i am a grace alone guy. Thoughts?

Grace alone. Pure grace. Not the mainstream choice grace. Which really isn't Grace. Chosen before the foundation of the world grace.

I thought this would generate some discussion as this is a huge topic as per salvation in the evangelical camp.

Pure grace vs salvation vs grace plus stuff which is very poorly defined. Hodges and Ryrie vs Macarthur, Piper, and Packer.

Van Til said:

---

Grace alone. Pure grace. Not the mainstream choice grace. Which really isn't Grace. Chosen before the foundation of the world grace.

---

Mr. Spurgeon, is that you!?

Spurgeon was not a grace alone guy. Had to show change or it was not good enough.

Edited to add that Spurgeon was maybe the first Lord Salvationist preacher. He believed that if you were truly born again you would exhibit some works.

Doc, allow me to send you a copy of Spurgeon's book "All of Grace". Spurgeon in my opinion articulates the dichotomies of grace vs. works and free will vs. predestination better than anyone.

TampaBayAg said:

---

Doc, allow me to send you a copy of Spurgeon's book "All of Grace". Spurgeon in my opinion articulates the dichotomies of grace vs. works and free will vs. predestination better than anyone.

---

Appreciate it but will download it. God bless you.

I understand the Lordship salvation position but I lean grace alone.

The salvation that Christ brings is not limited to our eternal consequence. Jesus has taught us how to live the fullest, most meaningful life. Sin is what happens when we fail to believe Jesus is telling us the truth about that, or lack the willpower to follow through. The world will be better off, and you will be better off, if you just listen him. So, in my mind, it is better framed not as works, but as life, and how to live it.

I like that Buster.

Buster hits along my lines of thinking. While works may not (or may) be a requirement Gods grace and love should spur us on to "live" a Christian life.

Belief in Jesus is not decided by us. I think this is lost in current generation. Most believe they have a choice to believe or not. We don't have a choice.

You do have a choice. There is just a consequence if you are wrong...

We do not have a choice. Jesus tells us explicitly we do not have a choice.

Here's how I've come to understand it (and I believe what the Reformers realized).

There's nothing we can do to merit Salvation. It is only because of God's Grace that we have a chance at salvation.

The belief or thought that our works in any way merit or attribute to salvation really don't make any sense and at least Luther thought that this belief in itself may be a mortal sin (if you believe in differentiated sin, I don't).

However, while man can never achieve salvation on their own, man can certainly reject or work against it.

I looked up Lordship Salvation and in a lot of ways he and Luther agree. Where they would disagree is on the belief that any of our "works" are ours to begin with or even if our "works" are "good enough" in the first place.

The problem I have with the Lordship Salvationists is when they basically tell people they can lose their salvation or were never saved UNLESS they do something. And of course, that something is what that particular theologian believes are the "correct" works. And what amount of works?

I agree. Which works are good works? What if I am only doing the good work to justify my salvation? Is that truly a good work?

Francis Chan is the worst and is teaching a false gospel imho.

Van Til said:

---

Belief in Jesus is not decided by us. I think this is lost in current generation. Most believe they have a choice to believe or not. We don't have a choice.

---

Yes we do. John 3:16!

dermdoc said:

---

The problem I have with the Lordship Salvationists is when they basically tell people they can lose their salvation or were never saved UNLESS they do something. And of course, that something is what that particular theologian believes are the "correct" works. And what amount of works?

---

That's the problem with putting any stock in "works" as a way to salvation.

None of it is good enough for God and none of it remotely overcomes our sin.

The more concerning thing is when people begin to focus on their works vs God, because as you said, only the "correct works" matter. That begins to sound a lot like legalism.

Dermdoc - our views overlap often.

My personal opinion is that the Lordship / Grace debate is more than other theological quibble. Where one lies on the scale often indicates how they view the sufficiency of the work of Christ..

Did Jesus die for...

• some of our sins
• only sins that we confess
• sins committed before belief
• all sins past present and future.

The Lordship view also takes ones eyes off of Jesus and replaces it with a judgemental mirror...

• Do I pray enough?
• serve enough?
• read God's word enough?
• have righteous desires enough

All of the work required for out salvation happened in the past...
Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

I know where they are coming from, they want "committed" Christians who will show up every Sunday, give a lot of money and time, etc.

But that is not the Gospel. There is a website called expreacherman.com that I really like that exposes the works aspect of the Lordship Salvationists. Explains why it would upset me when I read any of the Lord Salvationists stuff. Being that I am 63 I purchased a book by Piper on retirement. When he said you could lose your salvation if you "did not persevere to the end" it rankled my Spirit. And rightly so as that is terrible theology and not the Gospel.

And of course, Piper and his cohorts will say that if you quit working and do nothing, then you were never saved to begin with. I think that is bad theology also.

What was the apostles reply when the jailer asked them what he needed to do be saved?

We have tons of brothers and sisters in the camp who are very committed. I have 3 family members who are grads of Masters seminary. The personal issues I have with the teaching...

• Loss of assurance" always questioning if I was saved, always looking inwardly for evidence of salvation vs Jesus
• judging people by their fruit
• fear
• stunted growth

after discovering the Lordship was not true

• freedom
• deeper appreciation for Jesus
• deeper knowledge of identity
• security
• at times abused grace (which is the fear that spurs the doctrine above) but could never do it with a clean conscience)
• higher view of Christ

Blue star

dermdoc said:

---

Francis Chan is the worst and is teaching a false gospel imho.

---

Hmmm, I guess I don't know as much about him as I thought I did. I know he's very big on people really putting it on the line for God rather than the lip service many give. I'll have to pay a little closer attention to see if I agree with you or not.

I do not have a problem with him preaching that. I have a problem with him preaching that radical Christianity is necessary for salvation. Or that you can lose your salvation. You really ought to check out 5at website I posted earlier expreacherman.com.

I'll check it out. Yeah I agree that he exaggerates things but I didn't realize he taught that you can actually lose your salvation.

His book and David Platts were pretty good at making me feel guilty about anything I've ever purchased.

Platt has the same theology. As does Packer, Macarthur, and Piper. You should not feel guilty about buying stuff.

And edited to add that Jesus did not die so we would feel guilty. He died so we could be free.

I mean I agree but there is a point to where your faith should actually drive you to do something other than pursue comfort and riches. If we act like everyone else then we don't really impact the world for Christ.

I understand angst against these guys but I wouldn't call them false teachers. I mean come on. Jon MacArthur is a biblical encyclopedia.

If they are teaching salvation is from anything than the finished work of Jesus Christ or that you can lose your salvation then they are not preaching the Gospel IMHO.

If they are right, why did Paul not tell the jailer he had to do something?

And edited to add that check out whether Macarthur thinks you can lose your salvation. And of course, being Calvinists, they will claim that the folks who do not show "fruits", which they define, then they were never really of the "elect". Far cry from what was told to the jailer.

But these guys are Calvinist, they don't teach that.

Check out Piper's book on retirement where he says that you can lose your salvation if you do not "persevere to the end".

These guys are defining what it takes to show you are "saved".

Are you sure that is what he is really saying and not just telling people to not waste their time?

Direct quote my friend. I had a thread on it and will try to retrieve it.