created by those who oppose the doctrine it represents.

 

There is nothing to invent. Christ and His work on the cross are sufficient. If one is saved, then LS is in effect for every person that is a Christian. It is a totally unnecessary and useless term.

 

Ok well you miss the point. Those who believe that one must call on and confess Jesus as both Lord and Savior with the understanding that he is now the ruler of our lives and have the intent to live by that did not come up with the term LS.

It was created by those who oppose that doctrine and used as a pejorative. Your issue is with those who oppose it not with those who hold to it.

 

I think we agree on the salvation process and how it works. There is not one saved person who does not practice LS. I do not understand what the term adds to becoming more like Christ. The Holy Spirit is well aware of what has to happen in each of our lives, and where each of us fall short.

 

Those who believe "one must" are spreading a false gospel, plain and simple. That's what makes it a works salvation. You, you, you, you.

The cross of Christ is treated as some magical, superstitious voodoo that is accessed by incantation, ritual, and servitude

But what is written?

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but by His mercy He saved us; by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.

To the one who doe not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith I credited as righteousness

 

Uh I did not say anyone should have to work.

 

Lordship Salvation is more than just a term. It began as a serious debate that, arguably, started in the 1980's when John MacArthur published his book, "The Gospel According to Jesus". It created quite a firestorm. MacArthur was reacting against what he perceived was the de facto promotion of a second act of grace in broad evangelicalism. This second act of grace was the idea of accepting Jesus as Lord separately from accepting Him as Savior. In fact it was so pervasive in some churches that it rose to the level of doctrinal necessity.

Lordship Salvation ripped churches and seminaries apart. It was that serious of an issue. MacArthur was a regular speaker at the Adirondack, NY-based bible college that I attended in the 80's. His book came out while I was a student. He then became persona non grata at that college afterwards. Some Christian radio stations took his program, Grace to You, off the air. But at the core of the debate was always the theology, not the term. Is the work of Christ in the sinner's heart finished at the moment of regeneration or is it not?

 

I do think highly of McAuthor's work in general. I appreciate your post on the history of this issue.