Tag Archives: back to faith

Uncategorized

Calvin’s Error on Assurance

1 Comment

I honestly stay stumped by those who think Calvin never made a mistake and those others who think he never said anything true.  I also wonder how many out there are still interested in being objective and understanding both sides of any issue.  I do not find that my rabid 5-point-DORT-calvinism-is-the-only-true-calvinism friends (both advocates and enemies believe this same indefensible point) are able to explain both sides of their issue-of-the-moment.  It is embarrassing theologically not to be able to clearly explain both sides.

Here is Calvin’s error: We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone

Yes, he said it a little fancier, but it is the same point.  Here is the idea…if you REALLY believe, then works MUST show up.  DORT said it too…that you could fall into the most awful lifestyle for a long, long time; but eventually, if you are a TRUE believer, you will come back before you die.

Honestly, that is just simply made up.

And here’s the rub— if someone is in ‘sin’, how do you know he will ‘come back’ someday?  You clearly do not.

And— If this same person may not REALLY be saved/justified, then he certainly can’t be assured of his destiny with God.  True?

AND—WHAT ABOUT YOU? If you COULD fall into a sinful life in the future…and that would mean you COULD not really be saved…then HOW can you possibly be assured now?

Hence, Calvin’s error.  Calvin was so defensive about the Catholic retort of “What about Works?” when he accurately explained FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE…that he compromised his theology and his logic.  Don’t get me wrong…it does make sense…but only inside the framework of Calvin’s assumptions.  Of course, it is mostly an issue of incongruence; Calvin did often stay away from co-mingling works and faith.

This view about works DOES NOT MAKE SENSE in reality.  It is an assumption about the nature of faith AND and assumption about our ability to discern TRUE from FALSE works in others.  Hey gang, God is the one who knows.  But honestly, why don’t we see great populations of people getting ‘better’ in Christ as they age?  Why don’t we see better doctrine over time (if people who are saved must get godlier and godlier)?  It’s simple, people must also GROW SPIRITUALLY…which is a second choice / issue / concern.  Salvation is apart from works, but spiritual growth is intimately connected to works.

Below is the info on my intensive labor on this issue…if you want to be loaded for bear (or for bearing witness)…300+ pages and 600+ footnotes lays it out.  It also contains a mini-course in logic.

Recently a lady wrote me that she had studied this book and was in a small group meeting where she politely engaged the pastor who was trying to support Calvin’s Error.  As she explained that assurance is only sustained when we look at Christ (and not ourselves) this lady spoke up in the meeting for that moment—testifying that she suddenly had assurance for the first time in 12 years!  The wild thing was that it was her own pastor who was leading the group discussion.

Face it, as long as you look at yourself and your works, you will never be truly assured of heaven.  And, as long as you look at others’ works, you will never be assured of heaven for them either.

THE POINT:  LOOK TO CHRIST…AND KEEP LOOKING!

Now, please let’s get the word out.  I’m finding this book is being  used to convert both rabid Arminians and rabid Calvinists to the clarity found in affirming Faith Alone in Christ Alone, while dropping our lust for judging others.  I know there are lots of questions…but most get addressed in the book.

Cheers,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

4 Comments

All,

This is an article I wrote this week for the Free Grace Alliance.  I’d love your thoughts!

Fred Lybrand

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

Have you ever noticed how busy everyone is with getting words just right?  It turns out to be more than political correctness, it is really an issue of communication.  You may not have thought about it this way, but language is actually the most ‘democratic’ thing on the planet.  The use of words actually determines their meanings; and, of course, the use of words in a particular context determines THAT meaning.  If I tell you I love my wife, my dog, and my Kindle, then surely you can make out the different nuances.

More to our common faith, it has become a recent trend to refer to oneself as a “Christ-Follower” rather than a Christian.  The reason for this shift is that the word ‘Christian’ has fallen on hard time and doesn’t communicate the right meaning internationally or practically.  ‘Fundamentalist’ (in the faith) has fallen under the same spell of disrepute because it has been associated with certain militaristic ‘Christian’ sub-strata, as well as ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’.  So do we change words or keep working on the proper use of the terms?  Democrats and Republicans have been two groups whose names have fallen on hard times in the back-and-forth nature of popularity.  They just keep working at redefining their name.

The Context

I’ll leave it to you to solve such matters.  My concern here is with the Gospel of Grace.  The debate between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace has been muddling along for the better part of 100 years in noticeable ways.  Here’s an example that predates John MacArthur’s entrance into the foray with The Gospel According to Jesus in 1986.  A.W. Tozer in The Root of the Righteous (Wingspread Publishers, © 1955, 1986), says

There can be no spiritual regeneration till there has been moral reformation.  That this statement requires defense only proves how far from the truth we have strayed.  In our current popular theology pardon depends on faith alone.

Unfortunately, Tozer is saying exactly what he sounds like he’s saying.  For Tozer, salvation is conditioned on a commitment to reform and not faith alone.  All of this is tied up in confusing the relationship between faith and works (see Back to Faith by Fred R. Lybrand for a  thorough discussion of this matter), so Tozer can also, at times, affirm the doctrine of ‘faith alone’ as well.  Kevin Butcher pointed out the real issue back in 1989 when he asserted that the Lordship Salvation side doesn’t represent the Free Grace side’s view of the gospel accurately.  He said,

MacArthur’s first error involves a problem of perception—he doesn’t clearly understand the other view. He does well when he states his own position, describing “Lordship Salvation” as a gospel that requires a faith that commits all (cf. pp. 169ff), a repentance that gives up sin (cf. pp. 159ff) and a submission to the “mastership of Christ” (cf. pp. 203ff) before eternal life is apprehended. The Lordship gospel, according to MacArthur, speaks of a “salvation that is a gift, yet costs everything” (cf. p. 140). But the “other” view which might be referred to as the “Free Grace” Gospel is misrepresented on several counts. (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring1989 —Volume 2:1)

The issue is rather simple:

The Lordship Salvation View: One (or many) things are required of the one desiring eternal salvation.  These things largely have to do with a commitment on the part of the seeker to pursue life-change through an abandonment of all desires, possessions, lifestyle, and choice to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Free Grace Salvation View:  There are no requirements for the one desiring eternal salvation.  The ‘requirement’ is that which attends the acceptance of any gift; a willingness to accept it.  In the Free Grace View this willingness to accept is found in the phrase ‘faith alone in Christ alone’.  While the content of what is to be believed is occasionally debated,  the essential idea is that one is saved eternally by believing in Christ’s promise of eternal life for those who believe in Him.  I understand this ‘believe in Him’ have to do with the basics of His person and work, especially his dying and being raised again on our behalf.

What is missed in the debate is that Lordship Salvation proponents affirm they believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ and Free Grace proponents affirm they believe in the Lordship of Christ.  I sit in the curious spot of honestly believing that the Lordship Salvation proponents really do believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’, and often share the message properly.  Of course, I also believe they often muddle their communication and make the gospel sound as though much more is required than faith in Christ.  I have concluded that their ‘muddling’ of the issue comes from a fundamental incongruence in their theology and thinking.  While affirming a distinction between justification (being eternally saved) and sanctification (growing spiritually to match the image and character of Christ), they also deny the distinction by affirming that believer = disciple [see Back to Faith, Xulon Press, 2009].

The topic especially becomes an issue when it gets down to sharing the gospel.  The Lordship Salvation proponents accuse the Free Grace proponents of not emphasizing the ‘lordship’ of Christ in our presentation, hence misleading people from what God requires for their eternal destiny.  The Free Grace proponents accuse the Lordship Salvation proponents of ‘adding’ to faith in such a way that the individual is not trusting in Christ, but rather in oneself (or other things) for his eternal destiny.

The Appeal

I really want to appeal to those on the Lordship Salvation side to clarify the issue we Free Grace advocates wrestle with concerning presenting a gospel with various conditions attached to faith alone in Christ alone.  However, for our part, I want to propose a fresh way to explain our view.  It uses words to force a re-thinking of what Free Grace advocates are saying.  Here’s the term,

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

I believe in Lordship Sanctification, and in my 24 years of ministry I have advocated individuals abandoning themselves to the Lord.  I have begged believers to completely bring their will, desires, and possessions under Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the Lord of their lives.  I personally and deeply believe Lordship is crucial for the one who has faith in Christ.  In no sense would I ever be against Christ as Lord.  However, I do believe that this call is directed at those who have believed (see Romans 12:1-2) already.

If this understanding of Christ’s Lordship makes sense for our growth in the Lord, then the term Lordship Sanctification turns out to be a very clarifying phrase.  I believe in acknowledging Christ’s Lordship as a necessary part of the sanctification process.  I believe that in order to continue growing in the Lord, one must, in the course of time, yield utterly to the divine oversight of Jesus Christ regarding his life and conformity to the Image of Christ (see Romans 8:28-29).

There is also one great advantage in the debate over the gospel with the use of the term Lordship Sanctification; Free Grace proponents can never again be accused by the Lordship Salvation proponents of not preaching the gospel.  Frankly, if you preach Lordship as an important aspect of ones spiritual growth in Christ, then you can only be accused of being ‘slow’, never of being wrong!  They at least must admit that ‘finally’ we get around to sharing a saving message (in their estimation).

I believe in Free Grace Salvation and Lordship Sanctification.  My appeal to everyone who acknowledges himself as promoters of grace— please begin to refer to Lordship Sanctification often in your preaching, teaching, and mentoring.  If we could infuse this term into the discussion, I am confident that a new age of conversation and clarification can arise.  I believe in Lordship Sanctification as I hope you do as well, and I always get around to explaining it.  However, with one seeking forgiveness, hope, and eternity— I always begin with the good news that Christ died for you and if you will believe in Him you’ll have everlasting life, just as He promised.  In the gospel, the word is FAITH.  In spiritual growth, the word is LORDSHIP.  Let’s grow united in our clarity and in our communication.  Eternal salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, while progress in sanctification inevitably leads to abandoning oneself to the Lord of Glory.

Grace and peace,
Fred R. Lybrand

www.fredlybrand.org
www.backtofaith.com

To print a copy of this article click on this link: http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/LordshipSanctification.pdf

Biblically Speaking

If you grasp the insights in this book, you’ll understand FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE in such a way that you’ll never be tempted to judge anyone’s eternal destiny again.

2 Comments

OK…so, I want to shamelessly tell you about the power of sorting out the Faith/Works issue in keeping the Gospel clear, assurance solid, and judgmentalness banished.  It is all in Back to Faith (see www.backtofaith.com)

Here’s the beginning of Chapter 5 from the book to consider:

CHAPTER 5
The Cliché Is Pragmatically Invalid
If the arguments presented have been unpersuasive to this
point, consider that this one great weakness of the cliché is the
only real challenge needed to justifiably abandon it: The cliché is
pragmatically invalid. Pragmatic invalidity simply means that, in
any practical sense, the theology behind the cliché is useless, even
if it is true. Assume the cliché, “It is therefore faith alone which
justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone,” is true. In
other words, with the assumption that the cliché is valid, it is held
that one can indeed look at works (or the lack of works) and
determine something about the true nature of an individual’s
eternal salvation. Said otherwise, works prove faith. But can one
truly know if the works are authentic? Or, can the works be
hidden? Here a great problem appears, practically speaking,
because the true works arising from a true salvation are
indeterminable, and so the cliché is pragmatically useless. How
can one know for sure that the works seen in another are “because
of salvation,” rather than “in order to get saved?” To appreciate
this argument, one need only consider the distinction between fact
and theory.
A fact, in the simplest sense, is something that corresponds
to the actual state of affairs. Facts are those things which are
knowable and demonstrable and correspond with how things really
are. A theory, on the other hand, as used in this context, is an
unproved assumption. It parallels words like conjecture and
speculation when one speaks of theory in this sense. Obviously the
[This argument admittedly matches the correspondence theory of truth.
Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy [book on-line]

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, accessed 4 October 2006), 267;

available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d= 74362715;Internet.

Defined 6b: an unproved assumption: conjecture, c: a body of
theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed. (2003), s.v. “theory.”]

word of God does not contain theory, as such, but the factual
explanations from God concerning His will and revelation to
mankind. Whether or not one can demonstrate the validity of the
cliché as a biblical concept is not at issue. At issue is the
distinction between that which is provable and factual, in contrast
with that which is theoretical and based on conjecture.
If the cliché’s theory is true, then it is apparent that one can
look at works or lack of works to point to the genuine nature of
another’s saving faith. So the puritan Matthew Henry asserts,
Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we
must see to it that we have both. We must not think
that either, without the other, will justify and save
us.
The truth, however, is that scripturally speaking, believing
individuals can indeed lack works, while unbelievers can indeed
have good, albeit dead, works. Judas serves as a glaring example
of one whose works never betrayed him. When Jesus predicted
that one of the disciples would betray him, all were perplexed, and
no disciple stated, “Well, it is obviously Judas.”

Woe!

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking, Resources to Consider

“Back To Faith” is now available

9 Comments

Go To: BACK TO FAITH

I’ll have them on sale at the Free Grace Alliance Conference (www.freegracealliance.com)

I’ll also offer a .pdf for purchase shortly (if you buy the book…I’ll probably give you the .pdf for your Kindle by request)

This is like nothing you’ve ever seen…I hope it turns out to be quite a resource!

TO ORDER BACK TO FAITH, CLICK HERE:

Order BACK TO FAITH by Fred Lybrand

“Maintaining veneration for Calvin, this work resolves inherent contradictions to the Gospel found in the Reformed tradition.  Lybrand reiterates “faith alone in Christ alone,” and works accompanying salvation are “normal but not necessary” while cogently requiring the reader to reexamine theological traditions.  My prayer for the mindful Reformer: Read and wrestle with these words. Be willing to abandon all, for the clarity of the Gospel cannot be undervalued.”

Jay Quine, ThM, PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary;
President, College of Biblical Studies

………………………………..

“Fred Lybrand’s analysis of the common saying, ‘Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone,’ exposes the logical and biblical fallacies inherent in Calvin’s famous statement. With careful exegesis he dissects James’ discussion of faith and works with fresh insight into this controversial passage. When I read his doctoral dissertation I immediately encouraged him to publish this so that many others could benefit. The book is well written and finally puts Calvin’s cliché to rest—where it belongs.”

– Jody Dillow

……………………………….

TO ORDER BACK TO FAITH, CLICK HERE:

Order BACK TO FAITH BY Fred Lybrand