Martin said:
==Not really sure what this has to do with John MacArthur and Lordship Salvation. I am also not really sure why you wish to pretend that Lordship Salvation is a Calvinist doctrine, it is not. Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike believe in Lordship Salvation. In fact, I would argue that it is what the evangelical church has historically believed. Easy believism and decisionism are relativily new concepts.
==Again, not really sure what that has to do with the topic. I am also not sure why you believe total depravity is a Calvinistic doctrine, again it is not. Classical reformed Arminianism teaches total depravity. Total depravity is not part of Wesleyan doctrine, but it is part of all forms of reformed doctrine.
Personally, I'll agree as to "decisionism" not being Biblical. There is no Scripture that I'm aware of that speaks of "making one's decision for Christ," whatever that is really supposed to mean.
But I will disagree with the pejorative term called "easy believism". From what I've seen, in my (granted) limited experience, that term is usually used by those who oppose the teaching of being "saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works least anyone should boast". This opposition is not usually openly and verbally expressed for what it is really is, however, and usually takes (a) circuitous route(s) to "sneak the works into the back door" for salvation.
This includes many varied phrases such as
"Either Christ is Lord of all, or He is not Lord, at all!", for one well known one. A second one I have heard and read is
"(We are) saved by faith alone, but faith that saves is never (or
not)
alone!".
And to these two representative statements, we can add some time-tested, oldie-but-goodie phrases that still seem to be able to 'draw a crowd', such as
"make jesus lord of your life" (BTW, my failure here to use upper case letters in the phrase I just typed above, is not a typo, but is deliberate, in this instance, and, incidentally, I actually consider that phrase to be extremely close to blasphemous, when spoken and believed by others, even though most do it in an unwitting manner, in that they actually intend it to be honoring to the Lord Jesus Christ),
"genuine faith",
"real faith",
"'really and truly' believe" (where one can insert another or a different adjective or two in the blank where I had
'really and truly', if one prefers), etc..
FTR, I have personally heard each and every phrase I have embolded, and seen each and every one of them on the pages of the Baptist Board.
I have an NKJV, that I use as my primary Bible. I have fairly easy access to 20 other English versions on Bible Gateway. I possess an additional dozen or so versions, including two that I consider to be less than accurate in some theology (NWT, TEV). There is not one of the 21 English versions on Bible Gateway has any of the statements or phrases I have above emboldened anywhere in their pages, with the single exception of the Amplified, which uses the words "lack of
real faith" as the "in-the-text" definition of "
unbelief" in Rom. 11:20.
To my knowledge, Scripture never implies that it should be difficult to believe, nor asks for "hard believism", which would seem to be the opposite of "easy believism". Romans 4:1-8 seems to get every short shrift; as does John 6:47 were one to ask if one can be saved when he or she does nothing else, or is it enough to simply "believe in Jesus" or "have faith in Jesus" for salvation, with a response often of, "Well, yes - but..." Then, like a playing with a "billy goat", one usually gets "butted" all over the place.
Sorry, Scripture does not name any of these "butts" that I have seen.
And I would suggest that most advocates of what is known as Lordship salvation (although most will not say this, directly), really do not like nor have a place for a "righteous Lot" in their circles, if the truth were known.
Martin is correct in that this is not believed just by Calvinists, It is usually believed by most Arminians, as well. And that should really not be surprising, either. At least it is not surprising to me, for there is no difference in Arminiansim and Calvinism, as systems of theology, in the final analysis.
(BTW, I know that I will probably draw a response disagreeing with my last sentence, before I even finish proof-reading and editing this post.)
Ed
