RickD wrote:Jac touched on this issue in his post here.
Yeah... I remember that...
Regarding Jac's 'back-loaded' gospel
There's a confusion here between "condition" and "precondition." Most people use the former in the sense of the latter, which I think is what's going on here. LS does not make works a precondition of salvation. It certainly makes them a condition of salvation (see the joke I told above). That's evident in the fact that the LS claims "where there are no works, there is no salvation."
So stated, that's just a back-loaded gospel. Strictly, a back-loaded gospel is not an aberrant Christianity as it is not a false gospel.
Back-loaded is Jac's term not Scripture's. But what Jac describes as a back-loaded looks like the Scriptural Gospel of Jesus Christ to me regardless of what label someone throws on it.
And the 'good news' is Jac appears to acknowledge that this is neither aberrant Christianity or a false gospel.
Regarding Jac's front-loaded Gospel...
That changes, though, when the LS is of the MacArthur camp. He doesn't just backload the gospel with conditions but in fact frontloads the gospel with preconditions. For them, "faith" doesn't mean "believe" or "trust." "Faith" means "to commit to" or "to pledge obedience to." In this case, they are requiring in addition to belief other conditions: a pledge/promise of obedience. For that reason, I don't actually think "lordship salvation" is a good term. We ought to be calling it "Commitment Salvation" or "I-Promise Salvation." At this point, I say that this is aberrant. Such a view is literally a false gospel.
Here is where things got a little heated...
Things went south in the discussion when we got into the question of whether or not commitment was an integral component of faith. Jac wants to strip commitment from the definition of Scriptural faith which is why he opposes the BDAG 3rd edition definition of pisteuo.
My dad and I discussed at length whether or not commitment was an integral part of faith, and my father (as a free grace proponent) wholeheartedly agreed that commiting to Jesus Christ was an integral part of trusting in Jesus. So the issue of commitment was one area where my father was in complete disagreement with Jac's position.
Now in fairness my dad's description of commitment and that of John MacArthur would probably differ somewhat. And we get back to the question of what level of commitment is even possible for an unregenerate person. But the fact of the matter is that commitment to Jesus is an integral component of trusting in Jesus Christ.
I do agree with Jac that 'pledging obedience to' Jesus is not an integral component of trusting in Jesus.
So I disagree strongly (and my father does too) with Jac's assertion that commitment to Jesus is an addition to faith and evidence of a false gospel. Jac's just dead wrong on that one.
Now I'm not going to say that Jac's going to hell because he's wrong on that particular point. I'll just say that Jac's position on commitment and faith is inconsistent with Scripture and leave it at that.