In Defense of the Gospel
Time 2021-10-16 21:05:36Web Name: In Defense of the Gospel
WebSite: http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
ID:205363
Keywords:
Defense,In,of,Gospel,the,Description:
keywords: description: In Defense of the GospelA site originally devoted to a discussion of the Lordship Salvation interpretation of the Gospel.
Other doctrinal and practical concerns are also featured. Please visit my secondary Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet blog.
On Tuesday, February 8 [2011] the pseudo-fundamentalist Sharper Iron1 (SI) site posted an excerpt from Dr. Ernest Pickerings Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. The excerpt was submitted by Brother Kevin Mungons of Baptist Bulletin and Regular Baptist Press. In his introductory remarks Mungons wrote,
Several bloggers have recently addressed the subject of separation, suggesting that current leaders such as Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and Tim Jordan are moving to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists. Disappointed with the rough-and-tumble disagreements of his era, Pickering concluded his seminal Biblical Separation with a critique of fundamentalisms well-documented foiblesadvice that would have saved us a lot of grief, had we listened. A portion of the books conclusion follows. (bold added)We can all appreciate the outstanding teaching within the pages of Dr. Pickerings Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Sharper Iron did not include any portion from Dr. Pickerings classic that speaks plainly to the efforts of Drs. Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson to embrace, feature and cooperate with non-separatist evangelicals. Dr. Pickerings advice to them would have saved us a lot of grief, had they listened.
Today we will consider whether or not certain present day Fundamentalists, who claim a heritage in and militancy to authentic biblical separatism, are acting contrary to the teaching of and have drifted from the moorings that Dr. Pickering defined for biblical separation. Following is a timely subsection from Biblical Separation that addresses an application of authentic biblical separation. The subsection is titled, Whom to Invite to Your Platform.
Some leaders operate on the principle that they will use speakers who are well-known even though they may be shaky in their convictions in some areas-because they have special abilities that are helpful and thus can be a blessing to their congregations. The wisdom, however, of following this course of action is very doubtful. For instance, the president of a separatist school may be asked to consider using some outstanding Bible preacher in his chapel or Bible conference. The man may have expertise in the Scriptures, be fundamental in doctrine and possess a tremendous gift of communication. He may also be one who goes everywhere, evidencing little discernment in the choice of places he ministers, speaking one week at the separatist college and perhaps the next at a Bible conference controlled by new evangelicals or their sympathizers. Some see no harm in using such a man. They look only at the messages he delivers from the platform which, in themselves, may be without fault.This week Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder have joined non-separatist SBC pastor Dr. Mark Dever on the platform with Tim Jordan at the Calvary Baptist Seminary, Lansdale (CBS) Leadership Conference. They are sharing the platform with Dr. Dever and working in a cooperative ministry effort with him. Mark Dever is an SBC pastor, teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is a leading institution for New-Evangelical compromise and the home of the Ockenga Institute2 and he sits on the board of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (home of the Billy Graham School of Evangelism World Missions).
But a man is more than his pulpit message. He brings to the pulpit a lifetime of associations, actions and perhaps writings. He comes as a total person. Is he in his total ministry the type of person you would want the young people at the separatist college to emulate? Perhaps you, as an adult, mature believer, could make the necessary adjustments in thinking and divorce what he is from what he says. Most of the youth would not be able to do that. The same would be true of most church members. They would be influenced by the mans example as well as by his preaching. If he is a compromiser, his example would be harmful, and the college president would be at fault for setting him up as such. The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists. (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Implementing Separatist Convictions, Whom to Invite to Your Platform, p. 229.)
Mark Dever brings to the platform with him, amillenialism. Additionally, he brings all of the baggage of the Southern Baptist Convention with him to the platform. Knowing all of this CBS invited Dever to their platform. This week, without reservation or seeing any need to justify speaking there, Dave Doran and Kevin Bauder happily share the platform with the man who brings that baggage with him to it. Is this the manner of biblical separation that Dr. Pickering taught or practiced?
In 2010 Dave Doran and Matt Olson featured non-separatist evangelicals in their church, seminary and college pulpits.3 From 1979 Dr. Pickering warned against compromise and fellowship with non-separatists.
The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non-separatists.Words fitly spoken to men and SI, who are reaching out to and advancing the cause of non-separatist so-called conservative evangelicals. Convicting words from a Fundamentalist on the principles and application of authentic biblical separation. We see men who would be accommodating rather than militant, appeasers rather than separatists, unifiers at the expense of fidelity to the doctrine. Dr. Pickerings commentary clearly reveal Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, Tim Jordan and Matt Olson practice that which is antithetical to his teaching on a specific application of separation- platform fellowship. They have moved to a position that contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of Fundamentalists, Dr. Ernest Pickering in particular.
In recent days Dave Doran wrote very clear, unambiguous statements indicating what would constitute for him grounds to withhold fellowship from brethren. These are documented in The RAP on Mark Dever series.4 However, when faced with Devers obvious crossing the boundary that Doran set for himself, it is as if he (Doran) suddenly developed amnesia. He refuses to apply his own principles for separation. This begins to make one wonder why believe what Dave Doran writes or says about separatism, when his being at Lansdale with Mark Dever this week confirms that he personally ignores what he writes/says about separation. I see Dave Doran (as well as Bauder, Olson, Jordan) moving his fellowship increasingly toward non-separatists. I see a pattern of selective application of the timeless principles.
There is a disconnect between what Dave Doran writes on separation and what he does in practice.Alleged separatists in IFB circles will keep walking the pathway of compromise. They are on this winding road to have their fellowship with non-separatist evangelicals. They are on the same slippery slope that men like Jerry Falwell chose years ago. They must believe they can succeed where Falwell, and many other lesser known who took the same steps, failed. They are headed, by choice, in that direction. Just like Falwell, van Impe, et.al., they are going to wind up in some kind of tragic theological wasteland.
What does Dr. Ernest Pickering say to men who claim to be separatists and unchanged in separatist convictions, who are increasingly featuring and cooperating in ministry with non-separatist evangelicals?
The separatist cause is not advanced by featuring non separatists.Dr. Pickerings message from Biblical Separation is clear. The actions of Bauder, Doran, Olson and Jordan to embrace, feature and converge with non-separatist evangelicals demonstrates movement away from and what is contradictory to the teaching of earlier fundamentalists, in particular Dr. Ernest Pickering.
There is still time for the evangelicals apologists, who still circulate in Fundamental circles, to listen to Dr. Pickerings advice and to heed his admonitions for biblical separation for the sake of a pure church. Lord willing these self-described biblical separatists, some who claim to be unchanged militant separatists, will rethink the direction they are headed toward and cease from influencing impressionable young people to follow them into compromise with so-called conservative evangelicals.
With the prayers and admonition of Gods people those men might be recovered and reverse course before much longer. I am hopeful they will one day repent and invest the balance of their lives undoing the damage they are presently doing to authentic biblical separatism. The kind of militant, consistent, balanced separatism that Dr. Ernest Pickering defined in Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church.
LMOriginally published February 2011.
Site Publisher Addendum:
In the next we will excerpt portions from another of Dr. Ernest Pickerings works. In that article we will once again recognize certain men in IFB circles are acting in ways that undeniably contradicts the teaching of an earlier generation of fundamentalists.
Footnotes:
1) For various discussions in regard to SI please visit, Sharper Iron: In the Iron Skillet
2) The Ockenga Institute in honor of early new evangelical leader Dr. Harold J. Ockenga (1905-1985) a founder and the first president of Gordon-Conwell, member of the board of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. This new evangelical inspired Gordon-Conwell is where Mark Dever chooses to teach and cooperate.
3) In 2010 Dave Doran hosted in his seminary or church pulpit Michael Vlach, Conrad Mbewe and Bryan Ferrell. Matt Olson at NIU hosted non-separatists Rick Holland, Wayne Simien and will feature another non-separatist SBC theologian, Bruce Ware, in a summer module.
4) The RAP on Mark Dever, Part 1
Related Reading:
Dead Man's Curve
Dr. Rick Arrowood: Answering Questions About the Changes We Are Seeing in Fundamentalism
1994 1995 FBFI Resolutions: Southern Baptist Convention
Those who call for cooperation in pulpit ministries between Fundamentalists and Southern Baptists either misread the nature of the conservative movement in the Convention, or themselves have compromised the cause of Biblical separation. (Dave Doran, 1994).Is NIU Unchanged? NBBC Position Statement on Issues in Contemporary Christianity
we [Doran, Olson, Jordan] do not see how independent fundamental Baptists can make common cause with Southern Baptists. (Dave Doran, Tim Jordan, Matt Olson, 1995).
Kevin Bauder: It Wont Fly With Those of Us Who Know
NIUs Convergence With Evangelicalism: What Does it Mean for Impressionable Students?
Kevin Bauder Dave Doran to Join Mark Dever at Lansdale: Is This a Fundamentalism Worth Saving? September 27, 2021 An Analysis of Bob Jones Universitys Position Paper on Calvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology
Dr. Robert CongdonAs a follow-up to Lou Martuneacs article of November 14, 2019,entitled This is Not Your Fathers Bob Jones University,[1]I have been asked to review Bob Jones Universitys position paper onCalvinism, Arminianism and Reformed Theology.[2]The following is a brief analysis of that paper.[3]
After reading BJUs position paper, I feel that it reflects astyle commonly employed by many New Calvinists[4].Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, whilemaximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply hisor her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones thatwould reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJUs paper appears to use asimilar strategy concerns me.
I see this tendency throughout the paper. For example, it containsthe term exercise faith four times. A standard dictionary definition of exerciseis an act of bringing into play or realizing in action.[5]While this term could apply to an action resulting in salvation, fundamentalistChristians typically select a phrase such as receive Christ by faith as your Saviorin this context. Once upon a time, BJUused phrases such as believe, put your faith in and ask Him into yourheart, to describe ones salvation response.
As used by New Calvinists, the phrase exercise faith fits withinthe dictionary definition of realizing in action. Calvinisms teaching onelection is that one is regenerated prior to faith. Later on, thatperson "exercises faith" or acknowledges or realizes that Jesusis his or her Savior. Ligonier Ministries, a major outlet for New Calvinistteaching, says:
If theLord has changed our hearts, giving us the disposition[6]to love Him, we will certainly exercise faith and persevere in it to theend (Phil. 1:6). But that we exercise faith at all is dueto Gods sovereign grace.[7]
A writer for The Gospel Coalition, a New Calvinist group, also usesthis term, exercise faith.
Objectively speaking, faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8, althoughthe gift is the whole work of salvation, not just the faith). Subjectively speaking,the person exercises faith in the gospel (Eph. 1:13). [8]
Interestingly, if you google the phrase, youll also find thatBrigham Young University uses it:
To exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is to accept Him as Saviorand live in accordance to His will through repentance and obedience to His commandments.Learning to act in accordance with ones faith in Christ is fundamental to enjoyingdeep, life-changing learning. [9]
It is rather sad that a Mormon school offers a clearer definition ofexercising faith than BJU!
Contraryto the Calvinist teaching of regeneration before an act of faith, the Bibleteaches that a person hears the Scriptures (Rom.10:17), after which the Holy Spirit convicts that persons heart, revealing thesinful condition and the need for a savior (Rom. 3:23). The person then respondsby receiving, accepting, andtrusting Jesus Christ alone as Savior (John1:12).
BJU potentially reflects a Calvinist viewpoint when it says,Gods invitation of salvation is freely offered to all men . . . and availableto anyone who desires to be saved. [10]I take this to suggest that an unsaved person has a desire to be saved. But inmy experience, and in the experience of others holding similar positions, it isnot desire but rather the conviction of being a sinner in need of a savior thatdrives a person to ask for Gods gift of salvation.
On the other hand, I have read several New Calvinist statements implyingthat when one is elect, and therefore regenerated prior to faith, he or shedevelops a desire to exercise faith or to acknowledge or recognize Jesus Christas Savior. BJUs phrase could be interpreted in either way and is thereforeambiguous, potentially satisfying both Calvinists and Biblicists.
Similarly, consider 2Peter 3:9:
The Lord is not slackconcerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering tous-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come torepentance.
The Calvinist considers all to mean all the elect, whilea Biblicist believes that all should be taken literally as referring to allhuman beings. Clearly, the Bible reflects this in its use of whosoever willin salvation passages (John 3:16; Rom. 10:13; Rev. 22:17). Again, BJUsstatement is very weak in its terminology.
Further on in the position paper, BJU says that our sanctificationwill be completed when we stand before God in our resurrection bodies.[11]This appears to be drawing from Reformed terminology. The Biblicist position teachesthat our sanctification will be completed when we appear before Jesus Christ,our Bridegroom, at the Bema. But the phrase, stand before God comes directly fromRevelation 20:12 and refers to those at the Great White Throne Judgment.
Calvinists believe that all people from all ages, both saved andunsaved, will stand before God at this judgment event (Rev. 20:11-15). Here,God will assess who is elect and who is not. Biblicists believe that the Bema (2Cor. 5:10) is a time of accounting (Rom. 14:12) with Jesus Christ, ourBridegroom, and not a judgment for There is therefore now no condemnation tothem which are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). The English word, condemnation,is a translation of the Greek word for judgment.[12]Again, BJU uses weak and ambiguous phrasing.
BJU says, We believe that Scripture presents certain greatparadoxes concerning salvation which we gladly embrace as belonging to God . ..[13]Its curious that here BJU uses the word, believe butspeaks of exercisingfaithearlier.
Interestingly, Calvinists often use similar phrasing aboutparadoxes, yet I do not find great paradoxes in the Bible with reference tosalvation. Surely, this is the most elementary and crucial issue of mankind.Does God truly leave this issue as a paradox unresolvable by mankind? If so, thenwhy present it in the Scriptures at all, rather than deferring it as a matterto be dealt with in eternity?
My booklet, An Alternative View of Election offers noparadox but a straightforward interpretation of the biblical use of the term election.[14]
Finally, BJUs view on the doctrine of the Second Coming andReformed Eschatology is worded in the New Calvinist style. Reformed Theologyis very weak on eschatology. It blends the catching up of the church, the Raptureevent (1 Thess. 4:16ff), with the Second Coming (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 19:11),claiming that these events occur together.
Similarly, BJU says that we believe in the visible return of theLord Jesus Christ at His Second Coming (John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16;Heb. 9:28; 1 John 3:2-3)[15]Notice, they combine references associated with the Rapture (John 14:3; 1Thess. 4:16; 1 John 3:2-3) with references associated with the Second Coming(Acts 1:11 and Heb. 9:28).
BJU appears to favor this combination when it declares that weacknowledge that there are interpretative differences . . . related to thetiming of this glorious appearing . . . [16]They continue by referencing Titus 2:13 that specifically speaks of the gloriousappearing as the Second Coming of Christ to the earth. This strategy subtly combineswhat the Biblicist sees as two distinct events into a single glorious appearing.
Interestingly, the BJU Seminary Catalogstated in the front matter that The seminary faculty holds to...apretribulational, premillennial approach to eschatology.[17]By its very definition, pretribulational distinguishes the catching up of thechurch prior to the 7-year Tribulation from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ atthe end of the Tribulation. What has changed since BJUs Dean Stephen Hankinsquoted this statement in an email in 2011? BJUs present usage therefore reflectseither carelessness or a Reformed/Calvinist interpretation of these verses.
BJU may not officially be a Reformed or Calvinist school. But itsrecent publications suggest an awareness and apparent endorsement ofReformed/Calvinist thought and teaching. Perhaps its lack of precision and ambiguoususe of Scripture stem from ignorance or a poor understanding of the currentmeanings of these terms and phrases. If so, we could excuse it and ask that theschool become more informed. If, however, BJU is following the patternexhibited by New Calvinist writing, then there is a much deeper problem at workrequiring immediate action to reverse this intrusion of Reformed and Calvinisttheology.
Analysist: Robert Congdon
Director of Congdon Ministries International
[1] Lou Martuneac, This is Not Your Fathers Bob JonesUniversity In Defense of the Gospel blog, Nov. 14, 2019. https://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2019/11/this-is-not-your-fathers-bob-jones.html[2] Position Statements, Calvinism, Arminianism andReformed Theology (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, nd.) retrieved from https://www.bju.edu/about/positions.php on 08/21/19.[3]The above views reflectobservations by the analyst acquainted with Bob Jones University and its manygraduates but who is not an alumnus. This analysis is presented as a call toBJU to rethink its position paper and also to alert BJU students and alumni toa possible trend. Presenting this analysis is at the request of some BJUalumni.
Nearly two years agoI heard a radio broadcast of a sermon by Pastor Steve Lawson.1The message title is, The Long Line Continues.2In the message Pastor Lawson makes frequent use of the phrase, the doctrinesof grace. What does this phrase the doctrines of grace, mean? Very simply thedoctrines of grace, is a new way of introducing a centurysold theologypopularized by the French theologian John Calvin (1509-1564). That theology is commonlyknown as Calvinism.
What is Calvinism? Calvinism isbest known for its emphasis on five distinct doctrines. These are technicallyknown as the Five Points of Calvinism. The five points are commonlyrecognized and defined from the acronym T-U-L-I-P. Taking each in turn, the letters of the acronym stand for:
Total (Human) Inability
Total Inability is renamed, Total Depravity, or Radical Corruption.Unconditional Election is named the same or Sovereign Election.Limited Atonement is renamed, Definite Atonement, or Particular Redemption.Irresistible Grace is renamed, Effectual Calling, or Sovereign Regeneration.Perseverance of the Saints is named the same or Persevering or Preserving Grace.I do not believe it wise toaccept and/or adopt in our language the evolved labels for John Calvinstheology. We do not want to allow for terminology that tends to cloud, confuseor camouflage the theology of Calvinisms T-U-L-I-P.
Compounding Error UponError
Afundamental understanding of Scripture makes clear that Calvinism is heldtogether by forcing into or extracting from the Bible things that are notthere. Calvinism proper, therefore, has spawned numerous theological errors. Among them for example Steve Lawson said, They[the doctrines of grace] are completely counter intuitiveare entirelyantithetical to the natural mindWe would naturally reason that you must first believeand then you will be born again. Lawson is saying that to believe on the Lord JesusChrist and thou shalt be saved (John 3:16; Acts 16:31), is solely based on ourown human reasoning.
TheCalvinist believes man is so dead intrespasses and sins that he must first be regenerated: That is to say, be bornagain (initial justification), made alive by the Spirit of God, indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and given the new natureprior to and apart from personal repentance toward God and faith in JesusChrist (Acts 20:21).3 Furthermore, evenfaith, according to Calvinism, isthe gift that was given to him after he has been regenerated (Eph.2:8-9).4 These are two examplesof egregious errors rooted in Calvinism.
Just How Long is That Line?Theseteachers of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]really began with Moses and Joshua and Samuel. As we come to the New Testamentwe see Jesus Christ Himselfproclaimed and taught the doctrines of grace [Calvinism].Peter, on the day of Pentecost, began teaching the doctrines of grace [Calvinism]theApostle Paul became a chief author and architect of the doctrines of grace [Calvinism].
Whatwe find, however, is that the long lineof Calvinism is not so long after all. Calvinism traces directly from Augustine (4th century).New Calvinists say Calvin merely re-iterated Augustine. Any placing of the five points ofCalvinism to Genesis would be based on the idea that the church began inGenesis and continues to today.
SteveLawsons message sheds light on how he arrives at five-point Calvinism. What wefind is in the answer to the question,What is Rationalistic Fatalism?Rationalisticfatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklins Dictionary and Thesaurus,rationalistic is literally: reliance on reason as the basis for theestablishment of religious truth, and fatalism is the belief that fatedetermines events. Of course, fate is a cause beyond human control todetermine. Looking at that statement in this light demonstrates that thosereferred to rely solely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for theirtheological moorings. The circle logic of five-point Calvinism is just thatfor the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. Onemust approach the system with reason rather than faith. That of course leads to thefatalism, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of human souls andthat all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will notchange the outcome.5
Close:
Those who reject Calvinism should avoid falling intothe trap of accepting and agreeing to the new terminology. In any discussion about or debate overCalvinism, no matter how many times the term, doctrines of grace appears, we willrefer to and reiterate the historic, unambiguous label, Calvinism. Calling thetheology of John Calvin the doctrines of grace does not changethe theology of what we know today as Calvinism. Our priorityis to equip uninformed and/or unsuspecting believers to first recognize theso-called doctrines of grace as Calvinism, and then be able to reject it fromthe Bible.
Yoursfaithfully,
LM
Footnotes:
2) The Long Line Continues(Feb. 6, 2019 edition).
3) The key to understanding Calvinisms irresistiblegrace is that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elected individual, thus, theycan then receive the Word and exercise faith. This regeneration can occur yearsbefore exercising their act of faith. Some Calvinists define this regenerationas taking place at conception, others at physical birth, and others at somelater time. But ALL Calvinists teach it occurs prior to and independent of anyact of faith or any foreseeing by God of their eventual faith. When thoughtthrough, biblically to be regenerated, literally meaning to be born again,means that the elect one possesses or is indwelled by the Holy Spirit at thatpoint. For further study see,
The Danger of Teaching That Regeneration Precedes Faith
4) The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God
5) Dr. David L. Cummins, in an email to me answering the question, what is rationalistic fatalism. Dr. Cummins response appears on pp. 261-262 ofIn Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, 1st edition only, 2006.
RelatedReading:After reading Bob Jones Universitys position paper, I feel that it reflects a style commonly employed by many New Calvinists. Their writing typically skirts issues to avoid offense or exclusion, while maximizing inclusivity. They achieve this by allowing the reader to supply his or her own theological definitions rather than offering clear-cut ones that would reveal Calvinist views. The fact that BJUs paper appears to use a similar strategy concerns me. I see this tendency through the paper. For example, it contains the termexercise faithfour times. (Dr. Rob Congdon: An Analysis of Bob Jones Universitys Position Paper on Calvinism...)
Oops! I Thought I Was a Four-Point Calvinist An Alternative View of Election
New Calvinisms Upside-Down Gospel
T-Total (Human)Inability
The Bible teaches mans human depraved nature,human depravity, that is all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3: 23). All are sinners andseparated from God. Calvinism added theterm total to the term humandepravity, to indicated that apart from Gods intervention through theregeneration of the Holy Spirit priorto faith, man can never understand, accept, react, or respond spiritually inany way to God, His Word, and the work of the Holy Spirit. (Jer. 17:9; Romans 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1)
Lawson renames Total Inability, TotalDepravity, or Radical Corruption.
U- UnconditionalElection
Many Calvinists, however,teach that God elected some toheaven and some to hell in other words, He did not just extend grace to some,the elect, and allow the others to follow their own path, independent of Godselecting them to Hell. It should be noted that most people believe inCalvinistic Unconditional Election or Arminianism, which allow them to rejectGod later after first trusting Him. It is important to realize that the Biblesuse of the term election always refers to service and never salvation; hencethere is a third view of election, independent of both Calvinism andArminianism.
Lawson retains UnconditionalElection, or Sovereign Election.
L- Limited Atonement
Lawson renames Limited Atonement,Definite Atonement, or Particular Redemption.
I- Irresistible Grace
Many indicated it is not necessary to respond to a gospel invitation. They describe an eventual realization that they are elect and rather than an act of response, they merely believe their spiritual interest and/or acknowledgement of Christ indicates they are elect.The Calvinistoften uses the term exercise faith rather than trust in Christ alone for their salvation.
This irresistible grace cannot be rejectedand does not depend on mans cooperation. The ability of individuals to rejectChrists offer of salvation answers Calvinisms irresistible grace. The Bible teachesthat man can be reproved over and over, and resist the working of the HolySpirit in his heart. (Gen. 6:3; Prov.1:24-26; 29:1; Matthew 23:37; John 5:40; Acts 7:51-52)
Lawson renames Irresistible Grace,Effectual Calling, or Sovereign Regeneration.
P- Perseverance of theSaints
To the Calvinist, a person must persevere theirentire life by doing good works and spiritually living to demonstrate at theGreat White Throne Judgment that they are truly elect. Thus, all men willappear at the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev.20:11-15). Notice they are judged by their works. You often read inCalvinistic writing that a person cannot truly know they are righteous or theelect until the day they die, but Scripture says you can know you have eternallife right now (1 John 5:13). Forthe true believer who has accept Gods gift of salvation by faith alone, hedoes not have to persevere but depends upon God to preserve Him as promised in Jude 1 and Jude 24.
Thus, asaved manseternal security, his assurance and position in Christ are not dependent on howhe performs as a Christian. He is saved and secure because of what Jesus Christhas done for him. (John 10:28-29; Eph.1:13; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Peter 1:3-9)Lawson retainsPerseveranceof the Saints, or Persevering or Preserving Grace.
Purchase your copy at Amazon
New From the Author
I have written the revised expanded edition of In Defense of the Gospel to provide the biblical answers to Lordship Salvation. There are areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not one of them. The works based theology of Lordship Salvation and its advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted. May God protect unsuspecting believers and the lost from the egregious errors of Lordship Salvation.
Lou MartuneacChicago, Illinois
Email me!Popular PostsSummary of Lordship Salvation From a Single PageI n each of the three editions of Dr. John MacArthurs The Gospel According to Jesus there is a single page that summarizes the Lordship Sa...Is NIU Unchanged? Northland Baptist Bible College Position Statement on Contemporary Issues in ChristianityA n individual recently provided me with an official document used at Northland International University. The document is titled, Northland ...Northland International University: Plunging Headlong Into a Liberal Entertainment Approach Ministry Preface (2/15/13): In paragraph two below is a link to photos from the event itself. This is a video promotion for the I am Redeemed 2013...Northland Students Perform New Jesus Loves Me Recording and Its Blasphemy!W e are continuing with an important sub-section in the series What REALLY Matters Most . In his November 2010 Open Letter Northland Intern...Grace Evangelical Society Dismisses Jeremy MyersDear Guests: UPDATE: At the de-Conversion blog Jeremy is publicly commenting on his termination from the GES. See his comments on January ...Top Picks From the ArchivesWhat is Lordship Salvation; Why Does it Matter?Dave Doran, Separation in Academic ContextsLordship's "Turn From Sin" FOR SalvationAl Mohler- Ecumenicist?The Merger of Calvinism With WorldlinessGES Reductionist Affirmation of BeliefFault Line for Fracture in FundamentalismJohn MacArthur's Discipleship GospelHow Does the Lordship Advocate Define Repentance?"REDEFINED" Free Grace is NOT FG TheologyThe Deity of Christ 2021(9) October(1)Dr. Ernest Pickering, The Separatist Cause is Not... September(3) August(1) July(1) March(1) February(1) January(1) 2020(22) November(1) August(3) July(1) June(1) May(4) April(2) March(4) February(4) January(2) 2019(25) November(1) October(1) September(5) August(3) July(4) June(1) May(1) April(3) March(1) January(5) 2018(14) October(1) September(1) August(1) July(4) June(2) April(1) March(1) February(1) January(2) 2017(22) December(1) November(1) October(1) September(2) August(1) July(1) June(3) May(1) April(3) March(4) February(2) January(2) 2016(24) December(1) November(2) October(2) September(1) August(2) July(2) June(3) May(2) April(2) March(2) February(2) January(3) 2015(35) December(1) November(1) October(2) September(1) August(1) July(3) June(4) May(4) April(7) March(6) February(1) January(4) 2014(36) December(1) November(3) October(3) September(2) August(3) July(4) June(3) May(4) April(5) March(4) February(1) January(3) 2013(57) December(1) November(3) October(1) September(3) August(3) July(5) June(7) May(5) April(8) March(5) February(8) January(8) 2012(80) December(4) November(6) October(9) September(9) August(9) June(3) May(6) April(10) March(6) February(9) January(9) 2011(86) December(3) November(7) October(8) September(5) August(8) July(9) June(8) May(7) April(7) March(8) February(8) January(8) 2010(106) December(4) November(7) October(10) September(13) August(11) July(9) June(11) May(10) April(9) March(9) February(6) January(7) 2009(75) December(3) November(6) October(7) September(10) August(4) July(6) June(8) May(6) April(7) March(5) February(6) January(7) 2008(107) December(5) November(11) October(10) September(8) August(7) July(7) June(8) May(9) April(13) March(8) February(12) January(9) 2007(91) December(9) November(12) October(15) September(15) August(7) July(8) June(10) May(6) April(2) March(3) February(2) January(2) 2006(29) December(6) November(14) October(8) July(1)LabelsAl Mohler(17)America(18)AMillennialism(2)Analytical Thinking(1)Andy Nasselli(3)Antonio da Rosa(32)Apostles(1)Archival Series(20)Baptist Distinctives(2)Barter System(3)Best of 2006(1)Best of 2007(1)Best of 2008(1)Best of 2009(6)Best of 2010(1)Billy Graham(3)BJU(5)Blessed Hope(1)Bob Bryant(1)Bob Jones(9)Bob Jones University(26)Bob Topartzer(4)Bob Wilkin(43)Calvary Baptist Seminary(5)Calvinism(31)Cancer(1)Carl McIntire(1)Catholicism(2)CCM(9)Censorship(1)Central Baptist TS(2)Central Seminary(8)Central/Faith Merger(4)Charismatic Movement(4)Charles Ryrie(3)Charlie Bing(9)Christ Under Siege(3)Christian Education(1)Christian Rock(2)Chuck Phelps(4)Church(1)CJ Mahaney(1)Clay Nuttall(68)Commitment(9)Conservatism(1)Cooperation(1)Covenant Theology(1)Crossless Gospel(83)Crucifixion of Christ(1)Cults(1)Dana Everson(3)Dave Doran(31)Day by Day(1)DBTS(1)Deconstructionist Gospel(4)Deity of Christ(17)Dennis Rokser(9)Desiring God(3)Discipleship(21)Dispensationalism(7)Doc Clearwaters(8)Doug McLachlan(6)Dwight Smith(2)Easter(2)Easy Believism(5)Ecumenism(14)Emerging Church(4)Ernest Pickering(17)Eschatology(2)Eternal Sonship(1)Evaluation of Crossless Theology(8)Evangelicalism(46)Evangelism(9)Exchange(5)Faith Baptist Theological Seminary(3)Faith Pulpit(1)False Dilemma(2)False Gospel(3)False Paradigms(2)FBFI(23)Final Salavtion(5)Fred Lybrand(5)Free Grace(16)Free Grace Alliance(16)Fruit Bearing(1)Fundamentalism(51)George Houghton(1)George Zeller(10)Gospel of the Christ (Book)(15)Gospel-Driven Separation(8)Government(2)Grace Conference(3)Grace Evangelical Society(51)Grace Report(1)H. A. Ironside(2)Heart to Heart Series(8)Hell(1)Hermeneutics(5)Hodgess Hydra Head(10)holiness(1)Hollow Gospel of GES(1)Holy Spirit(15)Homosexual(1)Hyper-Calvinism(4)IDOTG: Rev and Expanded(12)IFB(6)IFCA(3)ISIS(2)Islam(7)Israel(1)Issue of Incongruity(7)J. B. Hixson(7)J. Vernon McGee(1)Jehovahs Witness(1)Jeremy Myers(8)Jim Johnson(12)John Birch(1)John Brown(2)John MacArthur(56)John Piper(20)John Van Gelderen(14)John VanGelderen(1)Judgment(2)Kent Brandenburg(1)Keswick(8)Kevin Bauder(76)KJV(7)L. S. Chafer(2)Lance Ketchum(9)Laodicean Church(1)Legalism(4)Les Ollila(7)Liberalism(3)Ligon Duncan(4)Limited Atonement(1)Lordship Salvation(125)Love(1)Man-Centered Message(2)Manhattan Declaration(13)Marc Monte(10)Mark Dever(7)Mark Driscoll(2)Mark Minnick(1)Marriage(4)Matt Olson(21)Messiah(1)Mike Harding(6)Missions(2)Modesty(1)Mormonism(11)Muslim(1)Nathan Busenitz(13)New Calvinism(9)New Evangelicalism(24)Nicodemus(1)NIU Interview(5)Northland Baptist Bible College(8)Northland Baptist Ministry(1)Northland Intl University(63)Obedience(1)Open Challenge(3)Ordo Salutis(1)Patriotism(1)Pensacola Christian(3)Perseverance(1)Peter Masters(7)Phil Johnson(7)Pillsbury(3)Plagiarism(9)Politics(4)Prayer(2)Preaching(2)Prophecy(1)Pulpit Magazine(6)Purpose Driven(6)Racism(1)ReDefined FG Theology(2)Reformed Theology(7)Regeneration(9)Religious Freedom(2)Repentance(33)Replacement Theology(1)Resolved Conference(1)Resurrection of Christ(5)Revised Version(2)Revival(9)Rich Young Ruler(2)Rick Arrowood(4)Rick Flanders(44)Rick Holland(1)Rick Warren(14)Robert Congdon Ministries(3)Robert Sumner(1)Rocky Mountain Bible College(4)Rolland McCune(5)Romans 16(9)Ron Shea(7)Rose(3)Ryrie(1)Salvation(5)Sam Horn(11)Sanctification(1)Saving Faith(10)SBC(2)Separation(64)Sermon on the Mount(2)Sharia Law(3)Sharper Iron(25)Sin(3)Skiing(2)Sodomy(2)Southern Baptist Convention(5)Spurgeon(10)Sr.(1)Standards(1)Steve Lawson(2)Steve Pettit(14)Straw Man(2)Submission(3)Surrender(8)T4G(10)Technical Meaning of the Gospel(9)Tennessee Temple(2)The Gospel Coalition(6)Tim Challies(1)Tom Stegall(26)Top 10 Most Viewed(10)Transgender(1)Twitterites(1)Unanswered Question(1)US Constitution(1)US Military(1)Voice of the Evangelists(2)West Coast Baptist College(3)Willow Creek(2)Women Preaching(2)Worldliness(4)Young Restless Reformed(2)Zane Hodges(51)Zichterman(2)
FollowersCopyright NotificationNo part of this blog's articles may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise-without the prior written permission of the author(s), with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles and/or reviews.DisclaimerAs a blog, this venue is open to comments by persons of differing opinions. The opinions expressed herein by various contributors do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of In Defense of the Gospel, or its owners.
Although we indulge differing opinions, we do not condone, and are not responsible for, any false or misleading statements of a libelous or defamatory nature. See 47 U. S. C. sec. 230 (c) (1).
Any slanderous remarks posted herein will be removed immediately upon notification of the offended party of specific untrue statements contained within a posted comment.