Featured The Gospel According to Jesus

Rick,
I do believe these men are saying that *faith* is nothing but a mental assent to facts. But when coupled with works, it becomes *saving*

One thing to consider is that the Lordship position is an outworking of Reformed thought. Consider these quotes from the Westminster Confession, and I'll try to explain:

X.1 (Effectual Calling)
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

XIV.1 (Saving faith)
The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

XIV.2 (Saving Faith)
By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

XV.2 (Repentance Unto Life)
By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

XVI.2 (Of Good Works)
These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

XVIII.3 (Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation)
This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, [/u]in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.


If you look at the underlined parts of the Confession, the Effectual Calling is portrayed as an enlightening of a person's mind to understand the things of God (facts), and a changing of his will (to obey).

Saving Faith is portrayed as believing that the things contained in God's Word are true (facts), and then to act differently upon those facts with obedience and trembling (works).

Repentance is portrayed as a sinner sensing the filthiness of his sins, and endeavoring to walk in the commandments.

It is said of Good Works that the end of them is eternal life.

According to the Confession, Assurance is not joined to believing, nor is it something we can have now, but can be attained by looking at our works.


Considering that all these men undoubtedly understand the Confession, it is very reasonably to conclude that they are, in fact, portraying saving faith as facts + obedience. And that only by looking at our works can we attain full assurance of saving grace.

If you look at Packer's Preface, he says faith consists of three parts - credence, commitment, and communion. One might think of credence as trust, in a way to say trust and commitment, but that is not what Packer says:
"it exhibits Christian believing as not only knowing facts about Christ, but also coming to him in personal trust to worship, love, and serve him."

So Packer's understanding of trust is not an aspect of believing, but is, in fact, obedience.

That is facts + works

 

John,
I think my book may be quite different from yours. I scoured a few pages before and after page 28, and could not find that heading. What chapter is it in?

Or, it you could post it.

But honestly, I think it would be more fruitful to continue in the Forewords, as they are overviews. To understand their use of faith, believing, trust, commitment, works, etc

 

Can you elaborate?

Who has not done as good a study as Mac? Can you provide some sort of corroboration for the claim?

Who exactly has redefined faith and believe? Redefined from what to what?

Not only is faith "not just an intellectual assent", intellectual assent is not faith at all - even if it's coupled with works.

Intellectual assent is nothing more than knowing ABOUT someone and agreeing that it's true. Faith is described in scripture in several different ways - full assurance of a promise (Romans 4:21-25), the substance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1), believing IN (Romans 4:5), which is not believing ABOUT.

Rick at least mostly agrees with this view of faith, but I'm in the process of demonstrating what the two Forewords teach (I keep calling them Prefaces - sorry).

If you read my post concerning the Westminster Confession, you will see that the Protestants have, from the beginning, portrayed "believing" as mental assent to facts, then it becomes "faith" only when that mental assent is coupled with obedience.

Would you agree with this teaching from the WCF? You seem to also have an understanding that faith = facts, and those facts + obedience = saving faith

There is a wide array of teachings on what repentance is - all the way from a change of mind, to sorrow, to determination to stop sinning, to actually stopping sin, and every place in between.

I think it's safe to say that you and I don't agree on the definition, so instead of that word, maybe you should say it how you would define it.

I really don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I won't debate out of an NIV. It's ok for devotional reading, but it is not a good translation to get assertive about exact wording.

Acts 26:20 is a case where a doctrinal position has been imposed on the text, to make it say something God never intended.

Acts 11:18 doesn't define repentance. I agree with what it says, but I also understand repentance differently than you do. It's like arguing to a Jehovah's Witness that Jesus died for their sins. They will agree, but have a totally different understanding of what it means.

If you quote scripture, you will absolutely have to explain how you understand it, otherwise we'll end up talking past one another


I don't think so as God grants repentance as the verse above indicated, and repentance is indicated by deeds, but deeds do not save anyone. Repentance just shows fruit in deeds.
I agree that God grants repentance. But we must first define repentance in a way that we agree. Otherwise we can agree on the wording without knowing that we disagree on the substance

I found the heading, on page 22 of my book. We should probably refer to chapter, heading, etc, and not only page numbers. I can't imagine the substance of the book has changed that much.

I saw where Mac writes - One segment of evangelicalism has even begun to propound the doctrine that conversion involves "no spiritual commitment whatsoever." and then gives a reference to Hodges' The Gospel Under Siege

Is this what you're referencing? Do you have this book?

Or maybe - Those who hold this view of the gospel teach that Scripture promises salvation to anyone who simply believes the facts about Christ and claims eternal life

There is no quote, reference, name, book name, anything. Do you have a quote from anyone who teaches this?

Without a quote, it is simply misrepresentation. Or better yet, this criticism stems from the Reformed position that faith = facts; then only when those facts are joined with works (commitment, obedience, etc), it becomes *saving* faith

You say the devils know the facts yet aren't saved. In other threads, I have seen you say that the devils have faith yet aren't saved. Do you believe faith = facts, then it becomes *saving* faith when it is joined with works?

 

In my SS class this morning we were kind of talking about this. We were talking about our children and Grandchildren learning in the church and then seeing 70-90% of them leave the church when they head off to college. We were discussing what they have learned while in church: memorizing scripture, Bible study etc. Will just making our kids memorize scripture and go to Bible study ensure they will be saved. No!

It is like when you were in college you took many classes and some of them you could have cared less about. Did you really get excited about those classes like you did about the classes that were core classes in your major, No!

That is like mental assent compared to desire to learn Christ. God must change the heart, so there is a difference. But I think you are mistaking mental assent with true faith or desire that has been given by God to those being saved. I hope this makes sense, I didn't make it real clear, I will ponder it more as I rest.

 

The main distinction betwenn "Free Grace" and LDS is that those of us holding that a sinner gets right with God Bybeing saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, is that we do see there are stages of submission to the Lordship of Christ, as all saints have to be born again as babes in Christ, and all of us have differing levels of maturity in our walk with Him!

LDS seems to teach that unless one afetr salavtion has gotten to the point of fully sumbitting to jesus all areas of our lives 24/7, have not been really saved!

 

Good works are the byproduct, the fruit that we have ondeed been saved, not just professing it, but those deeds are NOT any paty of what got us right with God in the first place!

 

Uh no. Not what it teaches.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs:

 

.h

If we are not willing, and actually make Jesus Lord over all, how can that person being even saved is the LDS mantra!

Again, how long.how much obedience needed to know really was saved?
How about times we all are carnal Christians then?

 

It would be nice to see a quote from any Free Grace advocate who teaches "intellectual assent".

I asked once already, and I won't give up on this point. You must provide the exact words "intellectual assent", from the pen of a Free Grace proponent, or any other non-Lordship teacher.

Not from MacArthur, and not reading something into what is written, but actual word-for-word citation from someone like Ryrie, Hodges, or the like, saying that intellectual assent to facts constitutes "saving faith"

After all, I began this discussion from the Forewords of Packer and Boice, quoting their exact words, and I even provided quotations from the Westminster Confession to demonstrate why I understand the position. And you agreed that I am reading it right.

I think it's only fair that if you make the claim that someone teaches something, you ought to be able to offer a quote of them teaching what they are accused of.

Not at all, John.

No one is stripping anything from the word believe. In fact, it is the opposite. Protestants have been adding to the word believe all along. But that is why it is important to define each word that is used, so that we are talking the same language.

I don't want to turn the discussion into a tit-for-tat, or a case of unfounded accusations, or even a case of talking past one another because we define the pertinent words differently.

Maybe you haven't read my posts concerning the use of a prayer for salvation. I believe the notion of a conversion prayer is the greatest cancer in the church today. It is the most heinous of heresies, the most crafty deceit ever whispered from the lips of Satan, and the sorest blight upon evangelism today, with countless thousands and hundreds of thousands deceived by it.

Prayer is a work, like baptism is a work, like taking communion is a work, like giving offerings is a work. If one might be saved from any of these works, he might as well be free to choose which one.

Maybe someone could pay $10.00 for eternal life, or maybe they can drink two glasses of wine with some tiny crackers for eternal life, or maybe they can dive into a swimming pool for eternal life, or maybe they can muster up a cheap prayer that they can place their faith in, so they might boast of this marvelous work of righteousness which has garnered them eternal safety.

I can tell you now, if a "sinner's prayer" finds its way into any part of your evangelistic efforts, you have sold your potential converts a bill of goods; and you should tirelessly chase down each and every one of them and repent of this heinous evil you have done to their soul

I hope you don't think I am pointing at only you personally. I am probably the most outspoken critic of a "sinner's prayer" that you might ever meet. I was deceived by this human effort approach for over two decades before I came to find rest in the work of Christ upon the cross.

But that's what I don't agree with, and that is the first point of contention against MacArthur's book.

Believing facts is just that - facts. It does not translate to faith, whether *saving* or *spurious*

The WCF, Packer, Boice, Mac, all say that believing facts = faith (non-saving)
Then when those facts are joined together with works, it becomes *saving faith*

That is why they see the "faith, without works" view as facts only - because they have a faulty understanding of what constitutes faith in the first place.

But Acts 26:20, as rendered in the NIV is NOT a literal wording.

Context is the key here. If you start back in 20:17, Paul is recounting how Jesus sent him to the Gentiles to open their eyes so they may "turn" from darkness to light (from deception to understanding) and from the power of Satan (the father of lies) to God. Then Paul says he was not disobedient to that call.

So where can we see Paul in action? Acts 17:16-31. He was in Athens, and noticed all their idols, even one to an unknown god. He said in verse 22, "I see how religious you are in every way." But they were deceived. And Paul told them that God has commanded all men, everywhere, to repent (verse 30).

So back in 20:26, when Paul says that he told people to repent (have a change in understanding) and turn to God - AND do deeds consistent with repentance.

The deeds aren't repentance, the deeds are supposed to be *consistent with* repentance.

Scripture never says the devils have faith, or that they believe in Jesus. James 2:19 says "You believe there is one God....they devils also believe, and tremble.

In a later post, I will exegete this passage for you, but it would take too much time tonight.

The heart of what is at stake is the nature of faith.

 

Here is a good summary of LS, as I understand it.

http://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2011/03/what-is-wrong-with-lordship-salvation.html#

 

Faith is confidence in the word of another.
Nowhere in the Bible is it taught as a gift of God.
Perhaps you should start a thread on faith, as a separate topic.

The fact is that his understanding of LS is my understanding, and most of the people I meet understand LS in this way.

 

there biggest confusion is to equate that a Christian has BOTH Justifiication/sauctification happening at same time!

 

That question has nothing to do with LS.