Evidence for God from Science

Puritan: as K noted, I was pointing to what appeared to me to be a logical conclusion. If you examine my words throughout this thread, you'll see that, for me, evangelism is HIGHLY necessary.

Oh, and for the record, accusations that I am "serving the idol of self" and that I have not "submit[ted] to the Lord Jesus Christ" are unwarranted and dangerously close to intolerable. I serve Jesus Christ and none other, and my submission to His Lordship is absolute. I would argue that it is more absolute than your own, for I do it out of adoration, while for you, it is a matter of salvation. In other words, there are those in your camp who submit so that they may be saved, whereas those in my camp submit because they are saved.

K: I see I did over react to your position. I suppose our differences are purely theological and not practical, and we could have several good discussions as they purely relate to semantics. For example, I would say that you do not reject OSAS, but if you use "saved" the way those who advocate the idea do, we are really saying the same thing. Once salvation is received, it is received permanently, and nothing can change that (or do you believe that once accpepted and forgiven, the person can at a later date reject it, resulting again in his condemnation?). But otherwise, we would share the gospel in the same way.

I do not want to make light of our disagreements. Your engine of salvation, so to speak, is different from my own. But, the good news is that, for us, the Good News is the same (haha, you can so tell I'm a preacher ). Receiving Christ as Savior results in salvation. That is the key.

I simply reassert, yet again, that there is no other key than that. Anything in addition to that message clouds it, including well intentioned additions such as submission of will to the Lordship of Christ, repentance from sin, the need for baptism, etc.

God bless

Although I do not wish to get into it right now, I do wish to clarify that I do not believe in OSAS.

If one insults the gift given to them, then while one may not fall under condemnation of their previous sins, one severs the personal aspect to their relationship with God that forgiveness brings. Additionally, such people who insult the gift fall under condemnation for their further sins, since for such people there is no more sacrifice for sins (which I read in Hebrews 10:26-27).

Kurieuo

I am a new member to this website and have been following a lot of your discussions for the past couple of weeks. It looks as this debate over Lordship Salvation and Free Grace is one of the most heated debates on the site. And I can see why this would be so heavily debated. It is only about our eternity. I would just like to take a small moment to say a few things about this group. First off, I see a bit of strife between some of the members on this topic. Let us remember 1 John 3:14, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death.” Each one of you reading this loves the brotherhood of Christ. It is good to have discussions and learn from each other, but at the end of the day we all serve the same master. We all have confessed Christ as our Lord and we believe in our hearts God has raised Him from the dead, therefore, we have chosen to serve Christ as our master. He is our King. We are in the brotherhood of Christ. Let us not forget that. Now to the Lordship vs. Free Grace debate. I do not wish to try to take sides, but only as a young layman I would like to point out the facts I have written down about salvation. First, we are all sinners. You know the verses. The wage of sin is death. So, we know we are all sinners who deserve death. Now, the “gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23) “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:19) This is the verse I think that causes a lot of the disagreement. See, we know the demons and Satan believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He has been raised from the dead. So, why are we saved and the demons not? We have confessed Jesus as our Lord. We have confessed that Jesus is our master. There are only two sides of this life. God and Satan. We confess Christ as our King, our Master, our Lord. When someone truly believes that and decides to confess Christ as Lord, their salvation is awarded. Now, if we have claimed that Christ is our Lord and King, we now should follow our Lord's commands. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) We will spend the rest of our lives trying to follow our King's commands. Our faith is in Christ, so we follow His words and not our own desires. Does this mean we will do it perfectly? We all know we can't be perfect. But we have the Word of God that says “for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” So, we will do some good works. But never enough good works for Heaven. Does that mean we should not do good works? Does it matter? The real question to ask is this: Is Jesus Christ my Lord and Master? If He is what has He commanded me to do?

Gentleman, I believe everyone here does trust Christ as their Lord. I see fellow Christians that are “zealous for good works.” I am but a young layman that loves the Lord. I have confessed Christ as Lord and believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead and that Jesus is Lord of all. May we continue to learn from God's word and encourage each other to preach the Word. Your brother in Christ. Jared

I understand where you are coming from NKV, and I agree that civility is of the utmost importance for several reasons. But, as you also noted, this issue is probably the most important of all . . . especially when we have the anathema of Gal. 1:8 over the group that is wrong! Let me offer a brief commentary on each of the verses you mentioned.

• 1 John 3:14, “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not [his] brother abideth in death.”

We should all praise God that this verse has nothing to do with our eternal salvation. If it did, none of us could know for sure that we are saved, because there are times when we don't always love the brethren. But secondly, how much should we love them? Just a little, or enough to die for them? Do we always feel that way? Do we have to always feel that way, or is it only occasionally? What of the person who has been stung by the church, and thus harbors bitterness for a time. Is he not saved? To make matters worse, Jesus said that if we don't forgive, our sins won't be forgiven. So is salvation based on our love for fellow Christians and our ability to forgive them?

This verse is dealing with another issue entirely. Note that John says we have passed "from death into life." It is here we assume that John is talking about salvation, but there is just no reason to get that from the passage. John had just been saying previous to this that a Christian does not sin, and when he does, it is not the new man within him sinning, but it is the expression of the old man. The question is, are you living in life or living in death? Are you walking in truth, as the apostles were, or are you walking in death, as the false teachers were? Next, note that John says that the one who does not love "abides" in death. He stays there. He lives there. He walks in it. This is not at all a reference to salvation, or the lack there of. It has to do with the Christian who is walking in error. In doing so, he will bring punishment, even unto death, to himself.

• “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:19)

This is probably the biggest problem verse to deal with, as you noted. In my Lordship days, this was my great proof-text. Without going into massive detail, I'll just ask you what "saved" means here. Is it referring to eschatological salvation? If it is, then why does Paul go on to say, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness." Suppose I believe unto righteous but do not confess unto salvation. Well, now I am righteous as Abraham was in Rom. 4:4. But am I not saved? Does the righteous man go to Hell?

This verse is dealing with deliverance from the judgment of God. Specifically, it is found in the unit of chapters nine to eleven, which deal with the fate of Israel. Paul is saying that if they do not repent, they will soon be destroyed. To be saved from destruction, they must do two things: they must confess Jesus as Lord (keep in mind, they had just crucified Him), and they must believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead. Because believing, they would be righteous, but confessing they would delivered. That's why Paul goes on to say in verse 13 that "Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." The quote comes from a time when Israel was surrounded by Assyria. God said that if they called on Him, He would deliver them from destruction.

Therefore, this passage does NOT teach that the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord saves from Hell. It teaches that confession saves from judgment, and that is true for Christians today! But the passage also teaches that salvation from hell is by belief alone, for "with the heart one believes unto righteousness."

See, we know the demons and Satan believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He has been raised from the dead. So, why are we saved and the demons not?

There are two possible answers here. The first, which I take, is that salvation is not offered to demons. Therefore, they can believe all they want, but they have been sealed in a state of perdition, just as the Christian has been sealed in a state of righteousness. But, it can also be argued that the demons have not believed on Christ for their salvation. This has nothing to do with their bowing before Him, but everything to do with their refusal to accept their need for salvation and His promise of it. In fact, it can be argued that the demons DO recognize that Jesus is the Lord, and they DO submit to Him. They have no other choice!

When someone truly believes that and decides to confess Christ as Lord, their salvation is awarded. Now, if we have claimed that Christ is our Lord and King, we now should follow our Lord's commands. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15) We will spend the rest of our lives trying to follow our King's commands.

Let's deal with the verse, first, and then we'll look at the content of the argument. Is John 14:15 dealing with salvation? No. It is dealing squarely with fellowship with Christ. Show me anywhere in Scripture that says, "A man is justified by His love for Christ." No, what Jesus is teaching here is that if the disciples are to be true disciples, then they will love Jesus. And they will know they love Him because they will keep His commandments. If they don't keep the them, then it is obvious they don't truly love Him, and thus, they are not true disciples. But that is a long way from saying that they aren't saved! It just means that they are "abiding in death," and they will be disciplined for it.

Now, to obey the commandments of Christ is obviously to make Him Lord. So, confession of Christ as Lord, if sincere, is logically followed by the keeping of the commandments, as imperfect as that may be. So, then we see that a confession as Lord, if genuine, is an expression and proof of love. But does this lead to salvation? I would strongly disagree that it does. What you are actually saying here is that it is your commitment to Christ that saves you, rather than your belief. You are making an exchange. You are saying to God, "I'll give you my life in exchange for your righteousness." But that isn't faith! That isn't Grace! That's as works-based as things get.

What is the basis for salvation? Mere belief. Simple belief in the person and work of Christ, totally apart from any commitment of life or confession of Lordship. To say that salvation is predicated on either of these two things is to espouse a works-based doctrine, which Paul says is damnable.

The real question to ask is this: Is Jesus Christ my Lord and Master?

I would say that this is the real question for discipleship, and not the real question for salvation.

I have confessed Christ as Lord and believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead and that Jesus is Lord of all.

Let me ask you a very honest question: what exactly are you trusting to get you into heaven? Obviously, you are putting your faith in Christ, but what does that mean? Have you trusted Him alone TOTALLY APART FROM A COMMITMENT OF LIFE?!? Do you believe that mere trust, APART from a commitment, can save? If not, then you need to examine your justification. Do you believe that Jesus cannot save a man unless that man first gives Himself wholly to Christ? Is Jesus not capable of saving based on mere faith in His promise?

This is why the issue is so incredibly important. It is apparent to me that Lordship salvation reduces Jesus to a barterer or trader. He trades His righteousness for your commitment. Grace, on the other hand, is based on simple belief--nothing more, and nothing less.

"God saves by Grace or not at all" ~Rev. Hal Haller, Th.M. DTS

God bless

Let me ask you a very honest question: what exactly are you trusting to get you into heaven?

Hal, I appreciate the lengthy response and question. I am trusting in the Word of God as my ticket into Heaven. I am trusting in Christ. I am trusting that His death paid my ticket of sin to our Holy God. I am trusting that His resurrection affirmed that His sacrifice was complete and that I can have salvation through Him. All I have to do is believe. Believe that He is righteous alone, I am not. I know I am not. I read Isaiah 64:6 and remind myself that God is Holy and I am not. I also believe that Jesus is God. I believe that Christ is my salvation, and the Holy Spirit guides me from there. That is my salvation in a nutshell.

If you have a minute I would like to see how you lead someone to the Lord. I just like to see how different people lead people to the Lord. Talk to you later-----Jared

NKJVKJV wrote:Hal, I appreciate the lengthy response and question. I am trusting in the Word of God as my ticket into Heaven. I am trusting in Christ. I am trusting that His death paid my ticket of sin to our Holy God. I am trusting that His resurrection affirmed that His sacrifice was complete and that I can have salvation through Him. All I have to do is believe. Believe that He is righteous alone, I am not. I know I am not. I read Isaiah 64:6 and remind myself that God is Holy and I am not. I also believe that Jesus is God. I believe that Christ is my salvation, and the Holy Spirit guides me from there. That is my salvation in a nutshell.

Good enough for me

NKJVKJV wrote:If you have a minute I would like to see how you lead someone to the Lord. I just like to see how different people lead people to the Lord. Talk to you later-----Jared

I don't have a specific method like F.A.I.T.H. or the Romans Road. But, broadly, I work through the following basic steps.

1) Get them to realize their need for salvation (holiness of God vs. sinfulness of man)
2) Get them to understand Jesus' substitutionary death
3) Ask them if they believe Jesus' promise to save them if they trust Him, and Him ALONE for salvation. If they believe, they have (present tense) eternal life
4) Pray with them, not to receive Christ, but to thank Him for their salvation.

I then start on discipleship issues . . .

Of course, depending on where a person is, I may start from scratch, or I may go all they way to #3. Sometimes, I have to add a step before any of this, which is to bring them to a place where they are motivated to believe. That's actually really easy to do. You just get them to talk about the pointlessness of life if there is no eternity, no God. And then, as they talk, you get them to talk about the empty feeling on they feel.

Again, no cookie-cutter approach. It's a little different for everyone, but the keys are always the same. They have to realize the need for salvation, realize how God chose to provide it, and then believe in that simple plan.

Let me say as an aside one of the reasons I find all this so important. For those people who believe that things like a works-producing-faith or repentance are necessary, what they are actually doing is denying that "simple faith" is enough to save. But . . . now think about this . . . if the gospel is in fact simple faith, then you are denying Jesus' promise to save "those who have believed." You are calling Jesus a liar. More plainly, you are rejecting His promise. He says, "I save you if you only believe," to which we respond, "No, Lord. I don't believe You. I say that You save me if I give my life to You, make You my Lord, and turn from my sins and totally to You. If I do that, THEN You'll save me!"

Jesus doesn't save on our terms. He saves on His. Thus, the previous quote from Hal Haller, my theology professor.

God bless

Hello everyone. This is my very first post of anything of this type so please forgive me in advance if I do something out of protocal in my replies. Please advise me in the right directions if I am not proceeding in the appropriate fashion.

By introduction, The Free Grace/Lordship Salvation debate is at the forefront of American Christianity today. These types of disagreemnents among Christians have been used by God to get to the real truth throughout history so this dispute comes by no surprise.

If you want to put a "tag" on me, please pin the Glorious Free Grace of God available by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone on me. To the ones in the Lordship Salvation camp, I know the first word out of your mouths is Antinomainist. That's O.K. for you to say because those of us in the Free Grace Camp talk so much about soteriology that the life of a Christian after salvation falls by the wayside. We need to communicate our position heartily on this issue as well.
I know none in the Free Grace Camp that would say to any Christian to go and sin and live any way you want. Paul was clear in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that Christians are to do everything for the glory of God. He wrote in Galatians that we should not go on sinning. Sin does not glorify God. The life of a believer is to be a life of repentance, but it is out of a love response for his gracious gift, not out of fear of God. (You also have an inaccurate definition of the fear of God from the Psalms which will be addressed at a late post) Although we are to lead a life of repentance Christians fail grievously as we will soon see. Repentance after salvation is not to be looked upon as a condition, HOWEVER. Christ is not only neccesary, He is enough. Paul wrote to the Corinthians his motive for service and what likewise theirs should be to. Look what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. He wrote :14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Just as a side bar for my Calvinist friends, Did you notice that he said Christ died for all? Anyway, I am not here to debate the Tulip.
What am I here for? Well, I have been reading the posts of Mr lad. I do appreciate your zeal for your position. I appreciate many in the Lordship camp for wanting to deal with the serious immorality we find in the church today. Although, motives are good they are getting the cart before the horse in how to deal with the problem by adding other demands to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mr. Lad, like you I believe in the absolute authority of Scripture for everything in the Christian life. I see that you are an avid user of proof-texts and I can appreciate that. Yet, the prooftexts you use in their true contexts do not support your views. You are picking them to support your theological bent, which I suppose is the TULIP. Over the next many posts I will be taking your proof texts one by one and systematically from Scripture showing your error. The errors I have seen you make have been in the area of word meaning not fitting context. I have seen you commit root fallacies. And tonight I will show you on one of your posts were one of your conclusions from a proof text violate what another passage of Scripture says in it's context.

The issue tonight is with one of your conclusions you posted on Thursday, December 8th. You wrote, "One who has Christ as Savior and Lord does not 'practice lawlessness'." You were using Matthew 7:21-23 to support this conclusion of yours. In my next post which will be long I will tell you my hypothesis on what Jesus is saying in this passage but tonight, for sake of bedtime, I will show you your error by a few passages in Romans.
I assume that when you say a Christian does not "practice lawlessness" that you are meaning he could not commit a sin habitually nor would he have any problem stopping. I say that because the word practice in this verse means to sin or commit in practice, habitually.
If this is your point, I disagree with your post. Heres why. Romans 7:14-19 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
I think we can agree on the context here. Paul is setting up on how to be delivered from sins hold on a believer life in Romans 8. He can write this because he had been delivered and wants to tell believers how to as well. It is worth noting that when he starts to tell his readers how to live a victorious life in Chapter 8 of Romans that the basis ifor victory that "Therefore there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus." The groundwork for victory is knowing your destiny is safe in God's hand not that he will dump you into hell as a believer. AGAIN He practiced evil (Lawlessness, sin). He habitually commited a sin. That is what practice means in the text. He did not want to but did.
Mr. lad, my point is this tonight. Please be clear when you are throwing around conclusions and proof texts. Your conclusion violated the truth expressedly stated in another Scripture. Your conclusion will put true Christians in bondage wondering why they could commit a sin habitually. They can and do. Your conclusion just damned the great Apostle Paul to hell! The Apostle Paul at some point in his life commited habitual sin even though the "willing" was in him. The believer struggling with a sin needs God's grace for recovery not fear of hell. I guess the real debate begins in my next post.

In my next post, I will through Scripture show the error of your conclusion that Jesus was warning against "lawless Christianity" at the end of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:21-23. I will then state my hypothesis of what Jesus is saying and then prove it from immediate context and other teaching sessions of Jesus.

I hope I have not been picky but you did not make yourself clear and people cannot know the truth from fuzzy, ill-defined ideas. I believe you want people to know the truth?

I love you thats why I write,

K.C.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update, Ro 7:17. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.
The New King James Version, 2 Co 5:14. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996, c1982.

K.C. wrote:Hello everyone. This is my very first post of anything of this type so please forgive me in advance if I do something out of protocal in my replies. Please advise me in the right directions if I am not proceeding in the appropriate fashion.

Welcome K.C !

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. This came by God awakening in me that I was a sinner in need of grace. God's grace alone saved me. Even the faith I had brithed in me was from God so I could believe.

IMHO the Lordship verses Grace debate seems to me be saying the same things but in different ways. Can there be any common ground the two sides can meet on? or will pride continue to have its way?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

K.C. wrote:Hello everyone. This is my very first post of anything of this type so please forgive me in advance if I do something out of protocal in my replies. Please advise me in the right directions if I am not proceeding in the appropriate fashion.

Welcome K.C !

Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. This came by God awakening in me that I was a sinner in need of grace. God's grace alone saved me. Even the faith I had brithed in me was from God so I could believe.

IMHO the Lordship verses Grace debate seems to me be saying the same things but in different ways. Can there be any common ground the two sides can meet on? or will pride continue to have its way?

Thank you for your welcome. Common ground? Let me think on it. First, One of your sentences has confused me. You said God birthed the faith you have so you could believe. Are not the two synonomous? Or are you meaning you were regenerated so that you could believe? I believe it is the latter. I take from your post that you are a 5 point Calvinist.

Let me just say this. There are "Calvinists" in the Free Grace camp and there has been a long line of them throughout church history. John Calvin, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, among others. If I am not mistaken I believe D.L. Moody was. Free Grace meaning we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. The Free Grace Movement today clashes with some Calvinists today that would reject the teachings of the men I afformentioned. They have been coined as Lordship Salvationist and they would say that I would teach "easy-believism". I must say grace is not easy to believe. The Lordship Salvationist, in my opinion, make the terms of discipleship terms of a proper response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
With that being said,I believe that their is another main issue between the two: Perseverence of the Saints, obviously from the TULIP. That would be uncommon ground.
I am not much on straw men so you and I will dialogue. The question is where do we have common ground?

I believe that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. This is seperate from any work on our part. I believe repentance for those outside of Christ means a change of mind. The unbeliever changes his mind about what he believes about Jesus Christ. He moves from unbelief to belief that Jesus paid the penalty for his sin and that Jesus gaurantess eternal life for all that believe in Him for it. One of my professors stated this about repentance concerning an unbeliever. "If repentance is turning from sins the question arises as to how many one must turn from and how will this reality be manifested in a way that satisfies God. Since sin is the transgression of the law (Mosaic Law), if we require that people turn from the sin of murder, adultery, lying, covetness, etc. are we not imposing the law upon them for acquiring righteousness?" (Hal Haller). If you take that to it's logical end even a willingness to do it is another term for the gospel. Repentance for the believer is how he should live his life in regards to holy living. Oh, just on a side note. To you Lordship Salvationists out there I have to say this. JESUS IS LORD!! For some reason you have the idea that those in Free Grace have a problem with that.

Are we common on this?
-
-

K.C. wrote: Thank you for your welcome. Common ground? Let me think on it. First, One of your sentences has confused me. You said God birthed the faith you have so you could believe. Are not the two synonomous? Or are you meaning you were regenerated so that you could believe? I believe it is the latter...

The question is where do we have common ground?

To you Lordship Salvationists out there I have to say this. JESUS IS LORD!! For some reason you have the idea that those in Free Grace have a problem with that.

Are we common on this?

Yes - Eph 2:8 does state that both grace and faith are gifts and that was what I was refereing too in my statement - 'Even the faith I had berthed in me was from God so I could believe'

Also to both sides - Jesus is Lord - so what is hard to understand about that?

I'd rather be a peace maker than a tulip or argue over jot, dashes, crossed t'ees

Just wondering if ever Christens can agree on anything! The world watches and laughs but Jesus is Lord and I think you understand what I mean!
-
-
-

Kurieuo wrote:Although I do not wish to get into it right now, I do wish to clarify that I do not believe in OSAS.

If one insults the gift given to them, then while one may not fall under condemnation of their previous sins, one severs the personal aspect to their relationship with God that forgiveness brings. Additionally, such people who insult the gift fall under condemnation for their further sins, since for such people there is no more sacrifice for sins (which I read in Hebrews 10:26-27).

Kurieuo,

I had to go and read Hebrews 10:26-27 for myself. I do not find this verse teaching the loss of salvation here. Where does it say that? It sounds as though you would prefer it to read: "If we sin willfully after that we have been SAVED, there remaineth no more FORGIVENESS OF SIN." That is not what I read there but these Hebrews crucifying afresh the Son of God and that doesn't mean being saved or being saved again. They had rejected His sacrifice is the context here. The argument being presented is if they had rejected that sacrifice there was no other sacrifice they could turn to, because God had now disowned the sacrifices of the law and was ready to destroy Jerusalem and the temple, making it impossible for them to offer animal sacrifices. Having no sacrifice for sins, therefore, the Israelite had nothing to anticipate but fiery indignation.

I don't find that refuting OSAS but only you reading that into the verse.

I also have read much of the debate here before joining. I hope that I am not saying your name incorrectly since I am unable to see any other post with names on it, but JAC, I really enjoyed reading your posts!

Considering the arguments of MacArthur, I find one thing funny and that is how he reads "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He will make Lord in all caps. When I hear a LSer preach on that verse, he will always say "LORD" very loudly and then pause as somehow being the way Paul was speaking to that man in that passage. I seriously doubt that the man didn't hear Paul as given Christ a title there but was actually in one word telling that man "Hey, you must surrender every area of your life to His Lordship. If he isn't Lord of all then He isn't Lord at all." I find that very unreasonable to imagine. It is MacArthur that loves to play narrator of Paul and will make him saying things when Paul's mouth obviously stopped 5 minutes ago. I found that common in his book where words are being inserted that are not even there. Even bizarre comments like: "Salvation is free yet costly"??????????????????????????????? That makes as much sense as a restaurant saying that refills on coffee is free and then when you go for a refill they charge you for it. I think that sums up the foolishness of his words don't you?

I was told by a LSer that if my life hasn't improved spiritually from the prior year then that could mean that I am not saved. He said that a true believer would and should sin less and less each year. A preacher said out here that if you are not better spiritually than of a year ago then you need to ask if you were truly saved. I thought on that one and came up with an argument back for that man. I said based on if what he says is true because he doesn't have any Scripture that states that. But I said "If what you were saying be true then what about a 9 year old that trusts Christ for salvation?" He looked at me in confusion. I said "Well, if a person is to sin less each year then how many sins does a 9 year old have? Don't you think by the age of 18 that such a person should be perfect? How about if that 9 year old lives to be 90? How can that one judge the prior year to know that he/she has improved? At 9 years old, they might covet Barbie dolls and smart off to parents. What happens when they go through puberty and have thoughts about the opposite sex? Don't you think that they might doubt their salvation because that certainly is not an improvement from the age of 9?"

I knew that my comments came across as a mockery but what he taught was not thought through because LS certainly comes across as a man's religion. If you like Calvinism then such men as Horatius Bonar was certainly against the teachings of MacArthur's position. He taught that those that believe the things that MacArthur taught was Law and not grace. He believed such people to have perverted the gospel and might very well not be saved.

I know that I am new and I don't mean to be offensive but I am convinced that it can either be free grace or LS salvation for they both can't be the same. They both can't be saving. I read John MacArthurs book "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" and I felt that I was reading Romanism reworded. I found similiarities in wording between MacArthur and those that are 5 point Arminians. Both believe that works has to be present in the life of the believer. The one says "without works then you will lose it" and the other says, "without works proves that you were never saved to begin with." Both teach perseverance to the end. Both teach to look to your works to draw assurance from. Even Catholics have similar wordings. It sounds that religion has found another way to be clever in bringing in many points of Romanism and Arminianism through a back door.

IMO, Lordship salvation needs to be carefully examined in the light of Paul. I found that LS takes many verses that apply to the Kingdom program that was promised back in 2nd Samuel 7 and has pushed it into the gospel of grace exclusively given to Paul (Romans 16:25). I have heard so many LSer's talk that I literally wonder if the gospel they believe can actually save. I known many that had believed in it and all struggled with assurance. Their works didn't seem to be works of love but works that they better do. I always found them critical of others that didn't try as hard as they did. I sat next to one in church that said to me quietly "I don't believe over half of this church is saved." They honestly believe that only when one makes a full surrender of his/her life then at that moment he/she is saved. Personally, I don't know how in the world they do not see their gospel as a works gospel but maybe God will reveal it to me someday.

Sorry if I was offensive to some here but I only wanted to express my opinion. I'll shut up from here out.

Thank you.