Incarnational sonship vs Arianism

After debating on behalf of the position of Incarnational Sonship with a Baptist who was privately Arian; he Challenged my views in written form and later in a private phone discussion.

Arianism is named after Arius and the controversy took place in alexandria egypt
"Arius (/əˈraɪəs, ˈɛəri-/; Koinē Greek: Ἄρειος, Áreios; 250 or 256–336) was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic,^[1] and priest in Baucalis in Alexandria, Egypt.^[2] His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father,^[3] and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325."

The Arian Jesus is a separate creature from God only He is very godlike in most respects.

Incarnational sonship teaches that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.  So that when He was born he had been begotten. However along with Orthodox Christians teaches the Word was God and the word became flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The Arian responded to a debate I had over eternal generation.  So here I will respond to his written form, which is in Italics.

 I find it interesting he tries to pin Arianism on Alexandria, Egypt; when Origen's teaching on eternal generation was the beginning of the Trinity doctrine from the research I've done on the subject. It was Lucian of ANTIOCH who taught "semi-Arianism" according to most Church historians, including members of the original Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that decided against Arianism. This also went along with the teaching of literal interpretation, contrary to Origen's teaching of allegorical interpretation.

His points are:

1. There is no Old Testament foundation for Eternal Generation, therefore Incarnational Sonship must be true. This is a false dichotomy, as there is a third option (that of course neither side will bother even considering), the Arian view where Jesus' generation is not an eternal process, but that it took place at a certain time before the creation (according to Proverbs 8:22-26 and Psalm 2:7)."

The Arian post-creation generation is not in the OT either.

2.  He says, "WHAT OUR THEOLOGY IS, IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE RATIONAL". That itself is a silent admission the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union is bad theology since nobody can rationally explain it.

pro. 8:22-26 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world"
This may seem compelling in isolation, however....
pro. 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths."
This is not the male christ but a female.
Also this is not a person but an allegory. Proverbs written before Platonic discussion of abstract principles.  It is telling a story to portray spiritual truth, namely to understand the nature of wisdom.
8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"
Here we see that wisdom is a witness to creation, but not the creator.  But Christ IS the creator!
Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
  So Christ created wisdom as opposed to being the entity wisdom.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
I guess he is stating that this means he was begotten in the beginning of time. Well let's look at the context.

"2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
This is a future passage and is eschatological in nature.  The Father is giving the Son his inheritance which is the kingdom of the world.  What is important is that He is telling the human Son.  The debate between eternal generation and incarnational sonship is whether or not the human nature is the generated Son of God or whether the human nature Jesus Christ is the generated Son of God.  When we are dealing with "Kiss the Son"  we know that no one could handle the omnipotent logos. it is referring to kissing a man. The event is going to be real in the future.

My understanding of the trinity and incarnation is simple and therefore can be rationally understood.

God has one essence we call "Godhead" or "divinity".  This one substance encases 3 minds. Father, word and spirit.  Jesus is one being with 2 natures.  one nature is that godhead and the other nature is the man jesus of nazareth. The 2nd person of the trinity, the logos/Word is the same person as Jesus of Nazareth.

If the reader understands what this author said, then this doctrine is rational.

3. He says that since the Logos is eternal, there cannot be a generation before Genesis 1:1. But this is just assuming the deity of Christ, which I reject (but of course is an unquestioned common ground for him and his opponent in the debate).
A.  Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God,
The everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace."

B. Micah 2:But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

C. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 

D. Exod. 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

E. Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.



F.  1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

4. I agree with him that nobody taught eternal generation before Origen, because from the research I've done (with two different church histories I've read, written by solid Trinitarians), before Origen, it was taught that Jesus was CREATED before Genesis 1:1, not ETERNALLY GENERATED. That isn't too much of an argument for Trinitarianism.
     Actually there were plenty of early church guys that taught the deity of Christ and the major heresy at that period was modalism which accepts the deity of christ /sabellionism.
  Btw,  before genesis 1 is eternity past, it has no measurement of time.  if it is not eternal generation it is irrational.

5. He is absolutely wrong in saying Origen denied the equality of the Trinity and is the start of Arianism. I've collected too much documentation to believe that nonsense. Origen taught very plainly the three persons were equal in substance, and eternal God, and explicitly denied and never once affirmed Arianism. Arianism was taught by the rival school in Antioch, Syria by Lucian.

Even Origen had been uncertain as to whether or not the Spirit had been 'created or uncreated' or a 'son of God or not'" De Principiis preface    A history of the Christian Church by Whiliston Walker pg. 115

"We therefore, as the more pious and truer course,  admit that all things were made by the Logos and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ."  Origen Allen Menzies, Anti-nicene Fatherspg.328(gathered from  Final Authority by William P.Grady)   Pg.91

"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110

I am not teaching Origen affirmed arianism, I am saying arius accredited his theology to Origen thanks to Origens doctrine of eternal generation
"This is ironic since Arius, the arch enemy of the doctrine of the trinity in the 4th century, claimed Origen as the source of his subordination of the Son in which he declared that "there was when the Son was  not" pg. 109-110 The Story of Christian Theology Roger Olson 1999

6. He claims that subordinationism makes Jesus a demi god. Not true at all. ALL the early Trinitarians who sentenced Arians to capital punishment under Constantine were subordinationist, including the great defender of the deity of Christ himself, Athanasius.
  Athanasius could not be a subordinationist for the simple fact that it would not work with his Soteriology.
"Only by real Godhood coming into Union with real manhood could in Christ could the transformation of human into divine be accomplished in him or be mediated by him to his disciples. As Athanasius said "He [Christ] was made man that we might be made divine."6 To His thinking the Great error of Arianism was that it gave no basis for a real salvation."pg110 A History of the Christian Church Williston Walker

"The first line of reasoning Athanasius used to support the equality of Son with Father is metaphysical.  The heart of the argument is that if the Father is God, then the SOn must be God as well, for otherwise the Father would have changed in becoming Father.  If there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Son was not a Father.  For him the definition of the Son of God is part of the definition of God as father and "God's offspring is eternal, for his nature is even perfect...... What is to be said but that in maintaining 'Once the Son was not,' They rob God of His Word, like plunderers, and openly predicate of Him that He was once without radiance and the fountain was once barren and dry." pg 168 The Story of Christian theology Roger Olson

7. He seems to imply Eastern Orthodox reject the Athanasian Creed for subordination, when in reality they include it in their Psalter, with the exception of the Filoque clause.

All in all, he seems to have a very oversimplified and incorrect grasp on the philosophies in early church history about the Trinity. That's my impression of what the video said.

I'll have to see the reference.  The filioque clause is ultimately rejected because of subordination because that would imply a distinction between persons and being."

I decided to do search on the question....
Does the Orthodox Church accept the Athanasian Creed? - Christianity Stack Exchange

"One of the main points of debate between the Eastern and Western churches concerns the words "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed's description of the Holy Spirit.

The so-called Athanasian Creed includes the words "and the Son" when describing the Holy Spirit.

How does the Orthodox Church view the Athanasian Creed?"

#1 Answer:

For the Orthodox, there is precisely one Creed: the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That being said, it depends on what you mean by 'accept'. The theology of Quicunque Vult / (Pseudo-)Athanasian Creed is definitely Latin in origin, but, generally speaking, it is theologically acceptable to the Orthodox once the filioque is removed. It is occasionally included in Russian psalters without the filioque. For example, see here for a ROCOR view.

However, Quicunque Vult is not considered normative in Orthodoxy. It is a useful historic document of the Church, but it was never endorsed (or to my knowledge, mentioned) by an Ecumenical Council. It is not creed."

Thus while the creed is not reject totally it is not accepted as an EOC creed which agrees with my original premise.





Does mark12:6  teach early logos generation?
On the question of generation, the arians are nearly Identical to the catholic view of generation,  Only the orthodox places it at eternity past while the arian places it right next to eternity past before creation and after time.
Mark 12:1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. 2And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.  And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.  And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. 5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. 6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. 7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'"
   As we see from vs one this passage is written as a parable.
Parables are interpreted by most conservative hermeneutical scholars as conveying one meaning.  Also they are not meant to be chronological histories. Here is an example...
 "8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. 9What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others."
Hey!! What happened to the resurrection?? It is not in the parable because of the fact that this is simply illustrating a point and not laying out a chronology.
  The point or the basic meaning of this parable is referring to the behavior of the Pharisees and their condemnation.  Which is far away from the sonship debate.  In fact it does not mention when the Son was generated anywhere is the text. 




john 1:5   john 1:4-5, 12:34-36 The light
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

John 1: 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

John 1: 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

John 12:34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man? 35 Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. 36 While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them."
    SO we see God is light and light is by implication an infinite quality. Life which also has eternal qualities and is attached to the Christ.  The light of men is synonymous with he image of God.  This divinity being a composition of Christ.

1 john 5:7-9
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. "
   Once again the Word is equivalent of God,(john 1:1) it is one of three while being one, and it is the same logos which became flesh (John 1:14).  But the distinction of the Word from the Son shows that the divinity is distinct from the office of Son.  Now this distinction is not to be in Arianism and Arians have consistently rejected it as part of scripture.

The Word
John 1:1-3, 14-18, Rev. 19
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Revelation 19:13-16
Rev. 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
   SO we see again the logos is deified, yet the Logos is incarnate.  The Anointing is unique to that of Moses as it is direct divinity in the form of grace as opposed to Law.   In describing Deity Christ is distributing divinity. In Revelation the distribution is fulfilled as He reigns upon the earth.





David worshipped?
1 chronicles 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king.
   The Worship here is not of David but of His Lord.

:14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee."
   The context proves the hypothesis as David denies the right to be worshipped.

:21 And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings unto the Lord, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel:22 And did eat and drink before the Lord on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the Lord to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest."
We see here the Sacrifices are not made for David but for the LORD.



Revelation and the divinity of Christ
Rev. 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
For the Arian position to be true, it is necessary that the alpha and Omega be God the Father and not Christ.

However, there are only two speakers in the context of Revelation ch. 1.
Rev. 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Rev. 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

Rev. 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
   Vs 7 is alluding to Daniel 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." So it is speaking of Christ/Son of Man and thus it applies Reveation 1:8 to Christ as the alpha and omega.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Not only can we trace this through but  "the tabernacle of God is with Men"  describes the incarnation as the body of Christ is indeed the house of God. vs. 4 then is speaking of Christ being called God.


Thus the Incarnational SOnship which was attacked by an Arian Scholar has with Stood and Scripture has taught the truth of the Divinity of Christ.

Responding to J.D.Martin on lordship salvation

Last year J.D. Martin, an sbc advocate of Lordship salvation publicly challenged me to a debate. J.D. Martin  carries himself as a charitable character. However after 2 months of planning and study, and patience. J.D. canceled the debate and was rather rude. Here J.D. is having a quasi debate with a reformed Arminian as to whether Arminians like his friend, are Lordship Salvationists.  here is my response:



 So we start the video and there is an obvious hypocrisy from the start of this discussion debate.

J.D. Assumes the liberty of styling His own position "Lordship Salvation" to his prefences Then David Pullman denies that liberty to free grace and J.d. Amens it. Pullman says free grace is belief in ...something. As if the advocates of Free grace were believing in the "stay puff marshmellow man". A major theologian under the "Free Grace" label Charles Ryrie Gave us a good working definition while discussing Faith. "FAITH means, 'Confidence, trust, holding something as true'. Certainly faith must have content There must be confidence in something or someone. To believe in Christ for Salvation means to have confidence that something or in someone. To believe in Christ for salvation means to have confidence that He can remove the guilt of sin and give eternal life. It means to believe that He can solve the problem which is what keeps a believe out of Heaven. You can believe Christ about a multitude of other things, but these are not involved in Salvation" SO an axiom of this position is that faith is specifically in the object. The object of faith is the gospel and it can not be altered. This is why the concept of Heresy is brought up. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Accursed here is referring to damnation. So another gospel of salvation will not save. Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Now is this necessarily a completely different story? Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." SO then if the gospel is perverted, it is apostasy. 1828 websters] Pervert) 1. To turn from truth, propriety, or from its proper purpose; to distort from its true use or end; as, to pervert reason by misdirecting it; to pervert the laws by misinterpreting and misapplying them; to pervert justice; to pervert the meaning of an author; to pervert nature; to pervert truth." So in this early part of the epistle, it is obvious that the subject is focused on the good news of salvation and what that means. Galatians 1: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:" So what is "Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us " I believe Paul elaborates that. throughout the epistle. Righteousness is external not internal. Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." In this sense, the law in the Jewish tradition has become antithetical to the truth of the Gospel. The gentiles who are not under an obligational covenant with the law, have the same chance at the same righteousness that is free from the obligation of the Law. offered to Jews.. Righteousness is external not internal. Rmember sin is defined as the breaking of the law Galatians 3:3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain." Here we see the contradiction between scripture and lordship salvation. If we are saved by grace through faith then we are sanctified the same way. 1 john 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." The Gospel of salvation is simply defined. 1 Cor. 15:15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" This definition of the gospel IS Propositional it IS rational "good news". The Gospel is not our response, religion is our response. Both in conversion and sanctification. J.D> brought up this passage.. 1 cor. 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

But since Jesus kingdom is not of this world we will enter with new bodies in glorification which have no sin. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Sins can not inherit the kingdom because our flesh can not inherit the kingdom! But we can find our inheritance and freedom in the liberty of salvation. 1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power." How can all things be lawful to paul with all those exclusions from heaven? Simple , my reading was consistant. the whole time he had freedom in regards to moses but should have a wise mindset in regards to holiness and should volitarily seek holiness in drawing closer to Christ. Now these men responded to cherry picked comments that I had placed. Unlike other programs they assumed all statements were to be official questions which defies grammar. So I will give a more official statement. The concept of Lordship salvation is Heresy if taken to it's logical conclusion. It is vague enough to be a slippery slope and so while I have met many people who are necessarily heretics, they may eventually slide into that position and understanding because it will not defend the scriptures true teaching on grace. by the end of this exchange J.D. Concedes that his Arminian friend who believes in apostasy does hold Lordship salvation. Thus all the criticism we have of apostasy should apply to lordship salvation. Arminians in most of the traditions do not fully understand; if not they deny imputed righteousness. modern wesleyans for instance teach that Jesus death removes sins but it does not impute righteousnes. J.D. may have to eventually face this inconsistency.

As far as catholicism In his book "The gospel According to Jesus" John Macarthur appeals to the Roman Catholic Church Father Augstine to support 'Lordship Salvation"

"Augstine writing in 412 AD, described works of righteousness as an inevitable proof of the operation of the Holy Spirit in one's life."

However, Augustine was not an evangelical! Augustine believed in purgatory and works based salvation. He did not argue for imputed righteousness or penal substitution.

"Augustine of Hippo, who, scarcely one year after his death, was called "one of the best teachers" of the Church by my distant predecessor, St. Celestine I,(1) has been present ever since in the life of the Church and in the mind and culture of the whole western world. In a similar fashion, other Roman Pontiffs have proposed the example of his way of life and the writings that embody his teachings as an object of contemplation and imitation, and very many Councils have often drawn copiously from his writings. "......

"I too have added my voice to those of my predecessors, when I expressed my strong desire "that his philosophical, theological and spiritual doctrine be studied and spread, so that he may continue...his teaching in the Church, a humble but at the same time enlightened teaching which speaks above all of Christ and love."(5) On another occasion, I urged in particular the spiritual sons of this great saint "to keep the fascination of St. Augustine alive and attractive even in modern society."...….

"Contemplating the Church as body of Christ, given life by the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ, Augustine gave varied development to a concept which was also emphasized in a special way by the recent Council: that of the Church as communion.(138) He speaks in three different but converging ways: first, the communion of the sacraments, or the institutional reality founded by Christ on the foundation of the apostles.(139) He discusses this at length in the Donatist controversy, defending the unity, universality, apostolicity and sanctity of the Church,(140) and showing that she has as her center the See of Peter, "in which the primacy of the apostolic see has always been in force."(141) Second, he speaks of the communion of the saints, or the spiritual reality that unites all the righteous from Abel until the end of the ages.(142) Third, he speaks of the communion of the blessed, or the eschatological reality that gathers in all those who have attained salvation, that is, the Church "without spot and wrinkle" (Eph 5:27).(143)…...

Another theme dear to Augustine's ecclesiology was that of the Church as mother and teacher, a theme on which he wrote profound and moving pages, because it had a close connection to his experience as convert and to his teaching as theologian. While he was on the path back to faith, he met the Church, no longer opposed to Christ as he had been made to believe,(144) but rather as the manifestation of Christ, "most true mother of Christians"(145) and authority for the revealed truth.(146)".

Pope John Paul II https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_26081986_augustinum-hipponensem.html

Obviously the catholic popes actively use Augustine as a tool for proselytizing and the reformers are venerating him at the same time!

"Now all Faith is redemptive. James 2:14-16 says faith without works is dead and cannot save. James describes spurious faith as pure hypocrisy(v.16) mere cognitive assent(v.19), devoid of any verifying works (vv.17-18)- no different from the demons belief (19). Obviously there is more to saving faith than merely conceding to a set of facts. It will not save" The gospel According to Jesus" John Macarthur pg. 186

Now could this interpretation ever square with the teachings of Luther?

"That by the coming of Christ into the world by His Gospel, by which grace is offered, but not works required." Luther Bondage of the Will section 74, page 123

Of course Luther regarded the revelation of James as straw. All the more reason to realize that Macarthur's interpretation is traditionally heterodox to reformed exposition.

The epistle of James was the chronologically the 1st epistle of the New Testament written to jews.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting."

The topic is laid out in ch. 1

James 1: 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." So this is a letter written to Jewish Christians before the Apostle Paul came on the scene. This is important as Paul will have revelations which will revolutionize the course of the New Testament.

Ephesians 3: 2 if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;"

Meanwhile, James qualifies his teaching of faith.

james 2:2 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Religion being the discipline of man in relation to others, and faith in respect of persons as opposed to Paul's theme of our faith in relation to God.

2: 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors."

The jewish Christians were giving preference to the rich, even though the rich oppressed them and God had given a spiritual place to the poor Christians. This is mentioned in light of Jewish law.

2: 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty"

Once again notice that these are laws respecting the relationships of people amongst each other.

2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? " Now in light of the context: "save him" is focused not on exchatology but on daily living as is the previous context focused.

2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? "

So now it is obvious that we are relating our faith to each other and justification is a topic towards each other as opposed to Paul's topic of justification before God. Abraham was imputed righteousness before God previously but his faith has been revealed to man in his willingness to sacrifice his son. John Piper and Rome

W.O. Cloud comments on John Piper's connections with Rick Warren.

"Consider John Piper. He is another bridge to the heresies in the “broader evangelical church.” In April 2011, Piper conducted a Desiring God conference at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and in June he preached at the annual Southern Baptist pastors conference, again joining hands with Rick Warren. When you get into Rick Warren’s sphere, you are within reach of all sorts of heresies and fables. These are treacherous waters, indeed. Warren preaches the heretical “judge not” philosophy; turns the church into a rock & roll entertainment center complete with pelvic thrusts; says God won’t ask about your doctrinal views; continually and approvingly quotes from heretics in his writings and preaching (such as Roman Catholic universalists Mother Teresa, Henri Nouwen, and Thomas Merton); promotes Catholic contemplative mysticism; likens Christian fundamentalists to Islamic terrorists; calls for unity between Baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Anglicans, etc.; promotes the exceedingly liberal Baptist World Alliance; yokes together with New Age practitioners; says that believers should work with unbelievers and pagan religionists to build the kingdom of God; and presents Roman Catholic one-worlder Tony Blair with a peace prize (March 2011). For documentation see http://www.wayoflife.org/database/warrenheader.html " https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/path_from_ib_to_shack_rome.html

"In the video, Piper says he is “ticked” with Christian seminary classes that turn “mainly” to the “mystical Catholic tradition in order to find this kind of depth and this kind of personal connection with the living God that is both rational and supra-rational and very mystical in its communion.” He adds, “You don’t have to embrace bad theology, namely Roman Catholic historic bad theology, in order to find amazing representatives of those who’ve known God at this level.”

The obvious question that was not answered in this snippet is whom does Piper believe are some of these “amazing representatives” who can teach us about “good” contemplative prayer? Thanks to our keen-eyed reader, who sent us a link to Piper’s church’s bookstore, we found that answer, at least in part--none other than Richard Foster, whose book Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home is being sold on the Bethlehem Baptist Church’s bookstore website. Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home is one of Foster’s primers on contemplative prayer. In that book, Foster tells us: “You must bind the mind with one thought” (p. 124). Foster’s advice echoes mystics such as Anthony DeMello as Ray Yungen points out in A Time of Departing (p. 75). Yungen warns that this binding the mind (getting rid of distractions and thoughts) is no different than classic Hindu meditation." https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/john%20_pipers_contradictory_position.html

"Apprising Ministries has been warning for years concerning the evil effects of the neo-liberal in the Emerging Church aka the Emergent Church.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that right from its hatching in hell corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), such as that taught by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster along with his spiritual twin and Southern Baptist minister Dallas Willard, was a core doctrine.Spreading as a spiritual cancer throughout apostatizing evangelicalism, we even see that it’s slithered all the way into the New Calvinst neo-reformed camp e.g. as in Acts 29 Network And Reformed Counter Reformation Spirituality? One of the fruits of CSM is a blurring of doctrinal lines, which is particularly dangerous in this time of postmodernism and growing spiritual blindness.".....Moore’s admitted practice of some form of CCP, which is actually divination, has opened her up to even receive direct revelation and visions from God. Below from a 2002 series called Believing God, available right now at Lifeway’s website, Moore describes a vision God gave her concerning His Church.Sounding not too unlike Word Faith wingnuts she tells us God took her into some kind of dimension where she was able to see the Body of Christ as Jesus sees it:Apparently the Protestant Reformation was really some sort of horrible mistake because Moore’s Jesus sees the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. This becomes clear below as Moore demonstrates what she saw in her vision from God:Yet despite this obviously false vision ten years ago, there was Beth Moore preaching to thousands alongside New Calvinists John Piper and Francis Chan. I guess we really should expect this because Piper has told us before: “I’m Happy To Learn From Beth Moore.”"http://apprising.org/2012/01/06/beth-moore-and-john-piper-lead-lectio-divina-lite-at-passion-2012/

But Piper would definitely be different in his soteriology from Rome correct?"Yet I am hesitant to call Jesus' obediance in life and death a fulfillment of a 'covenant of works'. This term generally implies a that 'works' stand over against 'grace'. and are not the fulfillment of faith in grace. Thus works implies a relationship with God that is more like an employer recieving earned wages than in a son trusting his father's generosity." Future Grace pg.413

Here Piper is breaking away from Reformed Covenant theology. But this is not just leaving Calvinism. By doing this He is altering his view of justification in a way different from evangelicalism."When the Old Testament says that covenant keeping is the condition for recieving God's loving kindness, that's what it meant ... All the covenants of God are conditional covenants of grace-both the old and the new covenant. They offer all sufficient Future Grace for those who keep the covenant. But what it does say is that all future blessings of the Christian life are conditional on our keeping." Future Grace pg. 249

So then in defiance of evangelical Justification Piper says that we must fulfill conditions to receive grace."It is faith alone which justifies, but the faith which justifies is never alone." Future Grace pg. 21

Notice the lack of clarity in the motto. If faith in the sense of justification is never alone, it can not be alone.

The place of Christ in Piper's soteriology is incredibly diminished. It is the works of the Father and the spirit, which allows the sinner to be more righteous. While Christ only offers a conditional covenant by which if they are faithful then they may recieve future forgiveness. the act of salvation is then mixed with the act of man.

"It is sufficient for salvation, for it necessarily produces good works of love just as a good tree necessarily produces good fruit. Protestants and Catholics agree on this. The Pope even told German Lutheran Bishops so over a decade ago, and they were startled and delighted. the two churches issued a public joint statement on justification, a statement of agreement. Protestants and Catholics do not have essentially different religions, different ways of salvation." Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli Handbooks of Christian Apologetics pg. 32, 33.

Here we see Catholic Apologists have already capitalized on Protestants redefining the faith.

"By Grace I do not merely mean the pardon of God passing over your sins, but also the power and beauty of God to keep you from sinning. By faith I do not merely mean the confidence that Christ died for your sins, but the confidence that God will 'also with him freely give us all things' (Romans8:32). Faith is primarily future oriented assurance of things hoped for' (Hebrews 11:1)." pg.13 Future Grace

Here Piper wants to focus on the evangelistic concepts of grace and faith, he fuses the concepts of Justification and sanctification. This makes salvation a lifelong process just like Catholicism. This desire to redefine terms is a classic strategy of the cults.

Do not be fooled, this is not the traditional protestant concept.

"Because the Holy Spirit is received by faith, and hearts are renewed and put on new affections so that they can accomplish good works. For Ambrose says 'Faith is the mother of good will and righteous action'" Augsburg Confession XX. B.

Justifying faith is first, only then through the Holy Spirit's regeneration and sanctification are we able to produce good works. Faith being the mother is totally independent of her "good works" children.

Piper is also known for trying to get his church to alter their confession of faith to allow for infant baptism. What is interesting is the fact that his views seem to be apprehended in part with his partnership with Doug Wilson. Doug Wilson was formerly one of the leaders in the "Federal Vision Movement".

Wilson is open in his acceptance of Roman Catholics as his "brothers and sisters" as seen in his debate with James White. https://youtu.be/jlTMsNPjBLo

James White though holding an orthodox separation view is very reveal in a recent video where he stated that Roman Catholicism did not develop till the 12th century. By implication accepting the 1st 100years of Catholicism as orthodox. https://youtu.be/NSh5vunw2yk (about the 8 minute mark).

So the march towards Rome is definitely a strong motiff in the New Calvinism.

Albert Mohler and Catholicism

"Mohler has made strongly anti-Catholic statements, but at the same time maintains that much of Catholic doctrine is compatible with his views. In spite of his public criticism of the Catholic Church, Mohler claims in his official biography to have studied at St. Meinrad School of Theology [10] (a few hours drive from the Seminary of which he is President.)"https://www.monergism.com/r-albert-mohler-jr"Saint Meinrad Abbey's school was founded in 1857 by Swiss monks from the Benedictine Abbey of Einsiedeln. Following the decrees of the Councils of Trent and Baltimore, the school was organized into major and minor seminary programs. In 1959, Saint Meinrad was reorganized into a high school, college and theologate. The school offers the following advanced degrees: Master of Divinity; Master of Theological Studies; Master of Arts in Catholic Philosophical Studies, Master of Arts (Theology) and Master of Arts (Pastoral Theology).[1] The school is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools.

Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology offers programs in Roman Catholic priesthood formation, theological formation for Roman Catholic permanent deacon candidates, lay degrees in theology, continuing adult education and youth leadership as part of its secondary education mission." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Meinrad_Seminary_and_School_of_Theology

So the Lordship salvation tradition is littered with roots to roman catholicism.