Page 14 of 24
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:06 pm
by DBowling
RickD wrote:
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.
In your paradigm there may be exceptions... but that is your paradigm, not the LS paradigm.
In the LS paradigm there are no exceptions.
The assertion of works salvation does not proceed from the LS paradigm and LS assertions. Those are internally consistent and do not in any way imply works salvation.
However, when you summarily dismiss the LS paradigm, and impose your paradigm on LS assertions then yes your paradigm and the LS assertions will come into conflict.
In Christ
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:18 pm
by SoCalExile
DBowling wrote:
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.)
And here you are changing the logic of water to meet the lack of logic in LS.
If the streets aren't wet, it means they aren't wet, not that it didn't rain. Try that logic down in Florida during summer.
Rain is not the only cause of wet streets, in denying this your ignoring other possibilities.
And yet we still have the examples in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 23:27-28 that deny the LS premise.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 4:41 pm
by DBowling
SoCalExile wrote:DBowling wrote:
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.)
And here you are changing the logic of water to meet the lack of logic in LS.
If the streets aren't wet, it means they aren't wet, not that it didn't rain. Try that logic down in Florida during summer.
touche
I'll give you that one...
But in fairness it was your article that established the parameters for the wet street analogy not me
"If it rains,the streets will be wet." Now certainly we can assert that if it rains, the streets will be wet.
How about...
If the streets were never wet that is an indicator that it didn't rain.
Does that work for your Florida scenario?
Rain is not the only cause of wet streets, in denying this your ignoring other possibilities.
And yet we still have the examples in Matthew 7:21-23 and Matthew 23:27-28 that deny the LS premise.
This is another example where sometimes I don't think you even bother to read what I say before you respond
In my post I did refer to the fact that rain is not the only possible cause of wet streets, and I even referred to the Matthew 7 example.
So yes we are in full agreement there.
But even if we modify your analogy to account for the Florida exception that still doesn't alter the logical outcome of the wet street analogy.
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
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:08 pm
by DBowling
RickD wrote: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.
I already addressed this logical problem in my wet street example, but lets look at it again
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it
Do you agree with the following two statements?
1. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition of B
2. Using the wet street example
If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition of rain
In Christ
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:51 pm
by RickD
DBowling wrote:RickD wrote: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.
I already addressed this logical problem in my wet street example, but lets look at it again
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it
Do you agree with the following two statements?
1. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition of B
2. Using the wet street example
If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition of rain
In Christ
Sure. As written, I agree with both.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:01 pm
by RickD
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 6:26 pm
by DBowling
Interesting article... I'm definitely going to have to spend some time on it.
Thanks
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:49 pm
by DBowling
DBowling wrote:
Interesting article... I'm definitely going to have to spend some time on it.
Still working on it... but here are some initial comments.
As our discussion has demonstrated I have been unable to accept what I consider to be the logical fallacy of equating the terms "necessary result" and "condition of"...
Which in turn makes it impossible for me to accept following premise.
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it.
On this particular point Jeremy Meyers actually agrees with my position.
(page 6)
If the Free Grace statement were simply that there is no difference between a necessary result and a condition, MacArthur would have been right
Meyers phrases the situation this way
(page 5)
Free Grace proponents have never (to my knowledge) said that Perseverance theologians make works necessary for justification, but rather that that they make works necessary for glorification, for eternal salvation, for entrance into heaven.
Notice that Meyers denies that LS makes works necessary for justification, rather he says that LS makes work necessary for glorification/entrance into heaven.
This relieves the sequential logical fallacy that was driving me nuts with the assertion that works was a condition for justification.
So Meyers would rejects the logic behind the following assertion...
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it.
And suggests the following
(page 7)
Free Grace teachers and writers should phrase any future criticism of Perseverance theology in the following way: There is logically no difference between a necessary result of faith for which we are responsible and a condition for
glorification.
So if we follow the position of Meyers
- LS does not make works a condition for faith
- LS does not make works a condition for justification
- LS does not make works a condition for being born again
His concern is that he feels that LS makes works a condition for glorification/entrance into heaven.
Of course I would disagree with that conclusion since it is an inference from works being the necessary result of salvation, but at least it doesn't have the sequential and logical problems that have been discussed at length in this thread.
In Christ
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:41 pm
by SoCalExile
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:49 am
by DBowling
RickD wrote:
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it
Do you agree with the following two statements?
1. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition of B
2. Using the wet street example
If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition of rain
Sure. As written, I agree with both.
After reading your article another semantic distinction came to mind, and I would be interested in your position.
Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
1. "Condition of" and "Condition for" mean the same thing
2. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition
for B
3. If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition
for rain
4. making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition
for it
And a new one based on your article
5. making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition
for glorification
Just trying to make sure I understand your position.
Thanks
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:34 am
by SoCalExile
http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=28
GraceNotes - no. 28
Can Good Works Prove Salvation? - by Dr. Charlie Bing
There is every reason to think that those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and are consequently born into God's family will experience a changed life to some degree. Some would say that this changed life is evidenced by good works which proves they are saved. If that is true, then the converse is true: if there are no good works, then there is no salvation. In this view, good works (sometimes called "fruit" or evidence of a changed life) prove or disprove one's eternal salvation.
Some passages are used to contend that works can prove or disprove one's eternal salvation. Probably the most common are James 2:14-26, John 15:6, and Matthew 7:15-20. But James is writing to Christians about the usefulness of their faith, not its genuineness. Likewise, in John 15:6 Jesus is talking about fruitless believers and compares them to branches that are burned, in other words, not of much use. Matthew 7:15-20 warns against false prophets (not believers in general) who can be evaluated on the basis of their evil deeds or heretical teaching (not an absence of works in general).
There is no passage of Scripture that claims works can prove salvation. In fact, there are many problems with trying to use works to prove salvation, or the lack of works to disprove salvation.
Good works can characterize non-Christians. Works in and of themselves can not prove that anyone is eternally saved because those who have not believed in Christ will often do good things. In fact, good deeds are essential to many non-Christian religions. Sometimes the outward morality of non-Christians exceeds that of established Christians. In Matthew 7:21-23 we see the possibility of those who do not know Christ doing great works, but their works are useless in demonstrating their salvation; they are not saved.
Good works can be hard to define. Though we might define a good work as something done by a Christian through the Spirit for the Lord, how can we always know when that is true? It is hard to imagine even a single day when a Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) would not do something good like go to work to provide for a family, hold a door for someone, or brake for a squirrel. How can we know when these things are done through the Spirit and for the Lord, especially if they can be done by non-Christians?
Good works are relative. While a person's behavior may seem excessive, it may actually demonstrate great progress in that person's Christian growth. A man slips with a curse word that startles other believers, but those believers do not know that before his conversion, curse words flowed freely. The amount of fruit must be considered in the context of one's total past life, a difficult thing to do. It may also be relative to the amount of sin in one's present life. For example, if a Christian were to commit adultery, we might focus our thinking on that sin so that we ignore the other good things he is doing.
Good works can be passive in nature. The fruit of salvation is not always what we do, but often what we do not do. As a Christian, one may no longer get drunk or may refrain from yelling at an inconsiderate motorist. This fruit of the Spirit, self-control, may not be detected by others because of its passive nature.
Good works can be unseen. In Matthew 6:1-6 Jesus told his followers to give and pray in secret rather than publicly. A person who never prays in a group may breathe a prayer while driving and no one will ever know. Another may not attend church, but give regularly to a Christian charity. These are works that go unobserved by others.
Good works can be deceptive. Since we can not know one's motives, a seeming good work could be done for the wrong reason. A person might give money to a church to impress others. Another might volunteer to work with church children only to wait for an opportunity to sexually abuse them. These are not actually good works at all! Motives are difficult to discern, even for the doer, but God knows each person's heart (1 Cor. 4:3-5)
Good works can be inconsistent. The Bible allows the possibility of believers who begin well, but fall away from their walk with the Lord or fall into sin (1 Cor. 11:30; 2 Tim. 4:10; James 5:19-20). If a Christian shows the evidence of a changed life, but later falls away, at what point in their life do we examine them to prove or disprove their salvation? If there can be lapses in good works, how long does the lapse continue before one is judged as never saved?
Conclusion
Nowhere does the Bible teach that fruit or good works can prove one's eternal salvation. Since the fruit of good works is not easily discerned or quantified, it can not be reliable proof of salvation. The subjective nature of measuring one's fruit creates the impossibility of knowing objectively whether someone is saved. The amount of fruit necessary to please one Christian "fruit inspector" may not please the next "fruit inspector." As Christians, we are created in Jesus Christ to do good works (Eph. 2:10) and expected to do good works (1 Tim. 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; Heb. 10:24), but good works are never attached to the condition for salvation, which is faith alone in Christ alone (Rom. 4:4-5). While good works can be corroborating evidence for one's faith in Christ, they are not sufficient to prove or disprove it. Only faith in God's promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ guarantees and proves our salvation.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:21 am
by RickD
DBowling wrote:RickD wrote:
Upon close inspection we can see that making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition of it
Do you agree with the following two statements?
1. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition of B
2. Using the wet street example
If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition of rain
Sure. As written, I agree with both.
After reading your article another semantic distinction came to mind, and I would be interested in your position.
Which of these statements do you agree with and which do you disagree with?
1. "Condition of" and "Condition for" mean the same thing
2. If A is a necessary result of B then A is a condition
for B
3. If wet streets are necessary result of rain then wet streets are a condition
for rain
4. making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition
for it
And a new one based on your article
5. making works a "necessary result" of justification is no different than making them a condition
for glorification
Just trying to make sure I understand your position.
Thanks
DBowling,
Before I address your statements, I want to be able to fully understand the message in the link I posted. I read it over a couple of times, and I'm still working through it.
Edit: after reading the article, it hasn't changed what I believe, but it's making me think about how I can word it better. I'm trying not to be confusing.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:32 am
by Philip
As salvation actually WORKS - as God initiates, oversees and insures the process, as one declares a simple faith of submitting and committing to Jesus, through faith, I can guarantee that it is not some big, complicated theological understanding that all this back and forth, though sincere and intensely thought out, seems to implie might be necessary. Salvation and what it requires, from man, is VERY simple. And it I were a non-Christian reading all of this slicing and dicing of words and nuances of meaning, I would conclude 1) it is very hard to understand and 2) likely only very theologically savvy people could ever be saved. I'm always suspicious whenever I see the simple, grand works of God, requiring endless technical debate and study, so as to understand it. Remember, a CHILD or an illiterate peasant can know enough to be saved - which means it HAS to be very simple. And so it is.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:50 pm
by Jac3510
There's a confusion here between "condition" and "precondition." Most people use the former in the sense of the latter, which I think is what's going on here. LS does not make works a precondition of salvation. It certainly makes them a condition of salvation (see the joke I told above). That's evident in the fact that the LS claims "where there are no works, there is no salvation."
So stated, that's just a back-loaded gospel. Strictly, a back-loaded gospel is not an aberrant Christianity as it is not a false gospel. The reason is that, in a back-loaded gospel, the person believes the gospel (that if they trust Christ, they are saved), but then they go on from there to make other mistakes. In this case, the mistake they are making is pneumatological. They want to suggest that the Holy Spirit has a ministry that He does not, namely, the necessary bringing about of good works in the life of the believer. So they're wrong on that point. The HS has no such ministry. And yet, just because the LS is wrong on that, it doesn't follow that they do not believe the gospel. What it does mean, though, is that they can have no assurance, or that their assurance can only be of the moral sort (and so they are Roman Catholic in their thinking here). Now, ultimately, the inability to have absolute assurance means that you don't believe the gospel at all, because the gospel, by nature, grants absolute assurance. You can't say that you believe Jesus has saved you and not believe that you are saved. But to press slightly further, that's less of an issue with the gospel as it is with human psychology. We have this amazing ability to affirm two contradictory things at the same time. So DB can say he believes the gospel, but then deny (when pressed) that he knows he's saved (absolutely--he certainly has moral assurance). Now, those two statements are logically contradictory, which means he is denying the gospel in practice. But none of that means that the gospel itself, in and of itself, is compromised.
That changes, though, when the LS is of the MacArthur camp. He doesn't just backload the gospel with conditions but in fact frontloads the gospel with preconditions. For them, "faith" doesn't mean "believe" or "trust." "Faith" means "to commit to" or "to pledge obedience to." In this case, they are requiring in addition to belief other conditions: a pledge/promise of obedience. For that reason, I don't actually think "lordship salvation" is a good term. We ought to be calling it "Commitment Salvation" or "I-Promise Salvation." At this point, I say that this is aberrant. Such a view is literally a false gospel. People who believe it (and who have never believed the gospel of Jesus) will actually go to Hell, not because of any pneumatological mistake they are making (as the backloaders do) but rather because of a soteriological mistake they make. Put simply, Jesus says, "Everyone who believes has everlasting life," and they say, "No, Jesus, that's not true. Some believes don't have everlasting life. Haven't you read James 2? No, the fact is, only people who believe and also meet the further condition of pledging their obedience have everlasting life." It is the addition of the precondition of commitment to obedience (and so the term "lordship") that makes this a false gospel.
Note that I am not at all saying that the presence or lack thereof of works makes this a false gospel. Here, they're just making the same mistake backloaders do. It amounts to requiring a promise to do works on the front end that makes it a false gospel. When you throw the thief on the cross at them, they'll say that if he had lived, he would have done good works: the backloaders because his faith would have so resulted in good works, and the frontloaders because he made a promise to do them and that is what made it true faith, and that is why the HS would bring them about. Again, for both positions, the presence of works is a condition of salvation. But only for the frontloader is the the promise of obedience a precondition of salvation. Therefore, frontloading LSers are literally not Christian, anymore than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are. They are heretics, plain and simple. Backloaders are dangerous, but they aren't aberrant. They still have the basics of the gospel correct.
I'm not pronouncing on DB as to which camp he is. I'll let him say for himself.
Re: "Lordship Salvation"
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:50 pm
by DBowling
Philip wrote:As salvation actually WORKS - as God initiates, oversees and insures the process, as one declares a simple faith of submitting and committing to Jesus, through faith, I can guarantee that it is not some big, complicated theological understanding that all this back and forth, though sincere and intensely thought out, seems to implie might be necessary. Salvation and what it requires, from man, is VERY simple. And it I were a non-Christian reading all of this slicing and dicing of words and nuances of meaning, I would conclude 1) it is very hard to understand and 2) likely only very theologically savvy people could ever be saved. I'm always suspicious whenever I see the simple, grand works of God, requiring endless technical debate and study, so as to understand it. Remember, a CHILD or an illiterate peasant can know enough to be saved - which means it HAS to be very simple. And so it is.
The same thought strikes me every time I participate in discussions like this.
The complexity we see in this discussion is not the complexity of the Gospel. Rather the complexity stems from two different theological schools of thought about the implications of the Gospel on things like justification, sanctification, glorification, etc.
The recent portion of the discussion basically comes down to the relationship of faith and sanctification.
One school of thought believes that sanctification typically results from salvation.
The other school of thought (LS, the one we are discussing) believes that sanctification "necessarily results" from salvation.
The anti-LS school regularly accuses LS of "works salvation". However, LS openly opposes "works salvation".
Enter... another series of logical syllogisms and more complexity. This time the complexity surrounds the attempt to define LS as something that LS openly opposes. This involves LS opponents taking an LS premise about sanctification and running it through a series of logical syllogisms to support their assertion that even though LS says it opposes works salvation, they are really trying to slide works salvation in through the back door.
Obviously LS supporters reject the logical syllogisms and the implications and conclusions that surround those syllogisms. So the debate on those syllogisms and their implications involves a whole lot of complexity that really has nothing to do with the Gospel message.
So in a nutshell, the complexity isn't about the Gospel itself. The complexity involves debate about systems that schools of thought have built up around the Gospel and a number of related topics. When all else fails I think it is helpful to remember that there are a number of places where LS and Free Grace are in agreement.
From the Intro to LS site
http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A ... -salvation
There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.
In Christ