Notice the following statements by John MacArthur, one of today's leading Lordship Salvationists:
"I remember when I used to discuss this lordship issue and this kind of commitment for salvation with other theologians in the time when I was writing the material on The Gospel According to Jesus, they would pose a question. One of the main guys posed this question to me. If you have a couple that you know and they're living in adultery, they're not married and they're living together and you're going to give them the gospel, do you say to them you must stop sinning and then come to Christ? Or do you say nothing about that, just come to Christ and worry about that later? Well, the answer to the question would be, what would Jesus say. What would Jesus say? Jesus would say this. You have a quote 'love' going on here. Whether it's love or not, I don't know, but you have an affair going on, you have a relationship going on. How important is it for you to receive the forgiveness of sin and eternal life? Because if you're not willing to put a sword in that relationship or any other relationship and to deny the thing your heart craves, then you're not worthy to be My disciple. That really became the nexus of that whole debate."[1]
And it's not just the "big" sins that Lordship Salvationists say must be given up in order to be saved. They go so far as to say that unless a person gives up smoking cigarettes (or at least is willing to do so), they cannot be saved! Regarding this, Charles Ryrie shares the following true story of a run-in he had with a group of Lordship Salvationists who accosted him one time at an airport. Ryrie relates the following incident in his book So Great Salvation:
"Some years ago in another country I was literally accosted after an evening service by a group of American missionaries working in that country. They had been infected by the lordship/discipleship/mastery Gospel, and having read the thirteen pages I had written about the subject in 1969 [in Balancing the Christian Life], they were anxious to debate the issue. I did not know them; they were uninvited; but I could not avoid meeting with them. So we talked for quite a while that night. Finally it came down to an illustration. I posed this case to them. We all knew, even at that time, that smoking had been proven a serious risk to one's health. I asked about a hypothetical person who wanted to be saved, but he smoked. Furthermore, he knew full well that smoking was endangering his health, and he realized that if he became a Christian he ought to give it up. But he was unable to do so, nor was he even willing. So I asked these folks, 'Can he not be saved until either he gives up smoking or is willing to give up smoking?' Reluctantly they admitted that their view compelled them to say no, he cannot."[2]
Years ago William R. Newell wrote a gospel tract titled "The ONLY Kind of People God Saves." The tract is based on Romans 4:5, and it's very applicable to the Lordship Salvation debate. After quoting Romans 4:5, Newell writes the following:
"I wish to call your attention to one fact—God justifies ungodly men. He does not justify all ungodly men, but He justifies ONLY ungodly men. Men think that because they have been ungodly and wicked, God demands a change in their character before He receives them. This is not true. The quotation above definitely says that 'God justifies the ungodly who believe.'
What then does God ask an ungodly sinner to do? First of all, nothing, that is, to cease from absolutely all efforts to save himself. For the verse says, 'To him that worketh not.' A man is asked simply to accept God's verdict about him—that he is ungodly, unrighteous, and unable to save himself. Second, accept the blessed news that God Himself has already reckoned his sins and ungodliness to another Person, that is, to Christ, His Son, and that, because the punishment of sin was death, Jesus has by God's appointment died, has shed His blood, in the sinner's place. 'The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). Christ died for our sins—that is, instead of our dying for them. Death here means banishment from God under a curse, and Christ bearing our sins was forsaken on the cross as accursed of God. (Matthew 27:46; Gal. 3:13.)
Now when an ungodly man finds these two great truths: first, that he is utterly guilty and unable to help himself, and second, that Jesus Christ has already borne sin, in his place, by God's appointment; and when this ungodly man just accepts these facts and trusts this Saviour, whom God raised from the dead to be trusted, this ungodly man is saved then and there. That is, God forgives and justifies him on the basis of the price already paid—the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Do you believe this? Or, are you still trying to REFORM yourself—promising yourself that you will do better, and merit God's favor thus? Why do you not believe what God says: By deeds of righteousness shall no flesh be justified in God's sight? (Romans 3:20; Titus 3:5.)
Listen to the Gospel: 'To him that WORKETH NOT BUT BELIEVETH on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness' (Romans 4:5).
This is good news! Every sinner in the world could have this salvation, if he were willing, this moment. Let anyone who wants Christ claim Him at once. As a sinner, claim the Saviour God has appointed for sinners, as your very own Saviour this moment. He sees your heart. Trust Him now as yours, and lo, He is yours!"[3]
The fatal problem with MacArthur's view of the gospel is that he confuses the free gift of salvation with the costly demands of discipleship. That's typical of Lordship Salvation. But more than that, MacArthur's gospel clearly contradicts what the Bible says about the only kind of people God saves: not those who clean up their lives first, but "the ungodly"!
"Just As I Am"
A Gospel Hymn
Just as I am,
without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidd'st me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am,
and waiting not
to rid my soul of one dark blot,
to thee, whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am, though tossed about
with many a conflict, many a doubt,
fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Just as I am,
thou wilt receive,
wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
because thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
—Charlotte Elliot
References:
[1] John MacArthur, "The Extreme Nature of True Discipleship, Part 1" (Oct 16, 2005), Grace to You website. Sermon on Luke 14:25-27. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-195/the-extreme-nature-of-true-discipleship-part-1 (accessed December 31, 2022).
[2] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: SP Publications, Inc., 1989), pp. 112-113. Note: The same statement appears in the second edition of Ryrie's book. See Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1997), p. 103.
[3] William R. Newell, "The ONLY Kind of People God Saves" (Chicago: Good News Pub. Co., no date), pp. 1-3, emphasis his. Note: There is a date stamp from the library of the University of Illinois on the front cover of the tract with the date: "APR 4 1942."
In addition to Dr. Charles Ryrie, other prominent voices in the Christian community have sounded the alarm about Lordship Salvation. For example, late in his life Dr. J. Vernon McGee warned his listeners about the dangers of the "Lordship gospel." While guest preaching at Pastor David Jeremiah’s church in southern California in the mid-1980s, Dr. McGee made the following statements:
ReplyDelete“But the new thing that’s happened today is, liberalism is just about dead. But in our conservative groups, heresies are coming in. At least, I’ve labeled them heresies. Some think I ought not to, but many of these men have been friends of mine in the past. Let me just mention them, and I’m not gonna belabor this point either, because all I want to be sure of [is] that we’re in days of apostasy — that in conservative churches today a new gospel is being preached, and that’s the Lordship gospel, the Lordship Salvation — that you are not saved until you make Jesus Lord. And I said to a friend of mine that teaches that, and he’s in a seminary, and I said to him, ‘What do you do with the thief on the cross? Did he make Jesus Lord?’ Why, all he did, or asked, was, ‘Remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ That’s all he did; he just had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I can imagine that old tough Philippian jailer that came in that night, and he was ready to kill himself because Rome would’ve done it for him. And Paul says, ‘Don’t do yourself harm. We’re all here.’ And then this man said, ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ And if anybody needed to make Jesus Lord, it was that old rough Philippian jailer! But he didn’t mention that. He said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ . . . and you can always recognize that they add something to what Jesus did for us on the cross. Jesus paid it all. He doesn’t want my two bits. He doesn’t want anything I do. And He doesn’t want my commitment because He’s found out that I lied about that two or three times. And don’t you look at me that way because you’ve done the same thing. May I say to you, thank God tonight for a Savior who did it all! And I can know I’m saved, because I trust Him. I trust Him. And that’s what He told me to do.”[1]
Reference:
[1] J. Vernon McGee, “What Can Believers Do in Days of Apostasy?” YouTube (time stamp: 14:30 - 16:20 and 19:41 - 20:28).
If a lost person believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Divine and human Son of God , who was born of the virgin Mary, livid a sinless life ,died on the cross for his sins and rose from the dead but ALSO believes he must stop smoking in order to have salvation, would he be justified?
ReplyDeleteDid said person ever believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel is believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, correct? Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is not found in the Scripture but is Martin Luther's response to the Roman church. And quite frankly ,that can't on it's face save anyone, wouldn't you agree?
DeleteIf you are referring to Paul's gospel, it is clearly laid out in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5. It is important to ground our understanding in the text, wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, pointing out that Martin Luther held to the doctrine of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone does not mean the doctrine itself is absent from Scripture. Mentioning a historical figure is irrelevant to whether the doctrine is true. Your logic is equivalent to saying "Mr. X believed in XYZ, therefore XYZ is false," which doesn't follow. Something is true or false independent of who believes it or how many people hold to it.
But I don't think you answered my earlier question, so I'll ask it again: Did the person you mentioned in your first comment ever believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?
Upon reading the Gospel accounts he/she became convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah, God's Divine and human Son, and believed in Him as his Savior. He also thought upon reading Acts 2:38 that he needed to be baptized because that is what the bible said, and he gave up smoking.
DeleteYour response is exactly what I asked you: Did the person you mentioned in your first comment ever believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? Your response is unclear regarding the answer, could you please clarify. Thank you
ReplyDeleteNo, they didn't, because the Scripture never uses that terminology as part of what is needed to believe for eternal salvation.
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify that in my previous comment, I meant to say: "Your response is exactly why I asked you..." (not "what" I asked you, but "why" I asked you). But anyway, typos are inevitable I suppose.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the phrase "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone," you said: "the Scripture never uses that terminology." You apparently think that the concept of "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" is unbiblical because that exact phrase or those exact words are not in the Bible.
But if that's your argument, your reasoning is flawed. There are no doubt many terms and phrases that are not explicitly in the Bible, yet those concepts are clearly biblical. Are you consistent with your own reasoning on this? If so, I take it that you don't believe in the "Rapture" either, because "Scripture never uses that terminology." Jordan Ballard comments on this line of reasoning saying: “The fact that the term rapture does not appear in the English Bible or in the Greek text does not negate the fact that the concept is taught in Scripture. There are other terms and concepts such as ‘Trinity’, ‘Sunday’, and ‘the Lord’s prayer’ which are taught in Scripture, even though the exact words do not appear.” (Ballard, A Case for the Pretribulational Rapture of the Church, unpublished manuscript, p. 3.) I hope you see my point. (And no, I'm not saying that a lost person needs to believe in the "Rapture" to be saved. I'm just using that as an illustration to make my point.) You are using an invalid line of reasoning. The phrase "salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" is meant to signify or convey the fact that salvation excludes human works. This concept is completely biblical (cf. Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 11:6; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.).
Yankee Arnold has well said: "Many people say they believe Jesus died on the cross and paid for their sin, but they trust their works to save them. 'Yes, I've believed in Jesus all my life; I believe He died on the cross for me. Yes, I'll go to heaven because I'm good.' Believing that Jesus died for you is not the same as believing that He alone will save you. There are many religions that believe that Christ died on the cross, paid for sin, and came back from the dead, but never trust him for their salvation. To 'believe in Jesus' means to trust in Him to save you; not just believe that He died. Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ alone to save them are, to one degree or another, still trusting in themselves and their good works. THEY ARE NOT SAVED. Man is saved by faith alone, apart from any works. 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.' (Romans 3:28)." —Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 25, emphasis his.
'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.' (Romans 3:28)." —Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 25, emphasis his. Exactly!!! Paul's argument was "Faith rather than Law." Show me one instance in Scripture where Paul confronts (or Jesus or anyone) someone who has believed in Messiah and "adds works" not the Mosiac law, to faith, and is told they are not justified. In your scenario no Calvinist, Armenian, Roman Catholic etc, is justified since they erroneously add works( not the law which is Paul's argument) to faith in Messiah. Paul's problem in the first century wasn't lordship salvation, but the faith vs law argument. In fact , lordship salvation is not even hinted at as an issue in the first century, and is a concept foreign to first century thinking. I see it as a sanctification issue. The object of faith is Jesus and His person, Divine and human Son of God, and His finished work, death, burial and resurrection. The moment someone believes that, they are justified even if they erroneously add something( baptism, repentance from individual sins, commitment, lordship, doing 10 jumping jacks everyday or whatever.)
ReplyDeleteBut Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn't mention the Mosaic Law. (You conveniently IGNORED that Scripture!) In Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul EXCLUDES works added to faith for salvation. So that Scripture clearly disproves your faith plus works for salvation argument. Not to mention some of the other Bible verses that I cited in my previous comment (e.g. Rom. 4:4-5; 11:6, etc.), which also disprove your faith plus works false gospel. Thus, you are cherry-picking Bible verses and twisting the Scriptures to your own destruction (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).
ReplyDeleteBy the way, your pseudo-distinction between "works" and "law" is inaccurate, because the Mosaic Law was/is works (!), it's just a different category of works (e.g. circumcision). So Romans 3:28 still disproves your argument because the Law is still works. In other words, the Mosaic Law requirement of circumcision is still in the category of works (i.e. circumcision is a human work). Whereas in Ephesians 2:8-9, Paul doesn't mention the Mosaic Law; he's talking about works in general: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves [i.e. salvation is not of yourselves], it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST" (Eph. 2:8-9). If a person could claim to have done even one work for salvation, it would give that person something to boast about! Paul says that is NOT how a person is saved.
Here are a few more statements by Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold showing that your faith plus works gospel is a Satanic lie from the pit of Hell (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). "Yankee" Arnold says:
"Salvation is either by grace or works, IT CANNOT BE BOTH. 'And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.' (Romans 11:6)." –"Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 27, emphasis his.
"Satan's lie to the lost is faith + works for salvation." –"Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 142, emphasis his.
"Adding works to the gospel takes away the power of the gospel for then it becomes a false message that cannot save." –"Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 148, emphasis his.
"Romans 11...Verse 6 says, 'And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.' To say a person must trust Christ as his Savior (grace) AND make Christ Lord (Master) of his life (works) to be saved is a GRACE AND WORKS MESSAGE; a false message that cannot save! Salvation cannot be of grace and works. The one excludes the other. Scripture clearly teaches salvation is BY GRACE! (Ephesians 2:8, 9)." –"Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 150, emphasis his.
"YOU MUST TRUST 100% IN CHRIST INSTEAD OF YOUR GOOD WORKS TO GET YOU TO HEAVEN." –"Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, p. 188, emphasis his.
Acts 15:5
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” Here is an example of believers teaching circumcision as a requirement for salvation. It’s obvious that they believe ( erroneously) that circumcision is required, yet their salvation is never questioned. So it’s possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified.
Acts 15:5 does NOT say that these Pharisees were "teaching circumcision as a requirement for salvation." In other words, these Pharisees required circumcision, yes, but Acts 15:5 doesn't say that they required it "for salvation." (And even if they did require it for salvation, that still wouldn't prove that it was God's requirement. Those are two different things. But as I said, Acts 15:5 does NOT say that they required it "for salvation.") That is your interpretation, NOT what Acts 15:5 actually says. Why are you quoting a Bible verse that doesn't even prove your point? That might be a clue that your interpretation is incorrect! By way of contrast, the Bible verses that I quoted to you ARE clear. Salvation is "not by works" (Titus 3:5; cf. Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). I mean honestly, you are using a Bible verse that doesn't even say what you're trying to prove! I quoted crystal clear Bible verses to you (Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.), and your reply is to quote a text which doesn't even prove your point! It doesn't even say what you're trying to prove. Don't you have any Bible verses that at least say what you believe about faith plus works for salvation? Because Acts 15:5 isn't it. I mean, if you can just read into the text something it doesn't even say, then you can twist the Bible to prove anything you want! Which is (sadly) exactly what you're doing. Because your conclusion that "it's possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified" does not logically or biblically follow from the evidence (or the lack thereof) that you presented. And worse, your conclusion contradicts other Bible verses that are crystal clear on the subject! Thus your method of Bible interpretation is unsound (flawed), because it violates the hermeneutical principle known as "The Analogy of Faith." This is the principle of Bible interpretation which states that when interpreting Scripture, the Bible interpreter should interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. And not vise versa as you are doing. Thus, sir, your method of Bible interpretation is completely backwards, and no wonder then that your conclusion is diametrically opposed to the free grace of God (Rom. 3:24). For "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." (Rom. 11:6, NASB.)
ReplyDeleteHere, let me set the context for you since throughout this exchange you have cherry picked verses without regards to the context. Acts 15
ReplyDeleteNew International Version
The Council at Jerusalem
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” The Pharisees were in complete agreement with the “certain men “ who were teaching adherence to the law of Moses as a requirement for salvation.
I'm not the one cherry-picking Bible verses; that is you in regards to Acts 15:5. The Bible verses that I've shared with you are the clear teaching of Scripture, that salvation is "not by works" (Titus 3:5; cf. Jer. 17:5; Jn. 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Rev. 22:17, etc.). The fact that you haven't engaged with these Bible verses shows that you can't offer a compelling alternative interpretation. Read the book of Romans. Read the book of Galatians. Read Paul's writings. You think I'm cherry-picking Bible verses? If I told you the whole Bible shows that salvation is NOT by faith plus works, then you would ask me for specific Bible verses! So you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, it's odd that you didn't ever mention anything about me supposedly cherry-picking Bible verses when I first shared those verses with you (you were silent as a church mouse on it, in fact!), but instead you only brought it up after I called you out on how YOU are cherry-picking Acts 15:5 (a Bible verse which doesn't even support your position).
ReplyDeleteContinued below...
And regarding the Scriptures I mentioned (Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6, etc.), if you disagree with them, then interact with those Bible verses and show HOW exactly they don't support what I've said, but rather support your conclusion that "it's possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified." Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then obviously Acts 15:5 must be understood in light of the CLEAR SCRIPTURES that I've shared with you. If you disagree, please tell me how exactly does Acts 15:5 prove your point? I've read the context surrounding it. (I've actually written several articles on Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council, so I'm quite familiar with what that passage says and also your view of it.) If the context surrounding Acts 15:5 is so clear in support of your position that "it's possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified," you no doubt would have shared it with me (!) when you mentioned Acts 15:5, or you would have pointed to Acts 15:1-5 instead of Acts 15:5. You did neither. Obviously you thought that Acts 15:5 is the strongest Bible verse in that context supporting your position, hence it's the one you shared with me first. And my point is that it doesn't even say what you've concluded in regards to salvation by faith plus works. So now you point to the surrounding context, which you should have done at the beginning. So please enlighten us, how does the context of Acts 15:1-5 support your conclusion that "it's possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified"? You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you to show how exactly Acts 15:1-5 supports your contention that "it's possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified." Please enlighten us. You merely said: "The Pharisees [in Acts 15:5] were in complete agreement with the 'certain men' [in Acts 15:1] who were teaching adherence to the law of Moses as a requirement for salvation." But the text of Acts 15:1-5 doesn't make that connection; or if it does, how does it? I don't read what you said about it anywhere in Acts 15:1-5. Once again, it's your interpretation, NOT what the text actually says. And as I pointed out in my previous comment, even IF the text did make that connection between the "certain men" in Acts 15:1 and "the Pharisees" in Acts 15:5, it would merely show that circumcision (i.e. works) was their requirement for salvation; it would not show that it was God's requirement. As I said, those are two different things. (And just to be clear: Acts 15:5 does NOT say that the Pharisees required circumcision for salvation. Instead, Acts 15:5 merely says that the Pharisees said it "was needful, " but it doesn't say for what.) So it seems that you have quite a challenge on your hands in regard to Acts 15:1-5 supporting your position. But I'm all ears! I praise God for our interaction, because He is using you as an example to the world of how NOT to interpret the Bible!
ReplyDelete1163. dei ►
ReplyDeleteLexical Summary
dei: It is necessary, must, ought
Original Word: δεῖ
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: dei
Pronunciation: day
Phonetic Spelling: (die)
KJV: behoved, be meet, must (needs), (be) need(-ful), ought, should
NASB: must, ought, should, had, necessary, have, due
Word Origin: [third person singular active present of G1210 (δέω - bound), neuter active participle of the same, both used impersonally]
1. it is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding)
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
needful, ought, should.
3d person singular active present of deo; also deon deh-on'; neuter active participle of the same; both used impersonally; it is (was, etc.) Necessary (as binding) -- behoved, be meet, must (needs), (be) need(-ful), ought, should.
see GREEK deo
HELPS Word-studies
1163 deí – properly, what must happen, i.e. what is absolutely necessary ("it behooves that . . . ").
Thank you for that Lexical Summary on the Greek word "dei"! I'm not sure what your point is (since you didn't say), but I'm guessing that it's in regards to Acts 15:5 which uses that exact Greek word. So if you're referring to the use of "dei" in Acts 15:5, thank you for proving my point!
ReplyDeleteIf you'll notice, I already specifically pointed out in one of my earlier comments how in Acts 15:5 it says that the Pharisees said it "was needful" (Greek dei) to be circumcised, but it DOESN'T say "for salvation" (as Mark DelSignore INCORRECTLY stated earlier in this comment thread in regard to Acts 15:5). So my point stands. And thank you for verifying it.
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 What was the question that Paul and Barnabas were going up to Jerusalem to discuss with the apostles and elders?
ReplyDeleteWhy ask me? What does your Bible say?
ReplyDelete"Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
Deletevs5 "Then some of the BELIEVERS who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said,
"The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
It's obvious that the believing Pharisees were in agreement with the certain men who where obviously known by the council.
24"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you by what they said.
The certain men and the Pharisees were both saved since we are given no reason to doubt that they were not, from the text, and we are told that the Pharisees were believers in vs5.
The conclusion is the "certain men" and the Pharisees were believers in spite of the fact that they erroneously believed in their heart that the Mosaic law was a requirement for salvation.
DeleteThe same holds true for those who hold to as you call it Lordship salvation.
What you just said is a jumbled mess! No wonder your exegesis is off. First you quoted part of Acts 15:1 (and you didn't even reference the verse!), then you skipped down to Acts 15:5 and only quoted part of it too, and then you quickly concluded: "It's obvious that the believing Pharisees were in agreement with the certain men who where obviously known by the council." And pray tell, HOW exactly is that obvious? If it's so "obvious," why is it NOWHERE STATED in the text? Why can't you point to it in your Bible? Why can't you give me chapter and verse for it? Why can't you tell me: "Thus saith the Lord"? Apparently you are the only enlightened one who can read the invisible print! Or maybe you have the special reading glasses to see what none of us old-fashioned Bible thumpers can see who just believe what's written in God's Word? That's rich indeed! You need to learn the meaning of the apostle Paul's words when he said: "Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV.)
ReplyDeleteSo thank you for sharing your interpretation; but it's NOT what the text actually says. How is your assumption so "obvious" if it's nowhere specified in the text?! You do understand (I hope) that the "some men" in Acts 15:1 and "the Pharisees who had believed" are two distinct groups (!); and therefore it is especially tenuous to assume that these two separate groups are in complete agreement on the matter being discussed (a very controversial one, at that) especially when the text never makes that clear. You are reading it into the text, sir. And that is EISOGESIS, not exegesis. In other words, your conclusion is based on a flawed methodology: a flawed method of Bible interpretation. And furthermore, as I keep trying to explain to you (but it seems to go completely over your head), even IF those two distinct groups (the "some men" in Acts 15:1 and "the Pharisees who had believed" in Acts 15:5) WERE in complete agreement on that particular point (which the text never states), it would only show that it was their requirement for salvation, not God's requirement. So essentially, your point doesn't show what you are trying to prove, which is that (as you stated earlier) "it’s possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified." No, but thanks for showing us how weak your basis is for concluding that! What you are doing is inventing words out of thin air and reading them into the text where it seems good to you. Rather than taking the meaning OUT OF the text (the proper method of Bible interpretation), you are inserting your own ideas INTO the text. That's backwards! Your method of Bible interpretation (reading your preconceived ideas and conclusions into the Bible) reminds me of what the Apostle Paul says in Ephesians 4:14! Sadly, you are like the infant baby Christian who is "tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming" (Eph. 4:14, NIV). Or dare I say, you are that false teacher! I pray not, but are you not teaching these things?
Continued below....
And furthermore, in regard to your method of Bible interpretation (as it pertains specifically to what you said in your last comment), you then jumped all the way down to Acts 15:24 (without explaining how you can legitimately SKIP OVER the entire intervening context!) and you conclude: "The certain men [in Acts 15:1] and the Pharisees [in Acts 15:5] were both saved since we are given no reason to doubt that they were not, from the text, and we are told that the Pharisees were believers in vs5." When you said, "we are given no reason to doubt that they were not, from the text," what that actually means is that your conclusion is merely what you have PRESUMED, not what the text actually says. Because the point is simply this: the text nowhere says that those in Acts 15:1 were saved. So that's why you have to instead say, "we are given no reason to doubt that they were not." So you are basically admitting that the text nowhere states what you have so confidently asserted! (And in fact, as I pointed out to you earlier, you are IGNORING the clear teachings of Scripture on the subject such as Romans 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6, Eph. 2:8-9: that salvation is by faith alone not by faith plus works, and instead you are focusing on Acts 15, a text which doesn't ever state what you have so confidently asserted but instead says just the opposite!) Where exactly does the text says that the "some men" in Acts 15:1 are saved? You are basing that merely on your opinion that "we are given no reason to doubt that they were"! Is that how you interpret the Bible? By what it DOESN'T say? With that logic, you could prove anything! No, rather the correct method of Bible interpretation is: "FOR WHAT DO THE SCRIPTURES SAY?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). Notice that in Acts 15:1, Luke NEVER SAYS that the "some men" were saved (!), which is significant in light of the fact that he makes a point to say that the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 are, in fact, believers. A good reason to doubt that those in Acts 15:1 are saved is because the text never says either way, when it does say in regards to the Pharisees in Acts 15:5 that they "had believed." So clearly Luke could have said the same in regards to those in Acts 15:1, but he chose not to? Why? (Compare Acts 15:1 with Paul's statement in Gal. 2:4, which suggests that these men were "false brethren"!) Luke could have easily said that those in Acts 15:1 were saved, but he DIDN'T. Thus you are on shaky ground when you so confidently assume something that is never specified in the text in regards to this particular group, when it IS specified in regards to the group in Acts 15:5. You offered no explanation for this textual silence on the matter, but instead glossed over it with a virtual wave of the hand and confidently stated: "we are given no reason to doubt"! Well then ignorance is bliss, because I just gave you a reason! Once again you have shown that you really have not thought through your conclusion, and you are not accurately nor honestly interacting with the text. You are, instead, "going beyond what is written."
ReplyDeleteYou said: "The conclusion is the 'certain men' [in Acts 15:1] and the Pharisees [in Acts 15:5] were believers in spite of the fact that they [i.e. those in Acts 15:1] erroneously believed in their heart that the Mosaic law was a requirement for salvation. The same holds true for those who hold to as you call it Lordship salvation."
ReplyDeleteI know that's your conclusion. Thank you for verifying it. That's exactly what I've been responding to. My point is that the text (i.e. the Bible) NEVER SAYS what you have been so bold to presume! Specifically: 1) the Bible never says that those in Acts 15:1 were believers, and 2) neither does the text ever say that those in Acts 15:5 were requiring circumcision specifically for salvation. Those two facts you have yet to prove from the Bible. See my two previous comments where I elaborate on my reasons for saying this.
But regarding your most recent comment, my question to you is: where exactly does the Bible say that those in Acts 15:1 are "believers," as you presume? It doesn't! You merely said it's "obvious". That's rich indeed. It's so "obvious" that it's not even in the text! You should just admit that it's your opinion. Be honest. It's not in the Bible. You are attempting to force an interpretation that is not supported by the text (e.g., compare Acts 15:1 with Gal. 2:4), and worse, that is at odds with the clear teaching of Scripture on the matter of salvation by faith alone, not by faith plus works (see Jer. 17:5; Jn. 4:10; Acts 13:38-41, 15:7-11; Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.).
The problem as I see it is that you have to interpret scripture with a preconceived view from your personal doctrinal system. Also you have not been the least bit gracious in our exchange but have answered with insults and innuendo, but I’m sure you find that acceptable since you see me as a heretic.
DeleteYou said: "The problem as I see it is that you have to interpret scripture with a preconceived view from your personal doctrinal system. Also you have not been the least bit gracious in our exchange but have answered with insults and innuendo, but I’m sure you find that acceptable since you see me as a heretic."
ReplyDeleteWell, there it is folks! The age-old fallacy of the "ad hominem" attack! Since you can't defend your view on any Scriptural basis, you resort to attacking the person. You should be ashamed of yourself sir. I dare say you know better, and thus your guilt is all the more egregious.
But back to the Bible. You have not proved your statements in any way, shape, or form. Did I not say, in one of my earlier comments, that it would be a challenge for you? But thanks for showing us all how utterly vacuous is the basis on which you have built your "faith plus works" gospel! It has no Scriptural foundation or grounding whatsoever, and in fact, as I've pointed out numerous times, your view actually contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture! (See Jer. 17:5; Jn. 4:10; Acts 13:38-41, 15:7-11; Rom. 3:24, 3:28, 4:4-5, 4:16, 11:6; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, etc.)
And if you have a "problem" with my view (as you indicated in your comment), then point out my errors. Show from the Bible how what I've said is incorrect. Obviously you cannot do so, or no doubt you would have. So you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Oh, and one more thing. I have not called you a "heretic." But since you brought it up, I would say, as the old adage goes: "If the shoe fits, wear it!"
. I’m in pretty good company with the likes of Ken Wilson and his interpretation of the same passage. What’s really important to me is that I came to the same conclusion on Acts 15 before I ever read his book.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I'm in pretty good company with the likes of Ken Wilson..." Really? The Apostle Paul wrote: "For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not carnal?" (1 Cor. 3:4, KJV). I'd rather just stick with my Bible, thank you very much. Which (I might add) is in distinction to your method of latching onto one proof-text that doesn't even support your view. Not to mentioned all the other Scriptures I've shared with you that actually clearly disprove your "faith plus works" gospel. Thus you just ignore them, i.e., you ignore those Scriptures, which is very telling!
ReplyDeleteI also find it telling that you have this myopic focus on Acts 15, to the total exclusion of "the whole counsel" of God's Word (cf. Acts 20:27, NKJV). Apparently you think that's the proper way to interpret the Bible; just ignore those passages which disprove your belief system!
And then when I pointed out how Acts 15 doesn't even support your view in regards to a "faith plus works" gospel, you offer no biblical basis for your belief but instead you resort to name calling (an ad hominem attack) and name dropping "Ken Wilson." So what if the whole world agreed with you?! The question is: "For what do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30).
Sadly it seems that you are not concerned about that all important question, because you just keep ignoring all the Bible verses I've shared which disprove your position, and you offer no rebuttal to my comments pertaining to Acts 15 either, which is sad. Like I said, apparently you think ignorance is bliss (or maybe you think if you ignore the problem, maybe it will go away) and as long as one person (!) agrees with you, whatever could be the problem?! I mean honestly, that seems to be the gist of your argument, which is pitiful.
Continued below...
Re "you think ignorance is bliss (or maybe you think if you ignore the problem, maybe it will go away)"
DeleteYeah ignorance is typically not bliss...
"Ignorance is the root cause of all Evil. Since only Knowledge eradicates ignorance, it is our duty and moral obligation to educate ourselves, as well as the masses around us." --- Anonymous
Ignorance of lies and deceptions (=most mainstream news and establishment decrees) is bliss because exposing yourself to that is self-propagandization.
Ignorance of truths is not, or only temporarily or rarely, bliss because it is ultimately self-defeating .... https://johnmichaeldemarco.com/15-reasons-why-ignorance-is-not-bliss
"Ignorance is not protection from consequences. When you know better, you do better—but when you do not know, the consequences still arrive, often compounded. Proactivity matters. Asking questions matters. Research matters. Every choice we make carries outcomes, and those outcomes do not pause simply because we failed to understand them." --- https://archive.is/PLqhb
The FALSE mantra of “ignorance is bliss”, promoted in the latter sense, is a product of a fake sick culture that has indoctrinated its “dumbed down” (therefore TRULY ignorant, therefore easy to control) people with many such manipulative slogans. Eg...
““We’re all in this together” is a tribal maxim. Even there, it’s a con, because the tribal leaders use it to enforce loyalty and submission. ... The unity of compliance.” --- Jon Rappoport, Investigative Journalist
You can find the proof that ignorance is hardly ever bliss (and if so only superficial temporary fake bliss), and how you get to buy into this lie (and other self-defeating lies), in the article “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” ... https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html
“If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?” --- John Mitchinson
"If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that vaccinologists, doctors, and the government in general do not have good intentions and never did. The clear intention of everyone concerned was and is to make as much dirty money as possible, letting any amount of collateral damage slide, including a genocide and mass poisoning [with Covid-19 jabs]. The fact [is] that Big Pharma just murdered millions of people, with the full support of government, media, and “science”. With Covid, everyone is part of the fraud, many of them paid off, so no one has any reason to expose it, and big reasons to bury it. Don't believe anything these people tell you, ABOUT ANYTHING. It isn't time for a civil war against your neighbors, it is time for a revolution against these hoaxers and thieves." --- Miles Mathis, American author, in 2025
What's also telling is when you said: "What’s really important to me is that I came to the same conclusion on Acts 15 [as Ken Wilson] before I ever read his book." You didn't say: "What's really important to me is what does the Bible say?" It's obvious that what's really important to you is that you find someone who validates your preconceived theological belief that "it’s possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified." You do understand that simply appealing to a person to validate your position is not in and of itself an argument for the validity of your claim? It's telling that you continue to provide no biblical basis for your position. If Ken Wilson's analysis of Acts 15 makes so much sense and if what he says about it is so compelling, you no doubt would have enlightened us all with his insights! Instead, all you did was copy and paste parts of Acts 15:1, 15:5, and 15:24 into a jumbled mess and then jumped to the conclusion of your preconceived ideas which are nowhere in the text! Such deep knowledge! You have found something that none of us ever saw! And you know why we never saw it? Because it's nowhere in the Bible! That's why. But as long as you have one person (!) who agrees with your warped interpretation, you're good...right? I mean, as long as one person agrees with you, then that means you must be right, doesn't it? Even if the entire Bible contradicts your conclusions, as long as one person agrees with you then no worries, right? Is that now the standard of truth? Finding one person who agrees with you? Or...maybe not? Forgive me for being such a contrarian, but I thought the standard of truth and the basis for our beliefs is "Thus saith the Lord" (Jer. 17:5) and "What do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). I'm just too old fashioned and out of touch with the new theology. Apparently if your beliefs contradict the Bible, it doesn't matter as long as one theologian agrees with you! As long as "Ken Wilson" agrees with you, your interpretation must be right! Really? My Bible says: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man" (Psa. 118:8, KJV). How are you trusting in the Lord when you are ignoring the very Scriptures that He gave to us? How are you trusting in God by twisting His Scriptures? The Bible says: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20). By adding works to salvation by faith alone, you are adding the bitter toil of human effort to the sweet savor of the gospel call! That message is cursed! (See Jeremiah 17:5; Gal. 1:6-10.)
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that "accurately handling the Word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15) is not your main priority nor your primary goal. Rather, you are trying to find a proof-text to support your preconceived theological belief that a "faith plus works" gospel is also a saving message. Or as you put it: "it’s possible to erroneously add works to salvation and still be justified." But as "Yankee" Arnold has correctly pointed out: "Satan's lie is a faith plus works gospel." I pray that God changes your heart and opens your eyes to the truth. Because if you didn't know the truth before, you do now. Don't be deceived! As the Apostle Paul wrote: "But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his trickery, your minds will be led astray from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, this you tolerate very well!" (2 Cor. 11:3-4, NASB).
I’m praying for your wife’s health. I hope she is doing better.
DeleteThank you Mark, I really appreciate that. Prayer is powerful! (See James 5:16.) I'm actually about to take her to a doctor appointment this morning.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, I apologize if what I wrote came across wrong, as ungracious or something. That was not my intention.
Not a problem at all .
Delete