I'm not an expert on the Roman teaching but I suspect there is nuanced that is not being considered.

I was brought up in a Southern Baptist Church where the judicial was always emphasized. I am changing slowly to where I realize my faith is not just "fire insurance" but also a means for living a more fulfilling life. It is very hard to shake away the condemnation aspect of salvation after so many years. It almost becomes a default position when things go crazy.

It doesn't have to be either / or - it can be both / and.

Oh, I agree. Being an OCD perfectionist,I concentrate on my faults. And the damnation stuff intensifies it. This site helps me a lot.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'm not an expert on the Roman teaching but I suspect there is nuanced that is not being considered.

---

Certainly it's more nuanced.

However, if you are a Protestant looking to insert works back into the equation, why not just go back to the Church that's been refining requirement for longer that Protestantism has been around.

One way of examining our faults is good - to understand correctly our place before God. This is to acquire humility, and is a gift of grace. The other way is not good, and it is to set ourselves as judge over ourselves, trying to perceive our relationship with God by our own knowledge. This has to be avoided, it's a perversion of true humility.

This is why we pray for God to "grant us to see our own sins and not to judge our brother" because we can't do this alone. When you focus on your faults, test it to see if it is grace showing you humility or temptation away from it.

Thanks. I actually have perceived it is my own "natural" self trying to convince myself that there is no way I can be saved. Or Satan.

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

I'm not an expert on the Roman teaching but I suspect there is nuanced that is not being considered.

---

Certainly it's more nuanced.

However, if you are a Protestant looking to insert works back into the equation, why not just go back to the Church that's been refining requirement for longer that Protestantism has been around.

---

Agree. And that is exactly how I perceive the Lordship Salvation folks. And there seems to an inordinate amount of judging stimulated by this theology.

And edited to add that when you use a nebulous term like "Make Jesus the Lord of your Life" then the preacher and other church members can set up their own standards needed for salvation. Thus the difference between Chan and Macarthur.

to say that Francis Chan is preaching a false gospel is where I just think you are off base. The Christian life is a radical commitment. Jesus says that Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord is a believer. I think what Chan is saying is that the call of Christ is one that should be reflected in our life choices. Too much comfort in America where we think our Christian duty is to be a good person, put a check in the plate on Sunday, and then live comfortably!

And yes, I have read Crazy Love 3 times.

Maybe it is just me but that sounds like a salvation based on our works and effort as defined by Chan or whomever. I think salvation is based on free grace offered through the blood of Christ. I do not believe I can save myself by being radical or whatever. We will agree to disagree.

And edited to add that our office and family do many of the things Chan and other Lordship Salvation folks mention. We have tracts available, pray and witness at the office, financially participate in missions, etc. And there is nothing wrong with those things until you tie it into salvation which I think Lordship guys do.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Sounds simple and pretty defined to me. And is not that the Gospel?

Probably also hinges on what you think the word believe means. Is it just belief in the head?

I don't think you are stating Chan's belief as he would. He is not saying at all that works save you, but that works are evidence of genuine belief. We all know people (at least I think we do) that would say Yes, I believe, Yes I prayed to receive Christ at a Christian camp.... I think what Chan is saying is that if there is no evidence in that person's life to show a genuine circumcision of the heart, I think it gives us at least a question of is that person's belief genuine. And that said, none of us can ever know who is saved and who is not saved.

So you believe that someone has to have "evidence" of being a Christian through their works? I am curious who sets the criteria for what that "evidence" is. Maybe I am reading Chan, Macarthur, and Piper wrong but it sure seems like they are the ones setting the rules. And I think it leads to Christians judging and "competing" with others.

I just think it is a very slippery slope when Christians start judging other Christians actions and questioning their salvation based on some man made criteria. And it has been going on since Christ was on earth.

No one is judging! I said there is no way we can know for sure. So, if you have A friend that says he has made a commitment to Christ, but there is no evidence in his life of a commitment do you not doubt at all whether the commitment was genuine or not ? James is pretty clear that faith w/o works of evidence is a dead faith Or probably more appropriately was never faith at all! Good works do not save us but they are evidence of a genuine faith !

aggiemike said:

---

No one is judging! I said there is no way we can know for sure. So, if you have A friend that says he has made a commitment to Christ, but there is no evidence in his life of a commitment do you not doubt at all whether the commitment was genuine or not ? James is pretty clear that faith w/o works of evidence is a dead faith Or probably more appropriately was never faith at all! Good works do not save us but they are evidence of a genuine faith !

---

You say that no one is judging and then you immediate give an example how you would judge your friend...

Even worse, it's completely arbitrary because you are now judging your friend against a standard you've created for yourself.

Put another way, God's standard in all things is perfection. I'm sure we if examined your life's works, we'd probably be wondering your faith was real as well.

Not sure you even read a word of my post. Secondly, no need to be rude and ugly. And yes, you are right, my life is far from perfect! Read James 2:14-26 and then let us know how that applies to our post!

aggiemike said:

---

Not sure you even read a word of my post. Secondly, no need to be rude and ugly. And yes, you are right, my life is far from perfect! Read James 2:14-26 and then let us know how that applies to our post!

---

Pointing out the contradictions with your statement isn't being "rude and ugly." You're the one who posted your thoughts on a discussion forum. Should we just agree with you regardless of whether you say is right or not?

And modern evangelicals have destroyed the view of "Sola Fide."

It does not mean, that we simply believe in Jesus and sit on the couch getting fat. That's not a Biblical view.

Sola Fide means putting our faith entirely in God and His Word. And His Word is very clear that we should perform works. Not because those works are somehow going to save us, but because we are told to Love our neighbors.

So for every James 2 post, there's a Romans 3 post that contradicts it.

So we do works not for ourselves, but because God commanded us to. Iff we are doing them for ourselves, we are in a world of trouble because we all failed at that task yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Agree. The problem becomes when you tie salvation to some kind of evidence of works as determined by men. Nothing wrong with pointing out faults of congregations like Paul did with Corinth. But he never questioned their salvation. Or exhorting congregations like James did. But Paul and James were talking to believers and never questioned their salvation.

And who exactly defines what a lukewarm Christian is? Chan sure seems like he knows the heart. My impression is that the Lodshop Salvation guys "add on" to salvation by simple grace which is a free gift and requires no man action.

The other problem is the one size fits all theology. Everybody is not called to be an evangelist, missionary, preacher, etc. Or give more of their money to the church. To me, lordship salvation takes away the assurance of eternal security and makes believers feel like they need to do more. And how much more is needed? Who defines that?

Remember who Jesus was talking to when he said take up your cross. It was his disciples which to me is totally different than being a saved believer.

Folks like Chan make every Christian a disciple or they are not a "real" Christian. Just does not seem Biblical or Protestant to me. In fact, with the emphasis on works why not just be a Catholic?

Quote:

---

So for every James 2 post, there's a Romans 3 post that contradicts it.

---

No. They don't contradict at all. How can that make any sense?

If your interpretation of James 2 contradicts your interpretation of Romans 3, you interpretation is wrong.

Quote:

---

My impression is that the Lodshop Salvation guys "add on" to salvation by simple grace which is a free gift and requires no man action.

---

Salvation by grace is a gift, but the assertion that the entire process of salvation requires no action by the part of the believer is unsupported by scripture. This violates free will entirely. Salvation doesn't end with justification.

Quote:

---

The other problem is the one size fits all theology. Everybody is not called to be an evangelist, missionary, preacher, etc. Or give more of their money to the church. To me, lordship salvation takes away the assurance of eternal security and makes believers feel like they need to do more. And how much more is needed? Who defines that?

---

There is a one sized fits all theology: Christ. The Way to salvation is identical for every single believer, and every believer is saved to the same end, which again is Christ. He is the means and the end. But the expression or realization of salvation, and therefore the path to get there, and the end, is unique to each person. St Gregory the Theologian said:

Quote:

---

Is it not that there are various modes of conduct, and various purposes, one leading one way, another another way, according to the proportion of faith, and these we call Ways? Must we, then, travel all, or some of these Ways...the same individual along them all, if that be possible; or, if not, along as many as may be; or else along some of them? And even if this may not be, it would still be a great thing, at least as it appears to me, to travel excellently along even one. What then when you hear there is but One way, and that a narrow one, does the word seem to you to show? That there is but one on account of its excellence. For it is but one, even though it be split into many parts. And narrow because of its difficulties, and because it is trodden by few in comparison with the multitude of the adversaries, and of those who travel along the road of wickedness.

---

How much more is needed? All of it. Everything. We must die to self, we must lose our lives. It must no longer be us who live, but Christ in us. We die with Him, are buried with Him, and are raised as new creations. We are living sacrifices, poured out like drink offerings. You don't pour out half of a drink offering, or burn half of a sacrifice. It's the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Remember who Jesus was talking to when he said take up your cross. It was his disciples which to me is totally different than being a saved believer.

---

No, my friend, this is simply not true. His disciples are not limited to the Twelve. We are all his disciples, as He says - "make disciples of all nations". And He said didn't say - you who I am speaking to. He said anyone. "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." This doesn't mean physical death. This means the death of selfishness.

I'm not saying you have to sell everything you own and stop being a doc and become a missionary. Or any particular thing. But "whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." Whatever you do means everything.

St Paul says this is a war - "though we live in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh. The weapons of our warfare are not the weapons of the world. Instead, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We tear down arguments, and every presumption set up against the knowledge of God; and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, as soon as your obedience is complete." We must wage war against everything that is not Christ in our lives, as He said the kingdom of God is taken by violence, and the violent seize it. We must be the violent ones, to the extreme.

Nice post k2.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

So for every James 2 post, there's a Romans 3 post that contradicts it.

---

No. They don't contradict at all. How can that make any sense?

If your interpretation of James 2 contradicts your interpretation of Romans 3, you interpretation is wrong.

---

You are making the same point I was.