What if brother Paul Washer were to preach in your church?

[Yeshua1]

Well it's a secondary issue. I believe LS is correct but I am not going to say that those that teach Free Grace are lost.

Unlike Mr Washer, who seems to think they are!

 

[JamesL]

Are those of us holding to reformed theology saved and in the body of Christ?

You keep trying to throw a blanket over "us" when you clearly disagree with some of those same "us"

Here's a firm litmus test....do you have your eternal hope fixed upon Christ? His death, burial and resurrection?

I'll tell you now, there are some in "your" camp who give me great pause, and Washer is one.

He "seems" to have his hope fixed upon a doctrinal novelty and his own works.

He "seems" to have a view of faith very similar to what can be found in John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus"

One which says faith without works is "mere mental assent to facts"....huh?

So you take a few facts, add a little action, and that's supposedly "real" faith ??

There are MANY who have this facts+works view of faith, and I can assure you I will never be on board with extending the hand of fellowship to someone who espouses that kind heretical, man centered works doctrine

Is that you? I don't know because all you do is ask questions and talk in circles.

There are plenty of Reformed believers who have their hope fixed firmly in Christ Himself. But I don't think all do.

I've said before...Lordship proponents have either never been saved, or they have fallen from grace after becoming saved. If they ever were saved, they still are. Unconditionally.

But they simply do not display any semblance of biblical faith.

 

[InTheLight]

The evidence … the raw-bone, biblical evidence that there was one time in your life that you repented unto salvation, is that you continue repenting until today and continue growing in repentance. ~Paul Washer

This idea of Washer's that one must continually repent and continue to grow in repentance to prove you are saved is a misunderstanding of the word "repent" and a works based salvation.

 

[Yeshua1]

You keep trying to throw a blanket over "us" when you clearly disagree with some of those same "us"

Here's a firm litmus test....do you have your eternal hope fixed upon Christ? His death, burial and resurrection?

I'll tell you now, there are some in "your" camp who give me great pause, and Washer is one.

He "seems" to have his hope fixed upon a doctrinal novelty and his own works.

He "seems" to have a view of faith very similar to what can be found in John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus"

One which says faith without works is "mere mental assent to facts"....huh?

So you take a few facts, add a little action, and that's supposedly "real" faith ??

There are MANY who have this facts+works view of faith, and I can assure you I will never be on board with extending the hand of fellowship to someone who espouses that kind heretical, man centered works doctrine

Is that you? I don't know because all you do is ask questions and talk in circles.

There are plenty of Reformed believers who have their hope fixed firmly in Christ Himself. But I don't think all do.

I've said before...Lordship proponents have either never been saved, or they have fallen from grace after becoming saved. If they ever were saved, they still are. Unconditionally.

But they simply do not display any semblance of biblical faith.

I holdt the real Gospel pf Paul and te other Apostles, and would say tha nealy all Reformed would hold wit th same thing!

Will agree with you aso that at tims tose really stressing LS do seem to be getting pretty close to grace and works meriting salvation...

 

[Yeshua1]

The evidence … the raw-bone, biblical evidence that there was one time in your life that you repented unto salvation, is that you continue repenting until today and continue growing in repentance. ~Paul Washer

This idea of Washer's that one must continually repent and continue to grow in repentance to prove you are saved is a misunderstanding of the word "repent" and a works based salvation.

Think he basic problem is that those hoildingit as he and Dr Mac d are confusing justification with sauctification...

 

[JamesL]

Think he basic problem is that those hoildingit as he and Dr Mac d are confusing justification with sauctification...

You can soften it that way if you want, but the bottom line is that they include works into the equation of our eternal destiny....

No works, no heaven....which is anti-gospel, anti-cross and anti-Christ

 

[JamesL]

I holdt the real Gospel pf Paul and te other Apostles, and would say tha nealy all Reformed would hold wit th same thing!

Will agree with you aso that at tims tose really stressing LS do seem to be getting pretty close to grace and works meriting salvation...

In reality, any Reformed teaching that is NOT LS, is really not being faithful to their beginnings.....most today, in fact.

The catechisms and confessions stress not only inevitably of good works, but that we find hope in them...

 

[Yeshua1]

In reality, any Reformed teaching that is NOT LS, is really not being faithful to their beginnings.....most today, in fact.

The catechisms and confessions stress not only inevitably of good works, but that we find hope in them...

The iinteresting thing on this is that Calvin and most of the Reformers agreed that our confidence in salvation was looking towards Christ and the Croos, assurance by faith alone!

later on, those that developed "calvinism" proper yended to blur these distinctions!

 

[Yeshua1]

You can soften it that way if you want, but the bottom line is that they include works into the equation of our eternal destiny....

No works, no heaven....which is anti-gospel, anti-cross and anti-Christ

They only include good works in the sense of we have to have a life that reflects some degree that we have been saved... They would be using James for this, I just happen to prefer Paul; on this!

 

[JamesL]

They only include good works in the sense of we have to have a life that reflects some degree that we have been saved... They would be using James for this, I just happen to prefer Paul; on this!

Right...
They take James out of context and create a false gospel that's not really any different from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Arminian, etc.

It's not faith alone, because they teach that if a man has faith alone, he's fooling himself and isn't actually saved

 

[JonC]

You can soften it that way if you want, but the bottom line is that they include works into the equation of our eternal destiny....

No works, no heaven....which is anti-gospel, anti-cross and anti-Christ

Either that or they are saying that salvation is not merely a future event but also a present reality.

 

[InTheLight]

Either that or they are saying that salvation is not merely a future event but also a present reality.

Except that according to Calvinists we were elected before the foundation of the world, so salvation is most definitely an event that happened in eternity past.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I holdt the real Gospel pf Paul and te other Apostles, and would say tha nealy all Reformed would hold wit th same thing!

Will agree with you aso that at tims tose really stressing LS do seem to be getting pretty close to grace and works meriting salvation...

Not being snarky, but hoping someone bought you a spell check for Christmas.

 

[InTheLight]

Not being snarky, but hoping someone bought you a spell check for Christmas.

And please yank off the exclamation point key!

 

[JonC]

Except that according to Calvinists we were elected before the foundation of the world, so salvation is most definitely an event that happened in eternity past.

I see. So what you are saying is that the hope of a Calvinist does not look forward to the Resurrection in Christ but instead looks eternally back to the choosing of the Father. I did not realize people believed Calvinists equate election with salvation itself, and I agree that view is problematic as it leaves two choices - people are either saved and elected before they exist or after they are born (two unbiblical conclusions). Is this like the "Serpent Seed" theory?

 

[InTheLight]

I see. So what you are saying is that the hope of a Calvinist does not look forward to the Resurrection in Christ but instead looks eternally back to the choosing of the Father. I did not realize people believed Calvinists equate election with salvation itself, and I agree that view is problematic as it leaves two choices - people are either saved and elected before they exist or after they are born (two unbiblical conclusions). Is this like the "Serpent Seed" theory?

I'm not going to comment on what Calvinists may or may not believe as there are so many variations it's impossible to keep up.

I do know that continual repentance to prove your salvation, as Washer preaches, is not Biblical.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The evidence … the raw-bone, biblical evidence that there was one time in your life that you repented unto salvation, is that you continue repenting until today and continue growing in repentance. ~Paul Washer

This idea of Washer's that one must continually repent and continue to grow in repentance to prove you are saved is a misunderstanding of the word "repent" and a works based salvation.

The very first article of the very first document of the Reformation:
When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, 'Repent,' He meant that the entire life of believers should be a life of repentance. [Martin Luther, thesis No.1 of the 95 Theses]

Or as Paul puts it, 'I .......declared.....through out all Judea and to the Gentiles that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance' (Acts 26:19-20). It is not to make oneself saved, but because one is saved. It is the outworking of the New Birth, the fruit of the Spirit (Ephesians 2:10). The idea that one is saved by a single moment of repentance and can then live like the devil and still make it into heaven comes straight from the pit of hell.

 

[JonC]

I'm not going to comment on what Calvinists may or may not believe as there are so many variations it's impossible to keep up.

But you already did. You equated their view of election occurring before the foundation of the world with salvation as an event that happened in eternity past. I am aware of a few groups that believe something similar, but I don't know of any Calvinists who make the conclusion you have offered. I thought maybe you were referring to Daniel Parker's view of the two seeds.

I do know that continual repentance to prove your salvation, as Washer preaches, is not Biblical.

While I do believe that the Christian lives a life of repentance, I also do not see the purpose of repentance to be a proof of salvation. I guess the exception may be that obedience to Christ is linked to loving Christ. I've listened to a few of Washer sermons, but I didn't like his style of preaching - it's difficult for me to hear what is being said when the preacher is shouting (I can't concentrate when there is much commotion, and this seems to be getting worse as I get older...that's why I absolutely hate going to the mall).

 

[InTheLight]

But you already did. You equated their view of election occurring before the foundation of the world with salvation as an event that happened in eternity past. I am aware of a few groups that believe something similar, but I don't know of any Calvinists who make the conclusion you have offered. I thought maybe you were referring to Daniel Parker's view of the two seeds.

I don't want to get too far off topic, but are there Calvinists that believe you can be elected and not saved?

 

[JonC]

I don't want to get too far off topic, but are there Calvinists that believe you can be elected and not saved?

I don't think so. Typically most seem to believe that "the Elect" refers to the saved.