Lordship salvation teaches that the Gospel is Christ in us

 When I was duped in the Lordship salvation camp several years ago, the idiom was something to the effect that Christ is not about fire insurance but about savoring Christ more and more; by which the idiom meant believing in Christ alone entails more than being saved from the wrath to come. However much this idiom is spoken by people it is a confused idiom. It confuses the Law and Gospel. It mingles the Christ for us with the Christ in us. The Christ for us made himself a curse that we might be the righteousness of God by imputation (Galatians 3:13), the Christ for us died to deliver us from the curse (Galatians 1:4), and so was made sin for us (2 Cor 5:15);

However, the christ in us who walks in our midst (2 Cor 6:16), who reveals his son in us (Galatians 1:16) - imperfectly, who lives in us (Galatians 2:20), who helps us in our weaknesses- Romans 8:26, dwelling richly in us and not by measure - 1 John 4:12, works in us to will and do Phil 2:13.

However we need first the Christ who laid down his life for us (1 John 3:16) before we can get the Christ who works in us.

The one Christ for us died for our sins so that by faith passively we are justified and declared righteous, the Christ in us is to show our thankfulness and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Looking within only brings doubt and not assurance

 So I sent a youtube video over to one of the elders at Paradox of Macarthur telling a woman who doubted of her salvation because she doesn't know if she has basically done enough. Macarthur of course puts her back into introspection.

This elder defends Macarthurs way of doing it through out and yet has the audacity to claim he is against Lordship Salvation. Of course, when you confuse law and gospel and you are for Van Tillian logic you will say irrational things.

First, he asked me about Macarthur's distinction between security and assurance. My response to him was that the Bible treats these as the same thing. The elect have a sure foundation by Christ. The elect because of the work of Christ alone are assured of salvation.
Macarthur in the video said to the woman that one of the surest signs that she was saved was that she desired to be saved. Yet the Bible no where says this is where assurance lies. Esau also desired the promises of God but found no place of repentance from his father even though Esau sought it with tears.

So the elder asked me what would my answer be to this woman?

Either she believes in Christ alone for assurance or she is not. That should have ben clear from what I said. Macarthur doesn't. 

Its interesting how these guys want to add something that we do to the mix of salvation.

Again this elder tells me that she is looking for assurance but her security is unwavering in Christ.

My question is do we know this? No. Macarthur is pushing this woman to look inside. Typical Lordship salvation guys do this. They want to look for 'evidences' of ones salvation in what the Spirit does inside them. The elder assumes that she desires the lord and it is good but does she desire it from knowledge? You could also interchange desire with having a zeal. The Jews sought the righteousness of God but didn't attain it because they sought it not rightly through Christ Jesus alone.

The elder wants more room for Progressive Sanctification. 

I understand what he is trying to do. He wants to send this woman away from the true Christ of Scripture, which wouldn't be optimal. The Bible never grounds our salvation in anything else other than what Christ accomplished on the cross. Either one is saved by the power of what Christ got done or they are not. Either a man looks to Christ or they do not. Can't change a leopard.

Jesus is referred to as the Hope of the elects salvation in Scripture. The elect are said to believe upon him, to believe upon his word.

Secondly, the question was raised about whether I doubt. I am sure this elder doubts everyday for its a natural inclination for those whose eyes are taken off Christ.

His question was do I ever doubt the sincerity of my Faith? My answer is No. I don't because my Faith is not in my Faith. If it was then yes I would doubt.

Then the next question was whether I had any besetting sins that make me question my Faith. Have I ever experience any season of doubt? Like maybe I am not actually saved?

To which I responded in the negative. For I know who I have believed in and believe that he is able to keep me til that day.

Now keep in mind my response isn't that I never am tempted to look away from Christ and that I never do sin. My response is of a different nature. My response is with regards to my own work which is not perfect to that of what Christ achieved on the Cross and how his work is perfect and mine is not.

The elder then back peddles and says that he is not arguing that assurance is within ourselves - which he basically did at the beginning when he said "she is looking for evidence to that effect. The evidence is the Spirit working in her life - specifically, that she is experiencing conviction, and that her desire is for the Lord."

The question now is then have you desired enough? are you convicted enough? look to yourselves for such conclusions.

When he says have I ever sinned to which causes me to lose my assurance you are then suggesting that my sin can cause my assurance to be effected. Again this means that no one can be assured of salvation because of sin. Again when one looks within all they see is the mire of sin and guilt before a Holy God who requires perfect obedience outside of Christ. And most professing Christians, mostly false converts, have never been taught what is the basis of assurance.

Then he asked a wiggle question if I could be wrong about this. To which I responded that I am not. Methodologies matter. How one reads the Bible matters.

Again he suggest that I am misinterpreting a few minor points with some of these theologians, and missing the difference between belief and application of belief - whatever that means?

I wouldn't call Macarthur a theologian. He suggesting and trying to defend Macarthur softly will show how this guy is inconsistent when he later says that he is against Lordship Salvation, New Perspective, and Federal Vision. 

He asked if there is any room for evidence or fruit of salvation? Faith and then works? the Fruit of the Spirit?

Again the question is already answered. These 'fruits' are imperfect and cannot be the basis of our assurance. He is wanting these fruits to be the basis or part of the basis of our assurance. They are not.

The rest of the conversation is a rehash of what I have posted on here about James and 1 John.

Justification by Faith alone is to distinguishing the Law and the Gospel

 By saying that the law and gospel distinction is a secondary matter, one is leaving the door open for the idea that one is justified by faith and works or faith and the law of obedience. The gospel is not a secondary matter bit as Paul says it is a matter of first importance - "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;" 1 Corinthians 15

By knowing the law and gospel distinction believers are better equipped to understand and ground their assurance rightly by what Christ alone did.

Again, the elect are justified by faith alone. What is this faith alone if it doesn't distinguish between our sins which are many, which procures the wrath of God outside of Christ, and the only righteous thing that makes the elect acceptable before God?

If the law and gospel is merely a secondary matter then Paul would not have said did we receive the Spirit by the works of the law or did we receive the Spirit by the hearing of the word through faith?

If one gets the law and gospel distinction wrong they get God's act of justification wrong and vise versa. They two are intertwine. For by faith the elect believe the gospel and so are justified.

The Law and its usage

The law is good. It's not bad. The problem is that we are sinners and so the use of the law for salvation is unattainable. Perfection is what the law demands. The declaration of law should cause fear in them who seek to be justified. Notice that the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:13 - 21.

The result of the law preached to the rich young ruler was that it caused him to sorrow because he knew the law as the mirror of what righteousness God demanded he did not meet.

So one use of the law is that it is a school master to lead us to Christ who alone saves from sin and death and hell.

The second use is that it is used to deter further sin in society. In this use it is for the elect alone, to protect them from the actions of the reprobate. Consider for example Abraham in Genesis 12. The Pharoah, who saw Abraham's wife, wanted to take her for his own. But God caused a plague.

The third use of the law is that of a rule of Christ for those who believe in Christ alone for justification. This rule can be seen as in the Bible from Romans 13 where we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus also gave his disciples a new command to love one another. The rule of life however to be clear does not save us. As Paul says, the Law is good if one uses it Lawfully. 1 Timothy 1:8

Of course, to be certain that in all three usage of the law in no sense is it said that the law is meant to save anyone. For that the gospel alone is what saves.

Some Churches Don't like the Law and Gospel Distinction

 Spoke with one of the guys at that church again. I think about what he said. But basically he said that the law and gospel distinction isn't a primary issue (I disagree). He said that someone to be saved doesn't need to know the law and gospel distinction, though it's helpful, there are other criterias to which one can read the Bible ( I would ask what does he mean?)

Overall it seems like he is wanting to keep it a secret. Some like to keep the doctrine of election a secret because ignorant is bliss and if someone doesn't know then how can they reject it?

Of course, the Bible has lots to say about how a person is saved. If a person believes they are saved by faith and works then can we say they are saved? The issue is probably muddied in the sense that when a hearer hears the gospel message for the first time or second time it is assumed that the speaker knows what is the gospel and what is the law. If the speaker or preacher doesn't know these things then as the Bible says the preacher or teacher or speaker will be judged more harshly. I think of the warnings in Ezekiel or the Parables of Jesus.

Theodore Beza says, "We must pay great attention to these things. For, with good reason, we can say that ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principles sources of the abuses which corrupt and still corrupt Christianity.

The majority of men, blinded by the just judgement of God, have indeed never seriously considered what curse the Law subjects us to, nor why it has been ordained by God. And, as for the Gospel, they have nearly always thought that it was nothing other than a second Law, more perfect than the first. . . ." - The Christian Faith, Page 37

It is not the law but the belief in immortality that drives us to love

"'Generally, again, I ask your permission to drop the subject,' Pyotr Alexandrovich repeated, 'and instead let me tell you another anecdote, gentlemen, about Ivan Fyodorovich himself, a most typical and interesting one. No more than five days ago, at a local gathering, predominantly of ladies, he solemnly announced in the discussion that there is decidedly nothing in the whole world that would make men love their fellow men; that there exists no law of nature that man should love mankind, and that if there is and has been any love on earth up to now, it has come not from natural law but solely from people's belief in their immortality....'" - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, pg. 69

Simul justus et peccator

simul justus et peccator. In what sense is this true one may ask? In accordance to the law, which are commands of that which we are to do perfectly, which we fail to do perfectly as God is holy so we are to live holy the elect Christian is a sinner. Never is he accepted by God on the basis of his law keeping. Neither can he find his assurance in his law keeping for he cannot keep the law perfectly. But rather on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness to the elect is the elect sinner justified. So the Christian's righteousness is grounded on a righteousness not their own but on an alien righteousness won by Christ alone. And on the basis of the law he is yet still a sinner never attaining that good that he ought to do. So the Christian is simultaneously just and sinner at the same time. We see how the two forms of righteousness relate to the law and gospel distinction.

The Two Forms of Righteousness

"Both the law-gospel and the passive/active-righteousness distinctions are essential for the Lutheran pastor, and neither needs to be neglected in favor of the other. Law and Gospel remind us that Christians always fall short of God's will and are saved solely by God's grace. The two kinds of righteousness remind God's people that they cannot work to merit God's favor or love, but that righteousness is given freely, and that they are called to live holy lives in the world for the sake of others." - Jordon Cooper, Hands of Faith, pg. 128

Only the Gospel, not the Law, Saves

"The book of Judges speaks to all who are, by God's grace, given 'an ear to hear' God's message for our own day and our present condition, individually and as a nation. The message is one of the need for personal faith in the living God. And this, in the light of the whole Scripture, means nothing less than hearing Paul's words to the Philippian jailor: 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.' The society in which we live gives abundant and appalling evidence of the kind of spiritual and moral decay which kindled the anger of God against his own people and the heathen nations around them. Three millennia have passed since then, but human nature is in the same need as ever it was. But the Lord has not changed either: Jesus has come and died upon the cross as the once for-all sacrifice for sin. He has risen triumphant over death and the grave and reigns in glory as the Lord of all. His arm is not shortened that it cannot save. His message is one of hope and of victory for a darkening world." - Gordon J. Keddie, Even in Darkness, Pg. 2

The Law and Gospel: Martin Luther vs. Mark Dever

Mark Dever, like John MacArthur, confuses the law and the gospel in all of his writings. For instance, Mark Dever says, "But according to the Bible, although freedom is a wonderful aspect of our message (e.g., John 8:32-36), sin and guilt are at the very heart and core of the gospel. Making people aware of their lost and sinful condition is part and parcel of sharing the good news of Christ." - The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, pg. 56

Here Mark Dever confuses the law and the gospel by saying that at the very heart of the gospel is sin and guilt. This is actually false. It is the law that results in sin and guilt. The gospel is good tidings of great joy about what Christ got done on the cross for the elect alone by His death by which he makes His people whom he died for accepted by His righteousness alone imputed to them. The gospel declares. It is news. It does not chide.

The Apostle Paul says that it is the letter that kills but the Spirit brings life.

However, Martin Luther properly distinguishes the law and the gospel in his book "Against the Heavenly Prophets".
He says:

"Now in order that we do not open our mouths too wide and marvel at the skill of these false spirits, and thereby abandon the main articles, and thus deceitfully be led off the track (for thereby the devil succeeds through these prophets), I will here briefly recount these articles of the Christian faith to which everyone is above all things to pay attention and hold fast.
The first is the law of God, which is to be preached so that one thereby reveals and teaches how to recognize sin (Rom. 3[:20] and 7[:7]), as we have often shown in our writings. However these  prophets do not understand this correctly, for this means a truly spiritual preaching of the law, as Paul says in  Rom. 7[:14], and a right use of the law, as he says in 1 Tim. 1[:8].
Secondly, when now sin is recognized and the law is so preached that the conscience is alarmed and humbled before God's wrath, we are then to preach the comforting word of the gospel and the forgiveness of sins, so that the conscience again may be comforted and established in the grace of God, etc.
Christ himself teaches these two articles in such an order (Luke 24[:47]. One must preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins in his name. 'And the Spirit (he says in John [16:8]) will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.' You do not find either of these two articles in this one or any other of the false prophets. They also do not understand them, and yet these are the most important and necessary articles." - Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 160

Notice that it is the Law that reveals sin and alarms the sinner. Only after this does the gospel come to comfort the wounded sinner.

Like Beza, Luther calls these two things (Law and Gospel) articles.

We are embassadors of the gospel of Christ not of the law

"What the great and main business of us that profess ourselves to be the ministers of Christ, ought to be in the world with men. It is to be lamented, I confess, and I would to God there were no occasion to speak of it, whilst we profess ourselves to be the ambassadors of Christ, to dispatch this great business, to beseech men in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God; we are too much the ministers of Moses, pressing and thundering the wrath of God from heaven; publishing unto men the working out their own salvation by their own works, according to the law; putting on them the performance of duties in every particular, that they may have peace and joy of spirit from it; telling them, that they must make their peace with God, by fasting, and prayer, and mourning: is this to beseech men in Christ's stead to be reconciled unto God by Christ alone? This is the embassage of the ministers of the gospel; and whoever he be that forsake this message, he goes, and is not sent; he takes upon him to manage a business out of his commission; for the commission is, that we in Christ's stead should beseech men to be reconciled unto God, and by the blood of Christ alone." Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted v. 2, pg. 5 - 6

The Government that be are from God

"All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, God hath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man's nature: so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2d, God and nature intendeths the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of government." - Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince, Pg. 1

What Does it mean to teach Commandments and Creed?

In the second part of Large Catechism (from the Book of Concord), Martin Luther speaks of the commandments (The first part) and of the Creed (The second part). But, what does it mean?

He says, "Thus far we have heard the first part of Christian doctrine. In it we have seen all that God wishes us to do or not do. The Creed properly follows, setting forth all that we must expect and receive from God; in brief, it teaches us to know him perfectly. It is given in order to help us do what the Ten Commandments require of us. For, as we said above, they are set on so high a plane that all human ability is far too feeble and weak to keep them. Therefore it is as necessary to learn this part as it is the other so that we may know where and how to obtain strength for this task. If we could by our own strength keep the Ten Commandments as they ought to be kept, we would need neither the Creed nor the Lord's Prayer." (Pg. 411)

419

Zacharias Ursinus teaches us what it means by the words Commandments and Creed in the Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism on pg. 13.

He says, "The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. . . . These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles' creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles' creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of person is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done."

So one sees what is meant by the terms Commandments and Creed.

As Luther puts it, "Now you see that the Creed is a very different teaching from the Ten Commandments. The latter teach us what we ought to do; the Creed tells what God does for us and gives to us. The Ten Commandments, moreover, are inscribed in the hearts of all men. No human wisdom can comprehend the Creed; it must be taught by the Holy Spirit alone. Therefore the Ten Commandments do not by themselves make us Christians, for God's wrath and displeasure still remain on us because we cannot fulfill his demands. But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us upright and pleasing to God." (Pg. 419-420)

Repent and Believe are the parts of Conversion

"In Mark 1:15 Christ says, 'Repent, and believe in the gospel.' In the first part he denounces our sins, in the latter part he consoles us and shows us the forgiveness of sins. For to believe in the Gospel is not to have the general faith that even the demons have (James 2:19), but, in the true sense, to believe that for Christ's sake the forgiveness of sins has been granted us; this is revealed in the gospel." - The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 7. Penitence, pg. 187-188

The Law versus the Gospel

In his Epistle to the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, 'Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that a man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Do you perceive how be thus discriminates between the law and the gospel,  that the former attributes righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the assistance of works? -John Calvin,  The Institutes, 3.11.17. Pg. 669

No difference between the law of Christ and the decalogue

In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, ect. All these matters the papists declare to be 'new laws.' This is wrong; for even Moses has said: ' Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with ...all thy might,' Deut. 6,5; and: ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfill the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfillment. - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 73-74

"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2

 .

I would say that the Arminian is a lost heretic who denies the law and gospel distinction

"'In the second place,' Gerhard continues, 'when the doctrine of the Gospel is not separated from the Law by definite boundary-lines, the blessings of Christ are co considerably obscured.' By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. We to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. That is why we are so determined in our Predestinarian Controversy. For the basic element in the controversy has been that we insisted on keeping Law and Gospel separate, while our opponents mingle the one with the other. When they hear from us this statement: 'Out of pure mercy, God has elected us to the praise of the glory of His grace; God vindicates for Himself exclusively the glory of saving us,' etc., they say: 'That is a horrible doctrine! If that were true, God would be partial. No, He must have beheld something in men that prompted Him to elect this or that particular man. When He beheld something good in a person, He elected him.' If that were so, man would really be the principal cause of his salvation. In that case man could say, 'Thank God, I have done my share towards being saved.' However, when we shall have arrived in our heavenly fatherland, this is what we shall say: 'If I had had my own way, I should never have found salvation; and even supposing I had found it by myself, I should have lost it again. Thou, O God, didst come and draw me to Thy Word, partly by tribulation, partly by anguish of heart, partly by sickness, ect. All these things Thou hast used as a means to bring me into heaven, while I was always striving for perdition.'" - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 40-41

The law does promise to give on condition that we fulfill it's demands

"In the law as a covenant of works there is also a promise, a gracious promise of the continuance of spiritual and temporal life and, in due time, of eternal life. This promise, which flowed solely from infinite benignity and condescension in God, was made, and was to have been fulfilled, to Adam and all his natural posterity, on condition that he as their representative perfectly obeyed the precept." - John Colquhoun, A treatise on the law and gospel, pg. 15 this is on the law in general.

No such thing as good fruit without good seed. Knowing truth matters first before any good works can be done

"... what an awful delusion has taken hold upon so many men's minds who ridicule the pure doctrine and say to us: 'Ah, do cease clamoring, pure doctrine! Pure doctrine! That can only land you in dead orthodoxism. Pay more attention to pure life, and you will raise a growth of genuine Christianity.' That is exactly like saying to a farmer: 'Do not worry forever about good seed; worry about good fruits.' Is not a farmer properly concerned about good fruit when he is solicitous about getting good seed? Just so a concern about pure doctrine is the proper concern about genuine Christianity and a sincere Christian life. False doctrine is noxious seed, sown by the enemy to produce a progeny of wickedness." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 20-21

We are dead in Christ so that we are no longer in bondage to the law

"Christ was not always kept in a state of humiliation, did not always suffer, and did not frequently die. Rather, all of that state of humiliation and suffering obedience fell on Him for a short time and for the days of His flesh. Psalm 8:6, 'And you made Him a little lower, for a short time,' because He also is called God (Heb. 2:7-8; 5:7; 7:27). And He could not be held by death (Acts 2:24), first because the covenant of works required that everyone subject to it for obedience, especially with labor, toil, and the sufferings of death, bring back the happy reward and glory. . . . Second, because the law does not require obedience for satisfaction and merit beyond death (which would be worthy of His excellence, that He could be received as the price, and ransom, and sacrifice of a good aroma, and means of expiation). For such death justifies from sin. Romans 6:7, . . . . And so in the death of Christ we died to the law and the law to us. Romans 7:1, 4, 6, 'The law rules over man as long as he lives. You have died to the law through the body of Christ. We have been set free from the law,' having died (or dead for a different reading) in Him for whom we are kept. Third, He could not be held by death, because neither the glory of the Son nor the righteousness acquired for us could be blotted out." - Johannes Cocceius, The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, Pg. 98 - 99