Featured Lordship Salvation Controversy

Just off the top of my head....at this late hour.... I think David Jeremiah would be closer to MacArthur than Stanley on the issue. But I'm not totally sure. Stanley would lean more away from Lordship view. I personally lean more with MacArthur. When we are saved, we have the Holy Spirit abiding in us.

As for you referencing them, they both have good things. Whoever was talking to you is being over critical. We don't always have to agree with people 100% to learn from them. Neither are false teachers. Neither teach a false gospel.

Have you ever heard anything from Paul Washer about the sinners prayer?

 

YUP!:thumbsup: I am a fan of neither of the 3 (especially Stanley) but none are heretics or preach a false gospel or anything else, Over-critical is a good way to put it.:applause:

 

Well Brother John, I see LS like this. Repentance is part of the salvation process. It is when we turn from ourselves, and turn to God, that we repent. When we turn to God, we must turn every bit of us to Him. We can not partially repent, and expect to be saved. It's when we give God our "two mites", that He will save us. IOW, we must surrender all of us to Him.

 

If I had to guess, I would say David Jeremiah is somewhere in the middle on this. I'm pretty sure Charles Stanely would be the opposite extreem, since he has gone so far as to say that a person who once prayed accepted Christ, who now DOES NOT BELIEVE IN HIM, is still saved.

That said, they both have written some good things, but all teachers must be read with carefulosity. :laugh:

 

Has anybody ever noticed that IFB churches are accused of both making salvation too easy, and also accused of being legalistic?

Folks will complain that IFBs believe you can simply ask Jesus to save you and he will. They say this leads to false repentance and licentiousness, you simply say a prayer and then live like the devil.

Then in the next breath they complain how legalistic IFB churches are. Oh, they want you to quit drinking and smoking, no gambling, want men to dress like men and women to dress like women, etc...

So, "easy believeism" does not lead to licentiousness at all. Most folks dislike IFB churches because of their strong stand against sin and insistence on godly living.

While the folks that preach so much against easy-believeism are fast and loose. They can drink, gamble, whatever...

 

I would certainly not lump Charles Stanley and David Jeremiah together!

Yes, in regards to Stanley, I consider him a heretic. He preaches another gospel; that contains no call to "Pick up your cross," no denial of self, no repentance, no definite and continuing sanctification, etc.

I heard him tell a mother one time that her son, who had once confessed faith in Christ, but now openly denied Him, and was engaged in a lascivious lifestyle, would be fine, and she should not worry about evangelizing him, because he had "prayed the prayer" one time.

That is flat out heresy, I don't care how you paint it.

"By there fruits you WILL know them"... and:

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

As far as the sinner's prayer, yes; I believe it is destructive, and unbiblical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jQsGlS0sQ4

 

Because those are commandments of men, not commandments of God. I have known some wonderful IFB churches; but I have also known some bad ones.

Legalism= following made up rules. Ongoing sanctification= following Christ in repentance and faith. See the difference?

 

No, legalism= works salvation. IFBs who believe in "easy believeism" do not teach you have to follow any rules to be saved, but simply trust Jesus Christ to save you from your sins.

It is those churches that promote Lordship Salvation who are always casting doubt on people's salvation. If a person is not living to their ideal of godliness, they are proclaimed to be a false believer and lost. Salvation is determined by a person's works.

But go through any of the threads concerning drinking or playing the lottery here. You will find that most IFBs do not drink or gamble, while those who preach against easy-believeism do.

So, folks constantly tear down IFBs because they make salvation too easy, and then complain because they are too godly, uhh... I mean "legalistic".

 

Because it is not "Godly" to make up rules and then follow them. That is the same thing that the Pagans do. They make up their own rules, and then proclaim their piety for following their own rules. Same thing with IFB's and "drinking" and gambling. These things are not forbidden by the Bible.

And no, legalism is NOT just "works salvation." Legalism can also be demanding adherence to extra-biblical rules, such as "No Gambling" or "No pants on women." These things have nothing to do with the Bible or Godliness...they are commandments of men.

 

Churches that believe in "easy believeism" do not teach you have to give up drinking, or that women must wear dresses to be saved. They teach that you simply trust Jesus to save you and he will, that is why they call it "easy" believeism.

It is those who teach Lordship Salvation that say you must stop doing some things and start doing other things to be saved.

Now, once you are saved by simply believeing on Jesus, most easy believeism churches teach that the Lord wants you to live a godly life. Your salvation is not in question, it is simply a matter of living in obedience to God. The scriptures are very clear that God wants us to give up sin.

2 The 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

We are supposed to do good as Christians. If someone in the church does not obey, we are not to keep company with him, nevertheless, we are not to think of him as an enemy or unsaved, but as a brother.

Lordship Salvation does not do this, if they see someone fall into sin they often assume the person was never saved. Why? Because they believe you have to act a certain way to be saved.

This is not what Paul taught, he taught that we should assume the person is saved, a brother, and admonish him as such. This supports the easy believeism view.

But it is not legalistic to expect a Christian to turn from sin, we are commanded to do so many times.

2 Tim 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Now, you might not think having a few beers and getting a little happy is sin. You might not think having a heavy metal band on stage is sin, but other folks would.

What I am saying, is that if you observe IFB and other "easy believeism" churches, you will very rarely see a church that is liberal concerning what is sin. You won't see the partying, you won't see the heavy metal band on stage.

But go to those churches that push Lordship Salvation and you often will.

 

Would say BOTH free grace/lordship right, just majoring on different aspects of the Christian life!

Agree with faith alone saves, that one gets born again intially by faith placed into person/work of Christ, but would agree with lordship that one really saved will evidence fruit of their new life in Christ!

problem happens when ones fruit is not as much as someone list says it has to be to be really saved!

 

Not "trust." "Believe." "Trust" implies obedience. Easy believism teaches a simple mental acknowledgement of Jesus is sufficient for salvation.

And of course, this is blatantly false. A lie, actually. LS advocates teach that repentance and faith are necessary for salvation, and that "doing" will NECESSARILY follow salvation....rather than obedience being some "optional" second step in the Christian life.

Sin....not made up rules. And this is why easy believism is so destructive. It puts the chains of the law back on the believer. It says "have a mental belief!" and "Now, use your will power to obey God." Rather than sanctification being a natural outgrowth of one's regeneration, easy believism burdens the Christian soul with chasing BEHAVIOR, instead of chasing CHRIST.

Paul's command to work. However:

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

If you do not practice righteousness, it is evident you are not a child of God. NOT that you "are saved, but need to work harder."

That is patently false.

1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Mat_18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Not at all. Because we believe that saved people act differently. Why do you doubt the scriptures?

Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

1Jn_3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

No he didn't. He was talking about someone who wasn't working hard enough, not someone in blatant sin! In 1 Corinthians 5, he says plainly that we are to throw them out of the church, and treat them as an unbeliever.

Sin, yes. Not as some secondary requirement, though, to be a "better" Christian. It is a natural result of regeneration and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And it is not made up rules, like no pants on women, or no gambling...

Yep. Nothing in there about pants...

No one said anything about drunkeness. And I don't care what rules people make up. That is sin; we are commanded not to go beyond what is written.

What I have seen, is them condemning people as being unbelievers, cause they wear blue jeans or use a Bible other than the KJV.

Those are the churches I frequent, and by and large they are the most loving and forgiving of churches, and are serious about sin. Just not man-made, invented sin. You go to Grace Community Church (John Macarthur) and see how serious they are about holiness (yet very loving and grace filled).

Your premise is simply false.

 

I've had many free grace pastors, and not one made obeying Christ "optional."

Rather, they admitted the downright difficulty of it, admitted many folks fail at it, and urged us to continually commit to obedience. God would empower us to better obey if we did.

Never heard a free gracer tell anyone they could come to Christ for salvation, holding onto their sins.

Rather, they teach you can come to Christ for salvation while sin still has a hold on you.

 

:thumbs::wavey:

 

:godisgood::applause::thumbs::thumbsup:

(not that I'm trying to outdo icon on the smilies)...> pretend a big smile is here since I'm limited to only 4...

 

What? You are changing the definition of words. If I put money in the bank, I am trusting them to keep it for me. What does that have to do with obedience? If I loan someone my car, I am trusting them to take care of it and bring it back in good condition. What does that have to do with obedience?

So, you are redefining the meaning of the word "trust".

LS advocates will flat out tell you that you have to repent of sin, which means quit sinning. We have a regular poster here that has made that abundantly clear. I think you know who I am speaking of.

What chains? I have placed the matter of my salvation in Jesus's hands. And we do not teach you have to maintain constant faith, all people doubt at times. We teach that once you trust your soul to Jesus you are saved once-for-all and cannot possibly lose your salvation.

I would agree that doing righteousness is an evidence of salvation, but sinning is not necessarily evidence a person is not saved. Samson lived a pretty sinful life, yet he was saved, David fell into gross sin, yet he was saved.

Imagine David in a LS church. He commits adultery and then has the husband of his lover killed in battle. Do your really think they would judge him as saved?

1 Cor 5:4 is not saying that "perhaps" a man be saved, it is saying that his flesh will be destroyed but his spirit will be saved. "May be" would be understood to mean "in order that" he be saved in this verse. Look it up, this phrase does not introduce doubt or possibility of being lost.

Christians should act differently, but oftentimes they do not. Moses killed a man, Lot got drunk and committed incest, Samson loved a harlot, David committed adultery and had Bathsheba's husband abandoned in battle to be killed.

I agree, so why do you and others criticize IFBs for their strong stand against sin?

No, he was talking about a man who does not take care of his family.

2 The 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

Paul said if a man doesn't work, he is worse than an infidel.

1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Not working and taking care of your family is absolutely sin.

There are all kinds of rules for Christians in the NT. Women aren't allowed to teach men, they are also told to adorn themselves in "modest" apparel. A bishop is to be "not given to wine" (1 Tim 3:3). Sure sounds like rules to me.

Modest apparel. Tight fitting pants are not modest. Now, I personally don't care about women wearing pants, and we have women who wear pants to church, I am just saying what God's word says.

Well, when you don't drink you don't have to worry about having too much and getting drunk.

Somehow I can't picture you in an IFB church.

MacArthur himself shows my generalization was correct. Here is the first few paragraphs from an article he wrote about drinking.

Sure sounds like a lot of drinking is going on in your Lordship Salvation churches to me.

Source:

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110809

 

I stopped short, look what MacArthur said in the very next paragraph about Calvinist believers.

Yeah, I was way off base with my generalization. :laugh: