Sanctification by God's Sovereign Grace as Opposed to "Lordship Salvation"

[KenH]

Does no change in life, attitude, behavior carry with it any expectation of being saved?

Nope. Even reprobates can have a change in life and behavior.

Do you believe that if a person has made a profession of faith, they should have assurance of salvation even if they are living in open rebellion with God? How about if they openly deny Jesus is Lord and God.

A true believer(one whom God has regenerated) will walk by the Holy Spirit(Galatians 5:25). A true believer still lives in a fleshly body while on this earth and is still capable of doing serious(from our human viewpoint) sinning(e.g., Noah, Abraham, David, Peter, et al). Just read Paul's struggles as a believer in Romans 7:14-25.

Yet, despite all of their weaknesses of the flesh, God's elect, once God has shown them the gospel of Christ as the Lord our Righteousness and given them a new heart, will not ignore the gospel, deny the gospel, nor leave the gospel.

 

[canadyjd]

I am inclined to think that those "people" would agree…..

Everyone agrees that there are fakes. Everyone agrees that there ought to be some evidential fruit, though we disagree on the metrics…...

If your encounters were with the kind who really believe that the heart does not count, only the prayer, that still would not be representative of the general position.

I mention it to demonstrate the extremes.

I think we agree much more than disagree.

My understanding of LS, based primarily on reading what Johnny Mac has said, but several others as well, is that it is not a works based system.

As you stated above, ther ought to be evidentiary “fruit” from believers. LS encourages individuals to examine their own lives, not others for such evidence.

peace to you

 

[DaveXR650]

A true believer(one whom God has regenerated) will walk by the Holy Spirit(Galatians 5:25). A true believer still lives in a fleshly body while on this earth and is still capable of doing serious(from our human viewpoint) sinning(e.g., Noah, Abraham, David, Peter, et al). Just read Paul's struggles as a believer in Romans 7:14-25.

That's the idea of LS. You walk by the Spirit. But what of those who don't. There's two kinds. One is not saved, not elect, not concerned at all about this stuff and won't listen. The other, may just lack understanding and maturity, or they may be unsaved because of false teaching. But if warned they will hear and take heed. They benefit from some tough love even if it makes them uncomfortable. The work of the Holy Spirit is not negated here, nor are any of the doctrines of grace.

The 7th of Romans is a struggle only a believer has - the LS guys like to go to Romans 7 too. (And I realize there is another interpretation on it but it seems we at least agree on that)

 

[canadyjd]

Nope. Even reprobates can have a change in life and behavior.

A true believer(one whom God has regenerated) will walk by the Holy Spirit(Galatians 5:25). A true believer still lives in a fleshly body while on this earth and is still capable of doing serious(from our human viewpoint) sinning(e.g., Noah, Abraham, David, Peter, et al). Just read Paul's struggles as a believer in Romans 7:14-25.

Yet, despite all of their weaknesses of the flesh, God's elect, once God has shown them the gospel of Christ as the Lord our Righteousness and given them a new heart, will not ignore the gospel, deny the gospel, nor leave the gospel.

I really believe we agree far more than disagree.

When I first heard of LS about 20 years ago, I went to the primary source at the time, John MacArthur and read his comments about it it. I did read others, mostly from the Founders group and I read what others claimed was being said.

What I found was that the critics of LS made claims of “works based salvation” that was simply not supported by proponents and, in fact, explicitly denied by proponents of LS.

I have agreed with nearly every passage you have quoted.

peace to you

 

[DaveXR650]

If anyone is interested, the Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermon archive has sermon #3012 JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD for your listening enjoyment. If you don't have the time let me just say, you can put him in the LS camp also. In fact, you can't really, because he seemed incredulous that anyone would think differently.

To me, the only real argument against LS that makes any sense would be that it is teaching something so obvious that I would have thought other teachers and theologians would have been insulted when MacArthur made a big deal out of it. Like duh, you're going to sell a bunch of books just restating Christianity 101. It should have never been a "thing" but the fact that is was just shows how far we've downgraded.

 

[KenH]

To me, the only real argument against LS that makes any sense would be that it is teaching something so obvious that I would have thought other teachers and theologians would have been insulted when MacArthur made a big deal out of it.

One has to take into account that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who claim to be Christians believe that salvation is pretty much all about them - their decision and their behavior. The really do think that they make the difference on whether or not they are saved. Yeah, they might talk glowingly about Jesus, and that they know nothing or next to nothing about the Bible and doctrine, but they loooovvvveeeee Jesus; but where the rubber meets the road they think that Jesus did all He could but that wasn't enough, that to finish the work that Jesus started is up to them.

To which I reply, "Balderdash!"

"Teleo" - FINISHED!!! John 19:30

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

that leads me to ask about the difference between Unconditional Eternal Salvation and Conditional Gospel Salvation. Aren’t these two different theological positions that divide?

 

[KenH]

that leads me to ask about the difference between Unconditional Eternal Salvation and Conditional Gospel Salvation. Aren’t these two different theological positions that divide?

You'll have to define the terms. I am not familiar with the comparison you are referring to.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You'll have to define the terms. I am not familiar with the comparison you are referring to.

Ok…how bout a compare and contrast?

1.Unconditional election (also called sovereign election[1] or unconditional grace) is a Calvinist doctrine relating to predestination that describes the actions and motives of God prior to his creation of the world, when he predestined some people to receive salvation, the elect, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation, for their transgressions of God's law as outlined in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. God made these choices according to his own purposes apart from any conditions or qualities related to those persons.[2]

2. As a Christian, are you aware that Salvation is Conditional upon your obedience towards understanding and doing what God’s Word tells you? These conditions accompany the promises made by God as contained in the New Covenant. If these conditions are not addressed in this life, it means there is no Salvation in the next life.

 

[KenH]

Ok…how bout a compare and contrast?

The first one I agree with except for the use of the word "left" as if something happened to a portion of people that God couldn't prevent. The reprobates are made just as the elect are also made.

The LORD hath made all things for himself: Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16:4

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:21

The second one is no gospel at all as it is not "good news". If even a sliver of salvation were to depend upon me meeting certain conditions, then I would be totally hopeless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The first one I agree with except for the use of the word "left" as if something happened to a portion of people that God couldn't prevent. The reprobates are made just as the elect are also made.

The LORD hath made all things for himself: Yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Proverbs 16:4

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:21

The second one is no gospel at all as it is not "good news". If even a sliver of salvation were to depend upon me meeting certain conditions, then I would be totally hopeless.

Well I must say that I’m impressed…I believe that if good men fail to stand firmly at this critical moment, then the Baptists as I’ve always known them will cease to exist. They will simply be amalgamated, like another face in the crowd, into the modern movement of ecumenical Calvinism, and this is the goal of modern religion in our time and good reason why the true churches are failing today. I will say no more… my wrist hurts and it’s difficult to type. Good evening!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Human behavior is not the gospel. Human behavior is not salvific. Salvation is ALL by Christ ALONE. The elect do nothing on their own to be saved and do nothing on their own to remain saved. Saving faith is all about looking to Christ as the Lord our Righteousness. Saving faith is not about what the elect do, think, or decide based on their own efforts or willpower. Faith is a gift from God. Repentance from dead works(looking to anyone or anything other than Christ and His finished work ALONE) is a gift from God.

In Sonny Hernandez's new book that I linked to above, he quotes from John MacArthur's book, The Gospel According to Jesus :

"Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing. It is inseparable from repentance, surrender, and a supernatural longing to obey."

As Sonny Hernandez wrote in rebuttal in his new book I linked to above:

"A Bible-believing Christian would say, “Repentance, surrender, and obedience are important truths, but they are not conditions of salvation that merit God’s favor. The gospel is about the righteousness of Christ, excluding works, or Christ plus nothing.”

So….with Lordship Salvation theory, there is a distinction to be made between Sonship and Discipleship—between being a child of God and being a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

In Sonny Hernandez's new book that I linked to above, he quotes from John MacArthur's book, The Gospel According to Jesus :

"Saving faith is more than just understanding the facts and mentally acquiescing. It is inseparable from repentance, surrender, and a supernatural longing to obey."

As Sonny Hernandez wrote in rebuttal in his new book I linked to above:

"A Bible-believing Christian would say, “Repentance, surrender, and obedience are important truths, but they are not conditions of salvation that merit God’s favor. The gospel is about the righteousness of Christ, excluding works, or Christ plus nothing.”

MacArthur's comments, I believe, aren't expressing all of what is necessary for salvation, I believe that his words are expressing what all encompasses saving faith i.e. the results of faith; ongoing repentance (aside from initial repentance), increased surrender, and a growing desire to obey. Repentance is absolutely a part of the gospel message and goes hand in hand with faith, the "cheap gracers" like to frame it as works, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Nor is MacArthur suggesting that they "merit" God's favor, he is talking about what accompanies saving faith, not what is required for salvation.

One has to remember that his book was in answer to the "free grace" teaching that denied that discipleship was a necessary result of the Holy Spirit's work after salvation, that repentance was not part of the gospel message, that men are damned to hell for not having eternal life not for being sinners, that one can be a practicing/impenitent murderer, adulterer, homosexual and still go to heaven, and in some extreme forms (such as Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and possibly Ryrie) the cross is unnecessary to someone being saved - all they need believe is that Jesus gives everlasting life. So the book focuses mostly on what it is that saving faith is, and what it is that is produced by saving faith.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Tell that to Samson. And he is in "Faith's Hall of Fame" in Hebrews chapter 11.

I have no problem with folks acting better, or "cleaning up their act", so to speak. God's elect should strive, as God ordains their actions and thoughts, to "do better".

The problem is when people preach/teach that UNLESS you have some great, measurable change in your actions and thoughts from what they were before regeneration by God, then maybe, just maybe, you really aren't saved. But even reprobates can "clean up their act" and stop being sexually immoral and doing illegal drugs and getting drunk, etc., but doing so is certainly no evidence that they have been regenerated.

I agree with everything you wrote, and hold to LS. I did struggle (and still do sometimes) with assurance when I look to my works and see the worthlessness of them, and sin that is still so ever present. I did mistake a lot of what people taught to be in the vein of "Yes Christians can sin, and do occasionally sin, but if you sin a lot then you probably aren't saved." And that most certainly IS legalism, and I've struggled with legalistic attitudes. I think that it is easy to try and correct Antinomianism by overcorrecting into legalism (or what could borderline legalism if one is unclear and sloppy in their statements like MacArthur sometimes is) . An equal measure of Grace needs to temper the teaching of holiness/fruitfulness as well - the apostle John wrote a book about that I think . And I do hate the statement that Christians "sin on occasion."

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Or Solomon. Or that entire generation, Moses and Aaron included, redeemed from the house of bondage that turned back in their hearts to Egypt.

Spot on.

Or Lot, Or Eli, or even Peter in his most miserable moments after his thrice denial of Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I agree with everything you wrote, and hold to LS. I did struggle (and still do sometimes) with assurance when I look to my works and see the worthlessness of them, and sin that is still so ever present. I did mistake a lot of what people taught to be in the vein of "Yes Christians can sin, and do occasionally sin, but if you sin a lot then you probably aren't saved." And that most certainly IS legalism, and I've struggled with legalistic attitudes. I think that it is easy to try and correct Antinomianism by overcorrecting into legalism (or what could borderline legalism if one is unclear and sloppy in their statements like MacArthur sometimes is) . An equal measure of Grace needs to temper the teaching of holiness/fruitfulness as well - the apostle John wrote a book about that I think . And I do hate the statement that Christians "sin on occasion."

You are correct here that it’s a balancing act but as a Baptist you work it thru via the scriptures

 

[kyredneck]

An equal measure of Grace needs to temper the teaching of holiness/fruitfulness as well - the apostle John wrote a book about that I think

Solomon broached it before John

16 Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
17 Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? Ecc 7

it’s a balancing act

Lol, 'a balanced Christian', .

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Solomon broached it before John

16 Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
17 Be not overmuch wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? Ecc 7



Lol, 'a balanced Christian', .

Rare these days!

 

[DaveXR650]

So….with Lordship Salvation theory, there is a distinction to be made between Sonship and Discipleship—between being a child of God and being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Lordship Salvation does not allow the separation. It goes back to the idea that you are saved by faith alone, but it is a faith that is never alone. The Catholics confused justification with sanctification but you can't forget that the Reformers did not intend that sanctification become optional. They completely denied the possibility. We know that because the Catholic theologians immediately jumped the Reformers with that argument and you can read the debate.

Somewhere, some Baptists started saying it was optional and that you could "accept Jesus" as your savior and then decide later if you wanted to have him as Lord. Can you not see how damaging this could be to people who followed this? But is this "free grace" theology a damnable heresy? I don't think so because there are plenty of people who believe this and live exemplary lives as Christians. Why? Because they were born again and now they want to do that. The controversy here is whether it is legitimate to examine your lifestyle and actions in an objective manner and with God's help see if you are in the faith. And are you allowed to read the practical sections of scripture describing fruit of the Spirit and holy living and deliberately strive to do it.
I say yes to that.

If you say no my question would be what would you tell someone who either lives in a way that denies the truth of their profession, or someone who lacks assurance of their salvation? The free grace Baptists are telling people to go back to the time they "made their decision" and rely on that. The LS guys don't think that is a good idea.

 

[KenH]

the Reformers did not intend that sanctification become optional.

Of course, sanctification is not optional. Neither are wisdom or righteousness or redemption. They are in Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.