"Lordship Salvation"

[DBowling]

Yet if you doesn't happen you don't have "genuine faith"; which in the practical life of a person, is no different than saying you have to do it to be saved.

It's extremely different.
There is a tremendous difference between
1. preceding and causing something
and
2. following and being the result of something

Your assertions are equating two very different logical concepts

it makes no sense to judge the salvation of a man on standards he doesn't have to meet in order to be saved in the first place.

Do I really need to whack another strawman?
Please give me the quote from our "representative link' where LS instructs us to judge the salvation of other believers.

In Christ

[DBowling]

So, what's the difference? I can't tell:

I think that the difference is obvious...
1. The subject of John MacArthur's comments is Christianity
2. The subject of the other comments is Mormonism

What Mormonism teaches is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
We are comparing LS with Scripture. That is what truly matters.

Similarities and differences between Christianity and Mormonism are interesting I'm sure, but they have no relevance to a comparison between LS and Scripture.

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

Yet if you doesn't happen you don't have "genuine faith"; which in the practical life of a person, is no different than saying you have to do it to be saved.

It's extremely different.
There is a tremendous difference between
1. preceding and causing something
and
2. following and being the result of something

Your assertions are equating two very different logical concepts

So if we don't see works, we're going to give him the gospel of grace until we see the works then if we don't see it, we'll give him the gospel of grace again, and again, and again, until we see works.

it makes no sense to judge the salvation of a man on standards he doesn't have to meet in order to be saved in the first place.

Do I really need to whack another strawman?
Please give me the quote from our "representative link' where LS instructs us to judge the salvation of other believers.
In Christ

http://www.gty.org/blog/B140212/fruit-inspection

"Martyn Lloyd-Jones wisely comments:

A Christian can generally be known by his very appearance."

BTW, you already tried to argue that the following list is not required for salvation, but evidence of it, yet you want to call my question a strawman when you already proved it true.

-Turn from sin.
-Persevere in the faith
-Live a changed life
-Stop a pattern of sin
-Obey God's commandments
-Love your brothers
-Abide in God's Word
-Keep God's Word
-Do good works
-Continue in the faith
-Include "all that pertains to life and godliness"
-Unconditional surrender
-Long to obey Him
-Evidence true faith
-Persevere in the faith

[SoCalExile]

So, what's the difference? I can't tell:

I think that the difference is obvious...
1. The subject of John MacArthur's comments is Christianity
2. The subject of the other comments is Mormonism

LOL.

[DBowling]

Yet if you doesn't happen you don't have "genuine faith"; which in the practical life of a person, is no different than saying you have to do it to be saved.

It's extremely different.
There is a tremendous difference between
1. preceding and causing something
and
2. following and being the result of something

Your assertions are equating two very different logical concepts

So if we don't see works, we're going to give him the gospel of grace until we see the works then if we don't see it, we'll give him the gospel of grace again, and again, and again, until we see works.

I'm not sure how your response either...
1. Acknowledges the difference between cause and effect.
or
2. Demonstrates why you think cause and effect are really the same thing.

EDIT...
Let's see if this helps out any...

Lets assume that A causes B
Let's also assume that B sequentially follows A

Given the two assumptions above...
Do you believe that it is factually accurate to assert that B really causes A?

Now repeat the exercise but make the following substitutions
A=salvation
B=works

That should clearly demonstrate the fundamental logical flaw of your presupposition that LS is works salvation.

it makes no sense to judge the salvation of a man on standards he doesn't have to meet in order to be saved in the first place.

Do I really need to whack another strawman?
Please give me the quote from our "representative link' where LS instructs us to judge the salvation of other believers.
In Christ

http://www.gty.org/blog/B140212/fruit-inspection

I take it that means you were unable to find a quote that supports your assertion at our agreed upon "representative link" that defines Lordship Salvation.
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation

BTW, you already tried to argue that the following list is not required for salvation, but evidence of it, yet you want to call my question a strawman when you already proved it true.

Oh... I don't think I am in any danger of validating any of your strawman misrepresentations...

In Christ

[RickD]

The problem is that A doesn't cause B.

A by itself, never causes B. A plus C causes B.

A=salvation
B=good works
C=living according to the spirit/continued trust in Christ.

One MUST cooperate with the indwelling Holy Spirit, in order for one to grow in Christ. There's nothing in scripture that says believers automatically, and necessarily do good works. The Holy Spirit is not like demon possession. He/HS leads a believer. But we must respond to the prompting of the HS.


It's really simple DBowling. Whenever something is a necessary result of something else, like in LS, works are a necessary result of salvation, then the negative is true as well.

LS-salvation always leads to good works.

Good works are evidence of salvation.

No good works means no salvation.

Therefore, works are necessary for salvation.

Lordship Salvation=back door works.

You can listen to MacArthur clammer on all day about works not being necessary for salvation. But when he says all "true" believers produce good works, then that means works are necessary.
I really don't see how you can't see this.

LS says works don't precede salvation. Salvation comes by trusting Christ. Then come good works.

Except in the case of someone who trusted Christ for salvation but didn't produce good works. According to LS, that means the person was never saved.

You say, "But wait! Salvation comes from trusting Christ!" Nope, sorry! LS says you didn't actually trust Christ , even though you did.

You say, "But I did trust Christ!"

Nope, sorry. No good works=no salvation. Doesn't matter if you trusted Christ. Good works are the sign one is saved. Not faith in Christ.


Or to compare it to marriage.

Man and woman get married. Man doesn't love his wife. He's selfish, and has no relationship with her. He goes off to work, and doesn't spend any time with his wife.

In reality, they have a bad marriage.

In LS they were never married.

[DBowling]

For the sake of argument

Let's presume all three of your your statements below...

LS-salvation always leads to good works.

Good works are evidence of salvation.

No good works means no salvation.

If we presume all three of the above, does that in any way shape or form imply that good works cause salvation?

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

DB, let me post something far more eloquent and technical than I have produced on the basic error of the logic, that I have picked up along the way:

Let us examine the logical implications of the Reformed maxim, "Faith alone saves,but the faith that saves is never alone." Which I believe is the argument... If this maxim is broken down to it's simplest logical terms, it could be summarized, "If faith, then works." Can it logically be faith alone that saves if the faith that saves is never alone?

Upon close inspection we can see that the syllogism cannot logically cohere. The argument says that works are in no way a condition of justification, in that God does not take them into account in justification. However they ARE a necessary result of justifying faith, and if they are absent it proves that the faith was not, in fact, justifying. To inquire into the validity of the logic, it is worthwhile to shift it away from metaphysical concepts like justification to a more concrete example. "If it rains,the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet. However, can we analyze whether or not it rained by looking at whether the streets are wet? Gordon Clark breaks down the logical analysis for us: "A little consideration will show that there are two corresponding fallacies. First, asserting the consequent; second, denying the antecedent. 1."x" implies "y"--"y" is true, therefore "x" is true. 2. "x" implies "y"--"x" is false, therefore "y" is false. Gordon Clark, Logic,pages 94-95.

The first fallacy is fairly easy to see in our analogy. Our analogy stated that if it rains, the streets will be wet, but the fallacy would be to say that if the streets are wet, then it has rained.There could be any number of reasons the streets are wet (i.e. a broken water main, street sweepers, watering trucks, etc.) that do not involve rain, so asserting the consequent is not allowed. "Denying the antecedent" is just as fallacious. "If it rains ("x"), the streets will be wet ("y"). It did not rain ("x" is false) therefore the streets are not wet ("y" is false)." We can see that, because there are many reasons the streets could be wet that do not involve rain, we cannot say that a lack of rain leads to streets that are not wet.

Can we apply this analysis of logic to the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that save is never alone?" The biblical texts give us several reasons to follow our logical analysis above. In which I will only analyze one. Jesus makes this startling statement in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord' did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Certainly these people demonstrated good works. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed many miracles in Jesus name. By the standard of the practical syllogism we would say that their works proved that they indeed had faith. The opinion of Jesus seems at odds with this line of reasoning, in that their works proved nothing of their internal state. Jesus makes this point again in Matthew 23:27-28. Finally, John's vision of the eternal fate of unregenerate humanity in Revelation 20:11-15 shows that the practical syllogism cannot make logical sense.

Logically, then, the practical syllogism has been shown to fail the basic tests of logic. Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it, which would change the gospel message into works righteousness. Using works as a gauge for faith commits either the logical error of "asserting the consequent" or "denying the antecedent." The biblical witness bears this out. Therefore, the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves,but the faith that saves is never alone" has been shown to be completely untenable from a logical perspective as well as a biblical one. This is from a book I highly recommend by Fred Chay,Ph.D. and John P.Correia, M.Div. called--The Faith that Saves.

[DBowling]

Oooops... look like my initial response came before you finished your post

The problem is that A doesn't cause B.

A by itself, never causes B. A plus C causes B.

A=salvation
B=good works
C=living according to the spirit/continued trust in Christ.

One MUST cooperate with the indwelling Holy Spirit, in order for one to grow in Christ. There's nothing in scripture that says believers automatically, and necessarily do good works. The Holy Spirit is not like demon possession. He/HS leads a believer. But we must respond to the prompting of the HS.

We obviously disagree regarding some aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification... and that's fine... but regardless of which one of us is correct that doesn't change the basic logic fallacy that if salvation causes works, then by implication works must therefore cause salvation.

It's really simple DBowling. Whenever something is a necessary result of something else, like in LS, works are a necessary result of salvation, then the negative is true as well.

no, no, no, no, no... that's simply logically inaccurate

the negative of a negative may be equal to a positive

but the straight negative of something is the opposite... not the same!

If A causes B and B sequentially follows A.
Then by definition B cannot cause A

You can listen to MacArthur clammer on all day about works not being necessary for salvation. But when he says all "true" believers produce good works, then that means works are necessary.
I really don't see how you can't see this.

Basically because the conclusion you draw about LS doesn't logically flow from the statements that LS makes about itself.

EDIT...
in rereading this I'd like to focus on a point you make above
Do you believe the two statements mean the same thing?
a. B is a necessary result of A
b. B causes A

LS says works don't precede salvation. Salvation comes by trusting Christ. Then come good works.

True

Except in the case of someone who trusted Christ for salvation but didn't produce good works. According to LS, that means the person was never saved.

no... there is no "except in the case of" in LS
According to LS that person never trusted in Christ in the first place.

Nope, sorry. No good works=no salvation. Doesn't matter if you trusted Christ. Good works are the sign one is saved. Not faith in Christ.

That may be your position but it is not the position of LS.

LS explicitly states that it definitely does matter if you trusted in Christ.
According to LS, If a person trusts in Christ they are saved... no exceptions

In Christ

[SoCalExile]

The problem is that A doesn't cause B.

A by itself, never causes B. A plus C causes B.

A=salvation
B=good works
C=living according to the spirit/continued trust in Christ.

One MUST cooperate with the indwelling Holy Spirit, in order for one to grow in Christ. There's nothing in scripture that says believers automatically, and necessarily do good works. The Holy Spirit is not like demon possession. He/HS leads a believer. But we must respond to the prompting of the HS.


It's really simple DBowling. Whenever something is a necessary result of something else, like in LS, works are a necessary result of salvation, then the negative is true as well.

LS-salvation always leads to good works.

Good works are evidence of salvation.

No good works means no salvation.

Therefore, works are necessary for salvation.

Lordship Salvation=back door works.

You can listen to MacArthur clammer on all day about works not being necessary for salvation. But when he says all "true" believers produce good works, then that means works are necessary.
I really don't see how you can't see this.

LS says works don't precede salvation. Salvation comes by trusting Christ. Then come good works.

Except in the case of someone who trusted Christ for salvation but didn't produce good works. According to LS, that means the person was never saved.

You say, "But wait! Salvation comes from trusting Christ!" Nope, sorry! LS says you didn't actually trust Christ , even though you did.

You say, "But I did trust Christ!"

Nope, sorry. No good works=no salvation. Doesn't matter if you trusted Christ. Good works are the sign one is saved. Not faith in Christ.


Or to compare it to marriage.

Man and woman get married. Man doesn't love his wife. He's selfish, and has no relationship with her. He goes off to work, and doesn't spend any time with his wife.

In reality, they have a bad marriage.

In LS they were never married.

I'm totally lifting this point for future discussions elsewhere. Unless you object.

[RickD]

The problem is that A doesn't cause B.

A by itself, never causes B. A plus C causes B.

A=salvation
B=good works
C=living according to the spirit/continued trust in Christ.

One MUST cooperate with the indwelling Holy Spirit, in order for one to grow in Christ. There's nothing in scripture that says believers automatically, and necessarily do good works. The Holy Spirit is not like demon possession. He/HS leads a believer. But we must respond to the prompting of the HS.


It's really simple DBowling. Whenever something is a necessary result of something else, like in LS, works are a necessary result of salvation, then the negative is true as well.

LS-salvation always leads to good works.

Good works are evidence of salvation.

No good works means no salvation.

Therefore, works are necessary for salvation.

Lordship Salvation=back door works.

You can listen to MacArthur clammer on all day about works not being necessary for salvation. But when he says all "true" believers produce good works, then that means works are necessary.
I really don't see how you can't see this.

LS says works don't precede salvation. Salvation comes by trusting Christ. Then come good works.

Except in the case of someone who trusted Christ for salvation but didn't produce good works. According to LS, that means the person was never saved.

You say, "But wait! Salvation comes from trusting Christ!" Nope, sorry! LS says you didn't actually trust Christ , even though you did.

You say, "But I did trust Christ!"

Nope, sorry. No good works=no salvation. Doesn't matter if you trusted Christ. Good works are the sign one is saved. Not faith in Christ.


Or to compare it to marriage.

Man and woman get married. Man doesn't love his wife. He's selfish, and has no relationship with her. He goes off to work, and doesn't spend any time with his wife.

In reality, they have a bad marriage.

In LS they were never married.

I'm totally lifting this point for future discussions elsewhere. Unless you object.

Go right ahead. I'm just glad I said something that actually makes sense.

[SoCalExile]

Check this out, from John Piper:

For Paul, "justification by works" (which he rejects) means "gaining right standing with God by the merit of works." For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love."

I love how labeling it "works of love" (which is rather creepy) is supposed to soften the fact that he's talking about works for salvation.

I watch that guy preach and I get creeped out.

[RickD]

DBowling wrote:
We obviously disagree regarding some aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification... and that's fine... but regardless of which one of us is correct that doesn't change the basic logic fallacy that if salvation causes works, then by implication works must therefore cause salvation.

I'm not saying that in LS, works cause salvation.
It was said best, in the last paragraph of SoCal's post:

Logically, then, the practical syllogism has been shown to fail the basic tests of logic. Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it, which would change the gospel message into works righteousness. Using works as a gauge for faith commits either the logical error of "asserting the consequent" or "denying the antecedent." The biblical witness bears this out. Therefore, the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves,but the faith that saves is never alone" has been shown to be completely untenable from a logical perspective as well as a biblical one. This is from a book I highly recommend by Fred Chay,Ph.D. and John P.Correia, M.Div. called--The Faith that Saves.

DBowling wrote:
According to LS, If a person trusts in Christ they are saved... no exceptions

Of course there's an exception. And it's lack of works. Of course no LS adherent would actually come right out and say that, because that would be admitting a works based salvation. Instead of saying that, they just say the person was never saved/never trusted Christ, if he didn't produce good works.

Again, look at my marriage example:

Man and woman get married. Man doesn't love his wife. He's selfish, and has no relationship with her. He goes off to work, and doesn't spend any time with his wife.

In reality, they have a bad marriage.

In LS they were never married.

[DBowling]

DB, let me post something far more eloquent and technical than I have produced on the basic error of the logic, that I have picked up along the way:

Let us examine the logical implications of the Reformed maxim, "Faith alone saves,but the faith that saves is never alone." Which I believe is the argument... If this maxim is broken down to it's simplest logical terms, it could be summarized, "If faith, then works." Can it logically be faith alone that saves if the faith that saves is never alone?

Upon close inspection we can see that the syllogism cannot logically cohere. The argument says that works are in no way a condition of justification, in that God does not take them into account in justification. However they ARE a necessary result of justifying faith, and if they are absent it proves that the faith was not, in fact, justifying. To inquire into the validity of the logic, it is worthwhile to shift it away from metaphysical concepts like justification to a more concrete example. "If it rains,the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet. However, can we analyze whether or not it rained by looking at whether the streets are wet? Gordon Clark breaks down the logical analysis for us: "A little consideration will show that there are two corresponding fallacies. First, asserting the consequent; second, denying the antecedent. 1."x" implies "y"--"y" is true, therefore "x" is true. 2. "x" implies "y"--"x" is false, therefore "y" is false. Gordon Clark, Logic,pages 94-95.

The first fallacy is fairly easy to see in our analogy. Our analogy stated that if it rains, the streets will be wet, but the fallacy would be to say that if the streets are wet, then it has rained.There could be any number of reasons the streets are wet (i.e. a broken water main, street sweepers, watering trucks, etc.) that do not involve rain, so asserting the consequent is not allowed. "Denying the antecedent" is just as fallacious. "If it rains ("x"), the streets will be wet ("y"). It did not rain ("x" is false) therefore the streets are not wet ("y" is false)." We can see that, because there are many reasons the streets could be wet that do not involve rain, we cannot say that a lack of rain leads to streets that are not wet.

Can we apply this analysis of logic to the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves, but the faith that save is never alone?" The biblical texts give us several reasons to follow our logical analysis above. In which I will only analyze one. Jesus makes this startling statement in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord' did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." Certainly these people demonstrated good works. They prophesied, cast out demons, and performed many miracles in Jesus name. By the standard of the practical syllogism we would say that their works proved that they indeed had faith. The opinion of Jesus seems at odds with this line of reasoning, in that their works proved nothing of their internal state. Jesus makes this point again in Matthew 23:27-28. Finally, John's vision of the eternal fate of unregenerate humanity in Revelation 20:11-15 shows that the practical syllogism cannot make logical sense.

Logically, then, the practical syllogism has been shown to fail the basic tests of logic. Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it, which would change the gospel message into works righteousness. Using works as a gauge for faith commits either the logical error of "asserting the consequent" or "denying the antecedent." The biblical witness bears this out. Therefore, the practical syllogism, "Faith alone saves,but the faith that saves is never alone" has been shown to be completely untenable from a logical perspective as well as a biblical one. This is from a book I highly recommend by Fred Chay,Ph.D. and John P.Correia, M.Div. called--The Faith that Saves.

Interesting article...
I think the logic is flawed, but it was an interesting read nontheless...

Now lets look at how the example from your quote logically relates to LS

"If it rains,the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet. However, can we analyze whether or not it rained by looking at whether the streets are wet?

The LS equivalent is
"If a person is saved, that person will exhibit good works

There are some things we can know and things we can't know from this example.
We can know these things
a) If the street isn't wet then that is an indicator that it did not rain
(the corresponding LS position is... if there are no works then that is an indicator that salvation never occurred)
b) Rain causes streets to get wet. Wet streets do not cause it to rain.
(the corresponding LS position is... salvation leads to good works. Works do not lead to salvation.)

As the article points out there are some things we can't know.
a) if we see wet streets we cannot know for sure whether or not rain caused the streets to get wet
(the corresponding LS position is... if we witness a person performing works we cannot be sure whether or not those works were caused by salvation... that is the Matthew 7 example that has been discussed in this thread)

So in summary, the rain causing the street to get wet example that you posted demonstrates the logical fallacy in claiming...
If works are a necessary result of salvation then works somehow cause or contribute to salvation.

Using the wet street example that is like saying
If wet streets are a necessary result of rain then wet streets somehow cause or contribute to rain.
Which is obviously an inaccurate conclusion.

In Christ

[Jac3510]

I thought I'd told this joke before here somewhere before, but I couldn't find it--so here it is, slightly modified, to emphasize relevance:

• John and Jacob were both lifetime, committed Lordship Salvationists. But beyond that, they disagreed on pretty much everything else pertaining to the gospel. John was a Calvinist, and Jacob was an Arminian. Both died and, sadly, found themselves in Hell.One day, while John was taking a stroll, he ran into Jacob sitting on a street corner.
  
  "Jacob, my old friend! I'm so sad to see you here!" he shouted.
  "John, yes, I know. It is a terrible thing," he replied.
  John said, "Tell me, brother. I don't understand. You were so afraid of losing your salvation, you worked very hard every day to keep it. As much as we disagreed on our theology, I always had to admit that you had a living faith . . . no dead faith for you! So what happened? Clearly you were not a part of the elect. So are you finally ready to admit your error?"
  "Oh, good Lord, of course not," Jacob said. "No, the sad fact is that, right before I died, I was in deep anguish and pain. In that moment, I took Job's wife up on her offer. I cursed God and died, and for that, I lost my salvation. So sadly, I was right. But what about you? You clearly had true faith, something I never denied. But you said you could never lose your salvation. So tell me old friend, what happened to you?"
  "I, like you, took Job's wife up on her offer," John responded, clearly with some embarrassment.
  "Aha! So I was right! You can and did lose your salvation," Jacob gloated.
  "Pshh. Nothing of the sort," John sniffed. "My apostasy just proved I was never saved to begin with!"

Well, I hope you all can see the relevance . . .