Accursed or Innocent? Lordship “Salvation” Teachers.

By Jack Weaver

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. Galatians 1:8

Question: Is a Lordship Probation “salvation-by-works” teacher, preacher or proponent accursed when he perverts the Gospel of God’s Grace — on purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance? Does it matter?

Question: Why would anyone preach such if he knows and believes the true Gospel of God’s Grace? Should we assume therefore he does not know or believe the Gospel?

These are open discussion questions. I have my ideas but would like to hear yours.

SBC preaching, for the most part, “repent of sin or turn from sin salvation,” on purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance?

Paul Washer, among other errors, says:
The Gospel is to repent of your sins and believe the Gospel.” On purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance?

MacArthur, Chan, Piper et al knowingly preach Lordship “Salvation” that if one does not follow Christ — he can not become or is not a believer in Christ. On purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance?

Calvinist Teaching –  one must persevere to the end for salvation. On purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance?

Arminian teaching that one can never have complete assurance of salvation. On purpose, inadvertently or out of ignorance?

Our friend Eddy, in Bruce’s previous article Proceed with Caution: “ONE” Conference Coming to Miami,  has commented and compiled an exhaustive list of Conference teachers who pervert the Gospel. We have written scores of articles on this web site exposing teachers who spoil the Gospel of God’s Grace. It appears there is no end of “popular” teachers/preachers who are willingly or deliberately falling prey to the works based Lordship “salvation” (Probation) lie of Satan.

WHY?????

The list could go on forever.

Your thoughts?

God, By His Grace,, Offers Heaven Free To You.

110 responses to “Accursed or Innocent? Lordship “Salvation” Teachers.

  1. Jack, I think it is mostly innocent. But, it does not matter. The real question is this: are they teaching false gospels? I think the answer is unequivocally YES. Therefore, the messages and the messengers are accursed.

    Why do they do it? The Gospel has become corrupted with the collective errors of everyone who has perverted it, in one fashion or another. The corruption has come from believers and non-believers alike.

    From believers, it has come from not heeding the myriad warnings in scripture to beware of those who would corrupt the Gospel.

    From non-believers, it has taken all sorts of forms from political and economic imperialism, to greed, to subjugation and control of individuals, congregations and denominations through replacement of faith with legalistic cults that incorporate the name of Jesus Christ into their man-made religions.

    In the modern “church”, the Bible plays second fiddle to church traditions and “great men of God”. There are churches that are based almost entirely on the extra-biblical writings of men. Luther, Wesley, Spurgeon, Macarthur, etc. These human, flawed men have been taken at face value – bag and baggage. Every word they uttered is considered valuable.

    Churches spend more time arguing over what their preferred brand of legalism is than on presenting and preserving the Gospel. They have led their congregants to believe that self-denial will buy them salvation.

    People want to help Jesus save them. It makes sense to people to think that they have to behave themselves to go to heaven. The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.

    Mature “believers” don’t want anyone else to get a free ride. So, they teach commitment salvation.

    People like to go along with the crowd. The crowd is not saved.

  2. John,

    Great analysis. Thanks.

    In my years of preaching and teaching I personally find it difficult to imagine so much “error by innocence.” You may be right — you have recently tangled (in person) with more LS proponents than I. However I do find those who preach it, when confronted with Truth, most often vehemently reject it outright.

    You hit the target with this statement:

    There are churches that are based almost entirely on the extra-biblical writings of men. Luther, Wesley, Spurgeon, Macarthur, etc. These human, flawed men have been taken at face value – bag and baggage. Every word they uttered is considered valuable.

    Yes, unfortunately we see these “valuable” words crop up in writings of otherwise solid Grace teachers. They just can’t seem to break away from “big names” who vacillate between the truth and the lie.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  3. Jack, I forgot to answer one of your questions:

    You asked:

    “Why would anyone preach such if he knows and believes the true Gospel of God’s Grace? Should we assume therefore he does not know or believe the Gospel?”

    YES. We should assume that he either does not know or does not believe the Gospel. We cannot know whether or not he ever believed the Gospel and whether he is or is not saved. But, in either case, we must assume that he does not currently believe the Gospel.

    I find that the most ardent LS advocates hate hearing the truth. Particularly those who have brought their children up in that “faith”. I do know some people from LS backgrounds that are receptive to the truth. But, the residue from LS teaching is really sticky.

    Also, thank you for mentioning the Grace teachers who can’t seem to break away from “big names”.

    In addition, believers who yoke themselves with unbelievers are a big part of the problem (i.e., those who go to churches that either directly compromise the gospel or are affiliated with denominations that compromise the gospel – such as the one that you mentioned in your article).

    If believers would refuse to go to LS churches, there would be more Grace churches.

  4. John,

    You said, “YES. We should assume that he either does not know or does not believe the Gospel.”

    We have MacArthur fans who affirm that he knows, believes and preaches the gospel of Grace.. yet we have quoted many statements from JMac refuting that very claim,.

    Maybe mega-church, fame and $$$ play a part?

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  5. Jack, interesting questions. I think a big problem is that Satan is a very skilled liar. What better way is there to spread untruth than to get someone credible to incorporate small amounts of untruth over time into their messages. Eventually small changes lead to bigger changes. Satan did not have to struggle to get Adam and Eve to sin. All he had to do was get them to question God. Satan is using an appeal to pride today as far as the gospel is concerned. The is a natural pride in man that seeks to always have a part of the equation. It is difficult at times to get people to understand that salvation is freely offered to all who will believe. That is change their mind about who Christ is and what he has done for the remission of their sin and believe. It is uncomfortable for people to put full trust in anyone especially when their eternal destiny is on the line. Fully trusting Christ means relying on his finished work on the cross to save you from the punishment of sin. It means there is nothing you can do before or after to earn or merit this salvation. This is were many are deceived.

    I’d say that those who truly teach and preach the Lordship gospel are preaching another gospel and the part about being accursed would fit. There are also many people who get swept up by the likes of Washer, Piper, Friel, White, MacArthur, etc. who may be well meaning or sincerely seeking that get lead astray.

    Unfortunately true believers are not free of responsibility. There is much more that each one of us can do to be better examples, better at discipling new believers, more diligently spreading the true gospel. Complacency is a big problem in Christianity in America. Many do not realize the urgency of the day nor what scripture presents in the following verses. I Pet 5:8, Eph 6:10-18, Heb 10:25, I Tim 6:3-12, II Tim 2:1-2,15, 3 – 4:8, and Titus 1:9-16. We as believers are in an all out war for the truth. Thanks Jack for being one who hosts a blog that takes a stand in this battle.

  6. Jim F, great comments! Complacency is a big problem, as is compromise.

  7. Hi Jack,

    Thanks for another great topic—I’m sure that it will be very enlightening to many people. I trust that you are feeling alright at the present; I pray for you and Shirley often!

    Hi John,

    Your analysis and discussion of Jack’s question was very thorough and solid, thanks!

    If I may, I’ll add a couple of thoughts from my personal observations of attending various churches for decades, from teaching the Bible to various groups for a number of years and just from generally observing the larger Christian scene:

    First, I think that there is a general lack of in-depth knowledge of Biblical Scripture among the Christian populace at large. Second, I believe that because of this widespread shallowness of Biblical comprehension, Christians are left wide open to fall for whatever is the latest theological flavor of the month coming down the pike (through popular books, “Christian” television, the internet and radio). A Bible professor of mine once said, “If you don’t stand FOR something, you’ll FALL for ANYTHING!” How else can one explain the huge acceptance (well over one million copies sold to date) of an unbiblical caustic LS book like “Crazy Love,” by Francis Chan. Over two-thirds of the reviewers on the leading book sites have given the book glowing comments and multi-star ratings. Thank God that a minority of reviewers did GET IT, that is, they did understand that the book taught false doctrine and they expressed that fact in their reviews.

    Here’s a hypothetical scenario for the readers to consider:

    Suppose, for example, that one thousand random regular church attenders were chosen from various large Christian churches in America and instructed to articulate a Biblical position on the following topics listed below. How many of the one thousand churchgoers could give solid Biblical answers to the following questions? Fifty? One hundred? Two hundred? Five hundred? More? Less?

    1. Describe the plan of salvation, as described in the New Testament, and give verses to support your answer.
    2. Describe the Trinity.
    3. Detail the term “God-man.”
    4. Define the term “repentance.”
    5. Where do unbelievers go when they die?
    6. Discuss the nature of God.
    7. Describe the fall of Adam and how it affects mankind.
    8. Describe the history of Israel. What is the difference between Israel and Judah historically.
    9. What is the millennium?
    10. What is the rapture? How does it differ from the Second Coming?

    I could list more issues, but I think that you get the point.

    Blessings,

    Bruce

  8. Jim F,

    Thanks… The Lord should get the credit for what success we may see on this web site. He brought each of our guests here who have contributed.

    I am so very pleased that Bruce was willing to assist as a Co-Administrator. He has been a blessing to me and all.

    You said, “It is uncomfortable for people to put full trust in anyone especially when their eternal destiny is on the line.

    That could be a big issue with many who want to work their way into Heaven. They say, “God does His part but I must do mine.” I hear that often.

    Just today I was talking to a relative who mentioned that her Morther-in-Law, an SBC member, said how much she likes and appreciates 700 Club TV show . My relative was shocked, but I was not too surprised with the ecumenical, semi-charismatic nature of so many SBC churches these days,.

    Bruce,

    Your great questions encompass a pretty complete Bible College education.. 8-) However, any regular attender, having a year or so in a good, uncompromising Grace preaching church/pastor should be able to answer those questions rather easily.

    Also, Bruce, we appreciate your prayers.. Shirley is doing very well. My health and vision are declining noticeably every week or so, but I am encouraged by friend’s prayers and seeing the interest and discernment of our commenters here. We are so blessed!
    Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. Philippians. 4:11

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  9. Bruce, great comments. The questionnaire reads like a good syllabus from a solid Bible teacher!

    In addition to what you pointed out, the natural inclination of man is to think that he has to work for salvation. LS proponents, such as Chan, feed that natural inclination. If someone who never trusted in Christ alone goes to an LS church, he is likely to become more lost with each passing sermon.

  10. I think the genesis of this problem is the age-old question –why should a Christian, once saved, work to improve their maturity in the Lord? They are, in essence, upset that so many claim to be Christians, and yet don’t produce “fruit.” The holiness movement started from the same place, and answered the question with a “second filling of the Spirit.” The LS folks answer the question with, “they really aren’t Christians.”

    But I think the problem continues with an undue focus on the glory of God –”if God’s primary aim is his own glory, then the church should be adding to his glory, which means the church should be pure, not filled with people who don’t really keep the laws, etc.” They’re concerned with helping God along in his program to gather all the glory he possibly can. But does God need help? How did “helping God” turn out for Abraham in his quest for an heir?

    And, finally, I think there’s some measure of pride involved, as well. “We’re the real Christians, they’re not,” sort of thing. Looking back at fruit is a self-satisfying project; looking ahead to what you can do and aren’t is a humbling one.

    Finally, on the survey… Fundamentalism’s anti-intellectual bias has embedded itself deeply in the conservative church at large –and this starts in the seminaries. We’ve become so focused on application that we’ve forgotten you have to have something to apply before you can apply it.

  11. Russ, interesting comments.

    You said: “I think the genesis of this problem is the age-old question –why should a Christian, once saved, work to improve their maturity in the Lord?”

    I think part of this question has to do with ignorance regarding salvation and rewards. I have encountered very few believers who are even aware that there is a separate judgment for believers, that there will be rewards and loss of rewards.

    Check this out from Clear Gospel Campaign:

    The Fall

    (a) Physical and Spiritual Death We believe that, although man was originally created in the image and after the likeness of God, Adam knowingly transgressed God’s command (Genesis 3:6-7). We believe that as a result of Adam’s sin, a fallen nature has been transmitted not only to the entire human race (Romans 5:12-14), but to the whole of nature as well (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 8:18-23), Jesus Christ being the only descendent of Adam to be preserved of the stain of Adam’s sin. As a consequence of man’s fallen nature, man is inherently disposed to sin (Romans 7:17-20), and every motive of man’s heart and every work of man’s hands is therefore, in some degree, tainted by sin (Isaiah 64:6; Haggai 2:12-14; Genesis 2:17; 6:5; Romans 3:10-19). We believe that, as man’s fallen nature manifests itself in actual sin, man is become offensive to the holy nature of God and separated from God as a result (Isaiah 59:2, 64:6; Romans 3:23), spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and without any spark of divine life (Genesis 2:17; Ephesians 2:5), and subject to futility, sickness and death (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12-14; 8:18-23), and eternal damnation (Revelation 20:11-15).

    (b) Dominion We believe that man was created to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28-30; 2:19-20), but that, as a result of the fall, man lost his dominion over the earth (Genesis 3:17-19). We believe that this aspect of the fall holds great significance in the defense of the gospel according to the following reason(s).

    Because these consequences both stem from Adam’s fall, we note that the terms “save” and “salvation” are used within Scripture to refer to man’s deliverance from these consequences. However, we believe there are very distinct grounds for man’s deliverance or salvation from these consequences.

    Scripture teaches that salvation or deliverance from Physical and Spiritual Death is accomplished by justification, regeneration, and ultimately, the resurrection. We believe these aspects of salvation are through faith alone in Christ alone (passim).

    On the other hand, Scripture teaches that man’s “salvation” from his loss of dominion over the world is realized in the world to come when man is given dominion over the world to come. Man’s future dominion is represented by the “crowns” or rewards that he earns at the judgment seat. Within Scripture, this future dominion is also referred to by terms such as “inheritance,” “heir,” (Psalm 2; Hebrews 1:1,4, 6:12); “ruling” or “reigning” with Christ, or equivalent terms–Hebrews 1:13, 2:5-9. We note that the term “salvation” is sometimes also used with reference to this aspect of man’s deliverance. Mark 16:16, Hebrews 1:16, 2:3, 2:10. We believe, however, that this aspect of man’s salvation is not assured simply through the work of Christ, and man’s faith in Christ, but is contingent upon not being ashamed of Christ (Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 8:38, Hebrews 10:38 1 Peter 4:16-19, Romans 1:16), but maintaining the true and public confession of that faith (Hebrews 3:6, 3:12-14, 10:23-25), and a life of holiness (Hebrews 1:9, 4:11).

    We believe that by blurring the distinct nature of these two aspects of salvation, teachers and preachers who are unskilled in the Word of God do grave damage to the gospel message, making man’s justification and the bestowal of eternal life contingent upon works of holiness and ongoing faithfulness, thereby impugning the freeness of the gift of eternal life offered to whosoever believes on Jesus Christ.

  12. Russ, what do you mean by the “anti-intellectual bias”

  13. Have you heard about Eric Ludy and his site, he also have a video entitled “The Gospel” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPIOkdNL-QQ

    At first seeing the video i’m not sure if he simply put on the wrong title, but when i came accross his website, this is what i found:
    From Eric Ludy’s site: http://ericludy.com/Home.html

    “THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM- Ludy believes the Gospel is more than just Divine forgiveness. He holds strongly to the idea that it is life transformation. It puts Jesus where He must be for the human life to work – at the helm.”

    I believe he knows what he is doing here, in fact, he can confidently define what he believes and claims that is is from the Bible. But then there’s more:

    “When Eric Ludy is asked about his denominational leanings, he very simply says, “Just stick Leonard Ravenhill, C.T. Studd, Hudson Taylor, Rees Howells, and Charles Spurgeon into a blender, and that’s pretty close to what I believe.” Ludy is a “deeper life” advocate, a strong proponent of the supremacy of Christ and of the sufficiency of the Word of God.

    The following is the dedication in the front of his Ellerslie Training Curriculum:
    I have found spiritual gold in many different places throughout my life. Outside of my dear parents and Leslie’s parents, there are twenty-six greats (from the past two centuries) that have most influenced my Christian thinking and living in our modern times. And since their thoughts are found speckled throughout these notes, I wish to honor them here, as a reminder to all the students gleaning wisdom from this training, that the strongest Christian leaders are but a consecrated quotation of the giants of faith that have proceeded him – C.T. Studd, Hudson Taylor, George Muller, Rees Howells, AW Tozer, William Booth, Amy Carmichal, Richard Wurmbrand, Leonard Ravenhill, Paris Reidhead, Corrie Ten Boom, George Whitefield, John Wesley, David Brainerd, Charles Spurgeon, EM Bounds, John Hyde, Jim and Elizabeth Elliot, Keith Green, Jackie Pullinger, DL Moody, Major Ian Thomas, Gladys Aylward, David Wilkerson, and Oswald Chambers. I dearly desire my life to be a quotation of such an audacious band of mighties.”

    While claiming to preach the true Gospel, it is apparent that his soteriology was derived from what he called “brand of mighties”.

    The Gospel according to Eric Ludy:
    http://ericludy.com/What_is_the_Gospel.html

    After reading his definition of the Gospel, i begin to realize that he doesn’t really know what the true Gospel really is, and typical of many LS preachers, confuses justification with sanctification, whether he knows the true Gospel or not , i believe he is still accursed, Let us remember that Paul is talking to those who adds some works to faith alone for salvation, they know the Gospel, but they think it’s not enough, obedience to the Law is also required, and up to now, this is still the case, only more subtle, they even say that it’s the work of God, namely the change in someone’s life, often they mean change of heart or behavior.

  14. JR,

    Nope, never heard of Ludy — and by your quotes he apparently offers absolutely nothing to the clear Grace Gospel conversation — except AVOID him at all costs..

    He appears to be nothing more than a person with no Biblical guide — only scores of writers and preachers of dubious reputation from which he gleans anything to appeal to his audience of the moment. Steer clear of such false preachers.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  15. Bruce:

    I really like the questions you posed! On the weekends I go out soulwinning using the “Survey” from Duluth Bible Church’s site. As a result of reading your questions, I’ve reviewed the surveys I’ve done over the last six months. Out of the 316 surveys done, 262 participants were professing christians. Only THREE of these 262 professing believers responded biblically to the question, “If you believe you might go to heaven, why would God let you in?” Ironically, over 200 of the 262 agreed that heaven is a gift not an earned reward. As Ron Shea would say, “Houston we have a problem”.

    As an aside, Bruce, I finally found time to write a review on Cahill’s book at Amazon. Just wrote it this morning, so not sure if it’s been posted yet. Thanks for encouraging me to do so.

  16. I’ve not heard of Ludy either, but am well familiar with most of those listed who influenced him (some I would distance myself from, others not). I have commented extensively here of my concerns regarding the deeper life movement, so I’ll not rehash it. However, I will repeat that of the movement, there are Arminians, Calvinists and in-betweens (calling themselves “biblicists”).

    Having read the writings of George Mueller, Amy Carmichael, Frances Havergal, Maj. Ian Thomas, and others, I have a very hard time accepting what I consider to be an extremely careless and broad labeling that they are all false preachers, dubious even!

    Of these teachers, Maj. Thomas’ ministry has had the deepest impact on me and my understanding of the Christian life. I’ve read both his books “The Saving Life of Christ” and “If I Perish, I Perish” more than once, together with having heard many of his sermons. To this day, I do not consider him to be a false teacher at all. I quote him extensively at my own blog, as well as post many of his sermons for anyone to listen to and challenge. No where does he attach to the gospel commitment of any sort, nor does he teach that a believer can lose his/her salvation based on one’s carnality. He does teach (and if anyone sees anything unscriptural about it, I’d appreciate they show me where he’s wrong) is that the Christian life is Christ’s Life in you (Galatians 2:20).

    Let’s not confuse salvation with sanctification. As Christians, we are exhorted to grow in maturity in Christ.

  17. Pearl,

    Yes, my broad inclusion of all those teachers as false — was irresponsible.

    Obviously some have good reputations and doctrine — but Ludy’s inclusion of everybody into one big mish-mash bothered me.. My point was “Stay away from Ludy — who apparently has little discernment.”

    Sorry ’bout that.. 8-)

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  18. Dear Pearl:

    I’m not familiar with any of the writings of the authors you mentioned, although I think I’ve heard the name Amy Carmichael. I don’t know anything about the “deeper life movement”. Would you mind expounding? Also, in your opinion, would be similar to the “Keswick holiness movement” (of which I also am really not that familiar with, but have seen a few postings on over at Lou’s blog)?

    Thanks, Jimmy

  19. Thanks, Jack. I know you meant well, and would agree with your ultimate conclusion.

    Hi, Jimmy. Absolutely, the common denominator of these teachers is Keswick (I cringe when the phrase “holiness movement” is attached, as all kinds of weird suppositions accompany it).

    Before my learning of Lordship Salvation in January 2011, I was already beginning to have reservations about many of the teachers coming out of Keswick (beginning with my disenchantment of Tozer in his sermon “The Deeper Life: What Is It?” wherein he called Brother Lawrence and either Merton or Nouwen [I get the two mixed up], together with other catholic mystics, “great men of God” called to cleanse the Roman Catholic Church from the inside out).

    Oswald Chambers is another one I’d steer clear of. Really, it would be great to have access to the private libraries of all these “great men of God”, as no doubt we’d find the aforementioned mystics, Thomas a Kempis and others.

    On the whole, I have mixed feelings about Keswick. The premise being sound enough – sanctification by faith, which is totally scriptural, but doesn’t need to borrow one iota from Catholic mystics to substantiate it, which has been my troubling observation. That being said, however, we know the tares will grow alongside the wheat, and all things must be tested. In other words, I’m not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    My preference for Maj. Thomas has to do greatly with his strict and heavy reliance on scripture alone to teach sanctification in the Christian’s life. He is quoted often, but he himself did not need to quote men to make his case. The Holy Spirit teaching one the scriptures is sufficient, and all any of us need.

  20. Thanks Pearl. Like you, I grow tired of people “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. I personally am convinced that our Adversary has a hay day with such simple mindedness. For example, I recently recommended a great book on salvation to a friend (a book he desparately needed to read IMO). He, my friend, was unwilling to read the book because he disagreed (and incidentally I do to) with the author on a secondary to salvation matter. Childishness.

    I’ll take a look at some writings by Thomas. Any recommendations on where to begin?

  21. Dear Peral,
    Is the one in this video the Ian Thomas you referred to?

    Google: “Youtube salvation ian thomas”

  22. That’s tricky, Jimmy. While I heartily recommend him, I would strongly caution against feeding on the stimulating, intellectual writings of deeper life teachers in general.

    After hearing Thomas preach, a man walked up and asked him if he could recommend some books on the Christ-filled life, to which Thomas cheekily responded:

    “Well, there are sixty-six; they’re all bound together, and they’re the best library you can have. Don’t go to your Christian bookstores; all you’ll get there is some sort of neo-evangelical humanism, do-it-yourself stuff: flex your muscles, grit your teeth, stick your chin out.

    “Just go to the Bible and discover Jesus, because, said He ‘These are they which testify of Me. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life.’

    “The Bible is the best commentary on the Bible, and, as I mention to most folks, it’s the cheapest, because you bought the commentary when you bought the Bible! And, furthermore, the Bible throws an immense amount of light on most commentaries!”

    That being said, I’d start with “The Saving Life of Christ”. I also welcome your insights/critiques/questions at my own blog where you’ll also find much more by him.

  23. Correction:

    Dear Pearl,
    Sorry for mistyping your name.

  24. Yes, Eddy, that’s him. I know the video well: nauseatingly dramatic music, spliced sound bites and all. I do not recommend the ministry which produced it, which has a mishmash blending of classic lordship teachers like Paris Reidhead, as well as mystics like Tozer. You know where I stand, no need to repeat myself.

    If you’re really interested, hear the entire sermon in context from which that video was produced. It’s entitled “Knowing Jesus” which I have at my blog, as well as the more familiar sermon sources online.

  25. Thanks Pearl.

  26. Dear Pearl,

    Thanks for the pointer. I know perfectly well where you stand.

  27. Eddy:

    As an aside, while I think Lordship Salvation is the predominant false gospel being circulated/preached today (mostly done via redefining saving repentance), I fail to see how it (LS) will play a role in the coming one-world religion. Think of all the New Agers, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.. There is no acknowledgement of sin in these religions…at least not that I’m aware of. Therefore, why and how do you think LS will appeal to them?

  28. Dear Jimmy,
    A very good question. Yesterday, I talked to my Buddhist sister. She certainly uses the word sin. She told me she sins every day, and that is the reason she tries to do good everyday so that her sins may be forgiven by a certain Buddhist deity. I did not even recognize the name of that deity she mentioned. I have to admit that my understanding of Buddhism is very little. My sister claimed that she understands Christianity eighty times more than I understand Buddhism. I am not surprised at all that is indeed the case. Here is the excerpt from Wikipedia on the article Buddhist views on sin:

    “Buddhists speak of ‘sin’ when referring to transgressions against the universal moral code.”

    I think you are correct in stating that the original form of Buddhism has no knowledge of sin. However, I have a feeling that Buddhism is in a process of changing itself from the traditional Buddhism to a new form of Buddhism. The oldest form of Buddhism believes in annihilation, yet newer forms of Buddhism believe that if one accumulates enough good works, one will end up in heaven. According to my Mom, the modern day Buddhism is becoming more and more similar to evangelical Christianity. They sing hymns, evangelize, even use similar terminology as used by evangelical Christians.
    I know even less about Hinduism than Buddhism. I dislike Buddhism or any kind of idol worship very much since I was a little kid. However, I tried to learn a bit of Buddhism recently for the reason that my sister is a Buddhist.

    Disregard whether other religions use sin in their terminologies or not, they still adhere to the notion that good works are necessary for “salvation”. T.A. McMahon wrote an excellent article on the subject.

    Google: “McMahon The Works-Salvation Delusion”

  29. Pearl,

    One of the things that I found written by Maj. Ian Thomas was this:

    “The life that the Lord Jesus Christ lived for you nineteen hundred years ago ­ condemns you; but the life that He now lives in you ­ saves you! The Christian life is the Life which He lived then, lived now, by Him in you. As He behaved in the sinless Humanity which the Father had prepared for Him then, so He wants to behave in your humanity presented to Him now.

    Your mind placed at His disposal through the indwelling Holy Spirit; your emotions, your will, all that you are and have, made available to the Lord Jesus Christ as a living member of His new corporate body on earth, which is called the church.

    This is the new law in action, the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, re-establishing the “faith-love” relationship between your soul and God, making it possible for you to “declare” the Son, as once the Son “declared” the Father. Your “behavior mechanism” once more wholly “Deo-centric” instead of “Ego-centric.” ” so that the commandment of the law may find fulfillment” in you, whose conduct, no longer under the control of your lower nature, “is directed by the Spirit.” A radical change of government!”

    This is weird and I believe that there is a better way to explain the Christian life.

  30. Granted, Jim, that upon first consideration of this isolated description, it may very well come across as being “out there” to plenty of folks, but his theology (much better presented in “The Saving Life of Christ”) is not.

    Weirdness aside, can you be more specific as to what you find unscriptural about it?

  31. Jimmy,

    Kudos to you for faithfully sharing the gospel with others! It is indeed troubling to see the poor understanding (3 of 262) on the part of the quiz participants on the issue of salvation. Hopefully, this web site is helping to put forth a Biblical presentation of the gospel.

    Regarding your book review of Mark Cahill’s book on Amazon, you gave a very solid review for which I gave you a “helpful” rating! Maybe some other folks would like to check out your review too. Go to Amazon; then search under books for Mark Cahill. Jimmy’s review is under the one-star reviews.

    http://www.amazon.com/One-Thing-You-Cant-Heaven/product-reviews/0964366584/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar

  32. Pearl,

    Sure, I’ll have more time to address my concerns with it after work today.

  33. Jimmy, great review of Cahill’s book. I left a comment.

  34. John:

    I hope readers of that review will read your comment. I especially like your sentences, “Eternal life is not conditioned upon any work of man, including turning from sins, PROMISING TO TURN FROM SINS, or COMMITTING to ANY OTHER CHANGE OF BEHAVIOR TOWARD GOD OR MAN, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER SALVATION. Eternal life is God’s free gift obtained by Grace through faith in Christ.” The promising to turn from sins aspect I did not cover, and yet as Ron Shea rightly points out it is the most pervasive form of LS being communicated today as it APPEARS to side-step works, but actually does not. Also, the committing to change before or after salvation point you made is critical as well. I’m going to see if I can edit my review adding those salient points. Thanks for this vital contribution.

    Bruce:

    Thanks to you as well! I’m hoping your and other comments might save some readers of that book spiritual devastation. As an aside, I hope you understand I was not sharing the survey numbers to pat myself on the back for engaging in soulwinning. All here do this. I thought they might be of some help in answering your question regarding the likely percentage of professing believers who may or may not be saved.

  35. Good grief…I’m having trouble this morning making myself clear. By “all here do this”…I mean all of us at this blog engage in soulwinning. No ribbons (except at the Bema Seat) for doing what we should.

  36. Hi Jimmy,

    I understood completely about the sharing of survey numbers. Good comments on soulwinning—keep it up.

  37. Jimmy,

    Thanks for your sad survey statistics.

    When I was able to get out and share Christ I never made a chart (wish I had) — but I would guess my stats would be about the same as yours.

    The question, “If you were to die right now would you go to Heaven?” was usually answered with “I hope so.” Just had that answer from a fellow octogenarian in our Cardiologist’s office.. Pitiful because his wife is “an Episcopal priest.”

    Very rarely do/did I hear an answer with “Absolutely!!” accompanied by valid scripture to back it up.

    Good work, Jimmy!!

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  38. Jack:

    I don’t keep a chart either. I write down, on the Survey sheet (“spiritual interview sheet” better put) itself, the answers the person gives. After leaving the person’s home, I write down on their survey other notes (e.g. person’s address, occupation, family members names, interestes, what happened at the conclusion of the survey–[Did they receive Christ? Which Gospel booklet was used and left with them? Did they show interest in discipleship study?, etc…) That survey sheet then goes into a filing system that is catalogued by month, year, town, and type of follow-up needed. Therefore, no memory needed…..just have to refer back to what’s in the file. Thank goodness, my memory is terrible.

  39. Dear Jimmy,
    Your survey result shows the vast majority of professing Christians believe in what most churches are preaching nowadays, i.e. Eternal life is a free gift and one has to repent of sins, or be a good boy, or giving a promise to be a good boy, or salvation is a process, or the Christian walk means one walks to heaven, or the Christian walk is much more important than the moment when one decided to put one’s trust in Christ, or redefining believe as having a personal relationship with God, or faith and works are inseparable, or etcetera etcetera etcetera. Even the Catholics acknowledge salvation is a free gift. I would recommend any believers here interested in knowing where the whole Christendom is going read the following article. I was almost speechless after reading the article. Even the Catholic Church, is transforming herself to be more compatible to Evangelical Christianity.

    WARNING: I recommend the following article only for the purpose of discernment.
    Search the URL at zenit.org/article-14845?l=english
    [Edited by request of Eddy JW}

    Not long ago I mentioned to my friend that my grandfather highlighted Ephesians 2:8-9 in his Bible and my friend’s immediate response was that almost every preacher preaches those two verses. What my friend was trying to say is that not only free grace preachers, but also L.S. preachers preach free grace as well. The main issue is not that they reject free grace, but they add works to grace.

  40. Dear Jack and Bruce,
    If there is a way, please remove the automatic highlighting from the http links in my last post while keeping the url intact.

  41. Dear Jack,
    Thanks for your help.

  42. Eddy, almost every “believer” I meet says that he thinks salvation is a free gift. Yet in further conversations with those same folks, they express beliefs that are totally contradictory with free Grace.

    Just as troubling, to me, are folks who believe in salvation by Grace through faith in Christ alone, but think that if someone else compromises the gospel with works they are a fellow believer. For example, I have met with a lay minister, who is very clear on free Grace, but who recommended one of the local SBC churches to me. That church has the “turn from sin” for salvation view. Please see excerpt, below:

    “All who receive, by faith, Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, are born again of the Holy Spirit and will spend eternity with God. To receive Him, one must recognize that they are a sinner, turn from their sin and place their trust in Jesus who died for them.”

  43. Eddy:

    As you know, if false gospel preachers didn’t include truth somewhere in their message, most with even a modicum of discernment would not listen. This mixture of truth and error is sadly very effective. The lady who gifted me with Cahill’s book, for instance, read many of his statements in the earlier portion of his book such as “Salvation is a gift and therefore cannot be earned in any way by our works” so that when his redefining of saving repentance was presented later on, she simply interpreted it in light of: a) what he had earlier stated, b) her own existing theological gridwork. This epidemic of mixing truth and error (wherein the truth preached blatantly contradicts the error preached) by preachers and other so-called leaders makes me wonder if Jack isn’t on to something. We may be witnessing, for the most part, purposeful deceit in action by these folks.

  44. Jimmy, I think it is purposeful deceit only to the extent that these people are also deceived. In other words, I think they are preaching and teaching what they really believe. It is called the blind leading the blind.

  45. Dear Jimmy and John,

    Excellent comments provided by both of you. I could not agree more on everything you have said.

    Thanks

  46. Dear Pearl and Jim F,

    I found the following quote from Ian Thomas troubling.

    “Salvation involves the reoccupation by God of a guilty sinner in such a way that Jesus Christ has the unchallenged, absolute, perpetual right to dictate the terms whereby that individual henceforth will run his life…anything less than that shortchanges Jesus Christ and cheats Him of that for which His blood was shed.” -Ian Thomas

  47. Eddy, if Thomas is saying that a person must yield himself to Christ in such a way to become saved, I would be troubled by it as well. It would constitute salvation by works – in this case, the promise of works. The common name for this is Lordship “salvation”.

    The gospel is simple and straightforward. Ian Thomas’ above statement is not. Most people make it way too hard!

  48. Eddy, another thing regarding Thomas – I am not just troubled by it, I am outraged!

    How could Jesus be “shortchanged” in granting Grace (unmerited favor) to a lost sinner? This is complete nonsense. The only way that He could be shortchanged is if He were willing to sell salvation – which He is not. Neither can one “pay Him back” for salvation.

    The Lordship “salvation” crowd totally misses the point. They see salvation as a trade, not a gift.

  49. There is no end to books, writings and sermons on Christianity. Most are not Biblical and, therefore, not true. Following is a quote that is both Biblical and true:

    Ecclesiastes 12:11-12 (NKJV):

    “The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well–driven nails, given by one Shepherd. And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.”

  50. Dear John,
    Your anger is well justified. I felt angry too when I listened to the following sermon.

    Google: “Major Ian Thomas – Knowing Jesus”

  51. I’m just getting frustrated at how the likes of Ian Thomas, Eric Ludy, etc., actually pervert the Gospel, i meant what i said, in fact Paul calls them accursed. There’s so much heresy in the world nowadays and the Internet is not spared, that whenever i hear someone, famous or not, calling himself a Christian, i end up searching them on Google to know what they exactly teach, and if they teach some form of works salvation/Lordship salvation, i won’t even bother to read any of their works, even if it’s not about the Gospel, because somehow i also suspect that their other writings may have been tainted by their theology, even if they are biblical on some areas of doctrine. No one is 100% consistent on doctrine of course but when it comes to the Gospel, doctrinal error on this area is not permitted because it’s a matter of heaven and hell.

  52. John:

    You stated, “I think it is purposeful deceit only to the extent that these people are also deceived. In other words, I think they are preaching and teaching what they really believe. It is called the blind leading the blind.”

    It depends on who and what you are talking about. For example, Martin Luther (in his Catechism) informed his readers he was laying out the Ten Commandments, when in fact he OMMITTED the second commandment completely (because he agreed with Roman Catholicism’s bowing to images made of Mary and various other “saints”), then divided the Tenth Commandment in half making part of it the Ninth Commandment, and the rest of it the Tenth Commandment. This way he could end up with ten commandments after having ommitted the Second Commandment! This is PURPOSEFUL deceit. Having said this, there’s no doubt Luther had been deceived by Roman Catholicism, but his aforementioned wresting of God’s Word….along with his hiding his allegience and loyalty to R.C. is purposeful deceit.

    On the converse, Luther did not really believe man is justified by faith alone, even though he wrote such IN PLACES. In fact, in his own Small and Large Catechism he in one place informs “man is justified by faith alone”, then IN THE SAME BOOK (s) informs those he’s indoctrinating that man is justifed by water baptism! Very clever…and not done innocently IMO.

    Many other examples such as this by Luther and others could be given.

  53. Jimmy, I understand and don’t dispute that some of the deceit is purposeful, and some is not. In many cases, it would be hard to tell.

    This is good insight into Martin Luther – another of the band of “mighties”!

  54. I have not read anything yet by Thomas, except what has been shared here in this thread. While these quotes by him are confusing to me (because he uses the word “salvation” yet is clearly talking about santification), I’m not quite ready to conclude that he is preaching false doctrine. Let’s hold on to our outrage until it can be demonstrably proven the man taught a false gospel…that is if he did at all.

  55. Jimmy, that is why I used the term “if” in my original post on this matter:

    “…if Thomas is saying that a person must yield himself to Christ in such a way to become saved, I would be troubled by it as well. ”

    But, if he is talking about sanctification, I still think the language is goofy and even troublesome. Unless one thinks he can “pay Him back” for salvation, then “shortchanging” Him would not be possible.

  56. John:

    Your first commentary on Thomas’ quote was tempered (i.e. “if”) and rightly so IMO since we can’t by that quote know if he was speaking about anything other than santification. My concern is your follow-up comment on the SAME THOMAS QUOTE: “Eddy, another thing regarding Thomas – I am not just troubled by it, I am outraged!” It appears your “if” quickly turned into something else.

  57. Jimmy, my second comment was less tempered than my first. But let’s continue to examine Thomas’ statement, assuming that he was talking about sanctification.

    Jesus’s blood was shed to take away the sins of the world. If Thomas thinks that our behavior, or lack of submission to Christ’s Lordship, somehow “cheats Him of that for which His blood was shed”, what exactly does that mean? Every one of our transgressions, past, present and future, has been fully paid for by Jesus! We have to be perfect to enter Heaven and we can be by imputation only.

  58. Jimmy, said another way, how could one “cheat Him” unless they made a deal? This would imply that one made a bargain for salvation and then reneged on his end of the deal. Salvation, being a free Gift, is not subject to one fulfilling any terms. That is why the statement is troublesome, or confusing.

    Perhaps a better way to say it would be that one should be grateful for a gift so precious as salvation, and would want to express that in his walk.

  59. Where to begin…

    Imagine the audacity of anyone suggesting that Jesus Christ is being shortchanged, robbed of His rightful, blood bought purchase! Outrage indeed! One might be led to believe that Thomas had actually read the entire New Testament (written to redeemed, blood bought, adopted sons of God) and believed it!

    Had the Major sugar-coated his militant exhortations with “pretty please”, might you all be somewhat appeased?

    I have long been troubled by the small band (mob) of commenters here, which come across to me as eager to disqualify and label as a Lordship Salvationists anyone who would dare to assert that a believer’s life (a believer mind you) ought to reflect his calling, the very purpose which was long predicted aforetime, though not understood, through the prophets of old….”Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” (Col. 1:26-29)

    The sermon “Knowing Jesus” need not inflame you to anger. Was it that Thomas actually dared to question the salvation of many in the church today based on their actions (fruit)? What makes his accusation so different from what I encounter here nearly every, single day wherein each one of you has made the very same accusation based on those who would attach to the salvation message “turning from sin for salvation”? You have rightly come to the conclusion that most professing Christians are indeed deceived because they have a false understanding of the word “repentance”. And so what can we expect to find in the countless churches which dot Christendom? Quite simply, I expect we’ll find “every man doing what is right in his own eyes”, which is exactly why there is so much confusion and discord among so-called believers (whether they are or not, I have never had the boldness to adequately judge). If each Christian were living each moment of every day by the faith of the Son of God (Gal. 2:20), the Body of Christ, the Church, would be a mighty one, continuing to turn the world upside down, rather than becoming the epilectic fit it is today.

    Each of you has already made up his mind on Thomas and I’ll not attempt to undo your conclusions. But I for one will not allow myself to get confused by the use of similar terminology (i.e. Lordship of Christ) which in and of itself is not an evil term, but must be weighed accordingly: is it attached to the salvation message (which would make it false) or discipleship (which would not)?

    Major Thomas understands the gospel much more than I have seen come from most of you. The thrust of his entire ministry is to exhort the believer to realize his rightful inheritance, which is Christ in You! Most of us live like paupers, resisting (and resenting) the Holy Sprit’s rightful place to live His Life through us. All believers, and especially those of us who imagine ourselves to be His faithful disciples, will be held accountable; God is not mocked. I see no contradiction whatsoever in the epistles, written to and for all believers.

  60. Pearl, I have never seen any of the regular commenters on here suggest that a believer’s life should not reflect his calling,

  61. Pearl:

    You stated, “Each of you has already made up his mind on Thomas and I’ll not attempt to undo your conclusions.”

    Actually, I’ve not made up my mind on Thomas. I need to spend time with his writings before making a judgement.

  62. Pearl, except for the excerpt, I have not spent any time with Thomas either. Therefore, I have not made up my mind on anything except that statement. It is confusing. One cannot cheat someone who has given him a gift.

    That said, I would like to address this part of your comment. You said:

    ” I have long been troubled by the small band (mob) of commenters here, which come across to me as eager to disqualify and label as a Lordship Salvationists anyone who would dare to assert that a believer’s life (a believer mind you) ought to reflect his calling…”

    As this is a pretty small community of regular commenters, I suppose that would encompass most of us. I have to admit to being highly sensitive to Lordship salvation. As we have observed, it is as pervasive as it is destructive.

    That said, let me be clear. I would not “label as a Lordship Salvationists anyone who would dare to assert that a believer’s life (a believer mind you) ought to reflect his calling…”. That is an unfair depiction of the comments I have read, or written, on this site.

    I would label as a Lordship “salvationist” anyone who teaches that works, the promise of works, or the evidence of works are required for salvation or proof of salvation. If this is troubing to you, I am sorry. But, that would not make me change my opinion on what constitutes Lordship “salvation” nor that it is a false gospel of works.

    This whole thread is about Lordship salvation. We have gotten off on a tangent exploring the life and times of Ian Thomas.

  63. Jimmy, I will officially recant my outrage and replace it with confusion.

  64. Dear friends,

    All of us here in our small sample of discerning believers agree about the vile problem with Lordship “salvation” and our mutual desire to expose and eliminate it in our own small way. We are here to discuss and expose those who obviously proclaim the false messages (LS and others). We may have differing opinions of which individual is clearly preaching a false message — because we base our opinion on what we see in their words.

    Frankly, I see Pearl’s point about Thomas. In that passage I believe he is speaking of personal sanctification after salvation, not a condition of salvation, though it is not offered with the clarity I would prefer. Maybe that is because of my lack of sophistication and language skills.

    Likewise I agree with John — that passage of Thomas’ does seem confusing at times and could be taken by some to imply that submitting to the “Lordship of Christ” is a part of one’s decision to trust Jesus Christ as Savior. However, having read a few others of Thomas’ works on Pearl’s blog, I would not come to that conclusion. (No, I don’t recall which).

    Therefore, among our friends here especially, and because we are such a minuscule group in the overall huge sample of Christianity,
    Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. Colossians 4:6

    Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. Ephesians 4:31-32

    I love all of you, my friends, in Christ and pray for you daily.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  65. John:

    Well spoken.

    Pearl:

    I hope you don’t, as a result of this discussion, distance yourself from commenting here. We all bring something different to the discussions, and I think I can speak for all of us when I tell you how much I’ve appreciated (and do appreciate) your insight on a myriad of topics.

  66. Dear Pearl,

    Here I offer my formal apology to you, and I recant my anger toward some of the statements Ian Thomas made in his sermon. Just to clarify, I have not labeled him as Lordship Salvationist. I am sure all of us appreciate your contributions to his blog, and sincerely hope you will be with us from here onwards. I am only a faulty man learning to walk a step at at time. Please forgive me if I caused you to stumble.

    In Christ,
    Eddy

  67. Jack, bless you. Thank you for your fairness and further effort to learn more of one’s teaching before taking part in consigning one to the heap of false teachers. The verse you chose is most appropriate and one I will take to heart.

    Jimmy, I also thank you for your fairness. I had already typed my response when I read your voice of reason, which I should’ve addressed, but I was impatient and, frankly, ticked. I’m sorry.

    Eddy, I am very touched by your apology. Thank you. I understand your motivation, and certainly can’t fault you for your fervent desire to keep the gospel untarnished.

    John, yes this is a lordship thread, as are they all. And rather than describe this deviation as going off into the “life and times of Major Thomas”, I’d call it a witch hunt.

    That said, let me be clear. I would not “label as a Lordship Salvationists anyone who would dare to assert that a believer’s life (a believer mind you) ought to reflect his calling…”. That is an unfair depiction of the comments I have read, or written, on this site.

    In my burst of anger, I judged you all unfairly. Please forgive me. I have often attempted to express a wispy, ethereal concern of mine which makes itself visible to me through comments every now and then. Knowing that a lot of people come in late to a conversation, or may have stumbled upon the blog quite by chance, not knowing a thing about LS, I have often worried that your vehemant stress upon a believer not having to do a single thing for Jesus Christ to earn his favor before (yes, absolutely true), or after salvation (also true, as my acts of righteousness are to Him as filthy rags) to be missing something. While you have often clarified yourself to my satisfaction, I don’t believe the already pervasively carnal church needs further massaging that Jesus Christ will always be madly, deeply in love with them no matter what they do. He’s not our buddy, cheering us on. Babies are cute and precious, but we expect them to grow up! In saying this, I’m not saying you are advocating such, but often the absence of words can be just as destructive toward enabling a very wrong attitude. I feel there needs to be balanced teaching, a greater understanding of our position in Jesus Christ which rightly counters LS.

  68. Pearl, thanks for your comments.

    The reason that I spend more time discussing Grace than discipleship is that the organized churches are so imbalanced in the other direction. Grace teaching is so rare that I didn’t even encounter it in a church – even though I grew up going to church 3 times a week and my mom played the piano there.

  69. Looks like I missed quite a bit since was here last…

    Pearl, I was just going to share some my concerns about Maj. Ian Thomas. We all should have the ability to judge another man’s words according to scripture. Your question prompted me to take a look at some of the things said by Thomas because I hadn’t heard of him previously and I wanted to see what he was all about. I would likely have to sit down and read his books and listen to a few of his sermons before I could get a better sense of what his overall message was. Please understand that I and others here desire and strive to understand the truth as revealed in God’s Word. Rejecting a statement is not the same as rejecting the man.

    My initial concerns are with the way he describes the Christian life being Christ’s life lived through us. When people say things like this, I have to wonder where they are coming from:

    “Good works” are those works that have their origin in Jesus Christ – - whose activity is released through your body, presented to Him as a living sacrifice by a faith that expresses total dependence, as opposed to the Adamic independence (Romans 12: 1,2).”
    “It is only the life of the Lord Jesus — His activity, clothed with you and displayed through you, that ultimately will find the approval of God.”

    “This is the new law in action, the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, re-establishing the “faith-love” relationship between your soul and God, making it possible for you to “declare” the Son, as once the Son “declared” the Father. Your “behavior mechanism” once more wholly “Deo-centric” instead of “Ego-centric.” ” so that the commandment of the law may find fulfillment” in you, whose conduct, no longer under the control of your lower nature, “is directed by the Spirit.” A radical change of government!”

    Another concern I have is not confined to Maj Ian Thomas but he reminds me of those who teach a one naturism. This can be found in Wesleyans, Arminians, and Covenant theologians. Each have their own twist on it. I don’t find that one naturism squares well with the Romans 7 struggle that Paul described. I’ve seen ways in which John MacArthur and others teach basically a one nature position. If you do a search on the Exchanged Life, you can find some sites that teach a type of the exchanged life but also add on a Lordship style gospel that precedes it. This is not to say that Maj Ian Thomas necessarily taught it that way.

    One guy said this in an open letter to John MacArthur. “I personally teach the “exchanged life” which is very close to your Lordship Salvation… (Yet I see it as deeper than mere “obedience” and is about walking in the “obedience of Christ” as taught in Rom 5:19) there are many of us who teach the “exchanged life”… or have been influenced by it. Yet again, by you and others I am called a heretic, as well as others even by association, without you even knowing me.”

    My hope would be that we can see that salvation is offered to mankind based on the finished work of Christ. He lived a sinless life and died the perfect lamb. His shed blood satisfied God’s demand for payment. Salvation is now offered to those who will repent and put their faith in Christ. That’s it. The blood of Christ then covers the believer. It is based on this fact alone that we are declared not guilty in God’s sight. This most certainly means that it is not Christ’s life living through us to fulfil the law that saves us. This regardless of who said so or not. This is not necessarily only a LS issue but it is an issue relating to justification and the Christian life. The only way a person is written in the Lamb’s book of life is if Christ’s blood is applied to their account whereby God can declare them not guilty.

    The Holy Spirit does indwells the believer and plays a role in sanctification. Also, we must remember that God is a triune God. Sometimes we like to focus on a ministry of one of the Persons that we forget they are One.

    The last thing that I want to mention does tie into Lordship. There are some LS proponents that teach that salvation comes after an exchange of sorts. Our way for God’s way. Our life for His. My control for His control. Leaving my own pursuits and priorities to follow Christ in discipleship etc. etc.

    I’m not going to declare that Maj Ian Thomas was accursed. That is not my main interest. I would just like to see more precision in the area of the positional righteousness of the believer.

  70. Hi there, Jim,

    I appreciate how you expressed yourself this time around: asking perfectly reasonable questions, together with stating shared concerns which I, too, have observed and expressed here months ago in my comments, as well as in private to Jack and one other (who, sadly, hasn’t commented here in quite a while) as I was first learning about Lordship Salvation, January 2011.

    I can say with confidence that Thomas did not teach one-naturism, which was one of the facets of LS we discovered early last year during our conversations here; and a point covered more thoroughly by Miles Stanford at his website. Agree or not, Thomas’ complaint is that far too many Christians have begun their Christian life by faith in Christ’s sufficiency to save them, but continue on in the flesh to “thank Him”, “work” for Him. So, by that alone we can rightly conclude that he does not teach one-naturism.

    You said,

    “Salvation is now offered to those who will repent and put their faith in Christ. That’s it.

    I disagree. I say it’s just the first half of the gospel, which is reconciliation. There is the “much more” which is the neglected part, allowing Christ’s life to be expressed through you.

    To be quite honest, Jim, I feel overwhelmed by my feeling I need to teach you the basic precepts of what has come to be known as Keswick theology, and I have never claimed to be one of its star pupils.

    Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not trying to duck your questions, but trying to describe it is like attempting to describe the taste of water, or color to a blind person (not calling you blind by my using this simile).

    The emphasis of “complete surrender” was one of the things which began to take on a Catholic flavor to me as I read many the authors which teach it. Some were able to communicate it well, others not. Surrendering can be exhausting work, and I have to admit, I can’t do it.

    But, my preference for Thomas is because of how well he communicates it and hearing it from him, I relax and say “wow…I’ve been making it waaay too hard!” It’s not about me! It’s really quite simple and gloriously freeing.

    I don’t know really what to say, but that if you are uncomfortable with Thomas, then just leave it alone. If you want to hear more from the horse’s mouth, begin with “The Saving Life of Christ”.

    I will read through your comment again, chew on its points and add more should a salient thought occur to me. I appreciate your patience.

  71. Ah, yes. William Newell is another one whose writings I consider to be wonderful, though I’ve not read nearly as much. I look forward to reading it through.

  72. Here is an article by Harry Ironside titled “What is the Gospel”

    http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/whatisgospel.html

    One could find other articles written by him on the same site.

    http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/IronsideHA.html

  73. Pearl,

    Commenting on Jim F’s statement, “Salvation is now offered to those who will repent and put their faith in Christ. That’s it.”, you said:

    “I disagree. I say it’s just the first half of the gospel, which is reconciliation. There is the “much more” which is the neglected part, allowing Christ’s life to be expressed through you.”

    I don’t understand what you are saying. Specifically, how are you defining the word “savlation” in Jim F’s aforementioned statement?

    Thanks,
    Jimmy

  74. Here is a quote from William Newell on the Gospel:

    “The failure or refusal to discern the Pauline Gospel as a separate and new revelation and not a “development from Judaism,” accounts for two-thirds of the confusion in many people’s minds today as regards just what the Gospel is. Paul’s Gospel will suffer no admixture with works on the one hand or religious pretensions and performances on the other. It is as simple and clear as the sunlight from heaven. The end of man is where God begins in Romans 3, at what might be called the opening of the Pauline Revelation. Most unsaved people today believe in their hearts that the reason they are not saved is because of something they have not yet done, some step that remains for them to take before God will accept them. But this is absolutely untrue.*** When Christ said, “It is finished,” He meant that He had, then and there, paid the debt for the whole human race. “He gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6).

    Now Paul in his wonderful revelation declares that God has reconciled the world to Himself; that God was in Christ (at the Cross) reconciling the world to Himself;

    (2 Cor 5:19). Men do not know this, but they conceive that something stands between them and God, before God will accept or forgive them. If you tell a man that God is demanding no good works of him whatsoever, no religious observances or church ordinances, that God is not asking him to undertake any duties at all, but that God invites him to believe a glad message that his sins have already been dealt with at the Cross, and that God expects him to believe this good news and be exceedingly happy about it—if you tell an unsaved man such a story as this, he is astonished and overwhelmed—yet this is the Gospel!”

  75. Romans 5:10 “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

    The above verse is not saying that salvation is a continuous process. Salvation was instantaneous upon one’s believing on Jesus Christ’s finished work on the cross, on one’s behalf. Saved and sealed by His indwelling Spirit forever. That’s that. Reconciled, adopted child of God.

    But the “much more” is living by the fact that Jesus Christ gave you Himself to live His resurrected life in you, moment by moment of every day, allowed by the same faith which accepted his death on your behalf.

    Though crude, that’s as simple as I can state it, but I offer here an excerpt from Thomas’ book “The Saving Life of Christ”, first chapter, first page:

    {Quote deleted by Admin at the request of Pearl. See the link to the quote on Pearl’s comment above}

  76. I do not know what “a moral choice is imperative” means. I am very confused by this. This seems like adding a condition to justification by Grace through faith in Christ.

    “This is what makes the gospel at once so urgent! Mental assent is not enough—a moral choice is imperative! Christ is God’s last word to man and God’s last word to you, and He demands an answer.”

  77. I nabbed that excerpt from an on-line source, selling the book. I worry that I might be infringing upon copyright laws by my posting it here. It might be better if I direct you to the page from whence it came:

    http://www.ecampus.com/saving-life-christ-major-w-ian-thomas/bk/9780310332626

    Jack, may I bother you to go back to my last comment and delete the excerpt? I appreciate it.

  78. I don’t see what you see, Jimmy. I always interpreted that to mean that it’s not enough that one accepts Jesus’ death as a historical fact, but that it’s for me, personally. Who do I say that Jesus Christ is? He is my personal Redeemer and my God.

  79. Oops..sorry John. I thought you were “Jimmy”.

  80. Pearl, I agree with your answer that one must accept that Jesus died for his sins and was raised from the dead. Not just as a historical fact, but appropriated for oneself. I explained it to one of my friends at work as “I’m a whosoever”!

    Thanks. John

  81. I must disagree with the concept that putting faith in Christ is only the first half of the Gospel.
    Believing/trusting Jesus Christ — the Gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, God in the flesh, IS the complete Gospel. [1 Corinthians 15:1-4].
    And we clearly see that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to anyone that believes:
    Romans 1:16

    For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    The wonders of Christ in you, reconciliation and many more marvelous blessings are RESULTS of our salvation, freely given and later discovered (by study) benefits which happen the very moment we believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the second half of the Gospel which we must perform or anticipate. (Hopefully we are not talking about a “second blessing” here. Are we??? Naaaa.)
    See our page:
    http://www.expreacherman.com/36-amazing-things/

    By believing the Gospel, trusting in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation, I am making no deals, promises or contracts — but simply understanding that regardless of my failed or miserable life, now or in the future, I am eternally secure in Jesus. “It is finished!” That is freeing. Then we SHOULD do as Ephesians 2:10 instructs.. Walk in good works.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  82. Just for your all’s information, I sent Jack a note a short time ago where I told him I was growing weary of this conversation about Thomas, not seeking to be his defender. I also added, “If I’m wrong, deceived, way off, then please, just say so, only keep in mind I don’t like a lot of pain.”

    Be careful how you pray comes to mind here ;-) : I feel like the character in “Moonstruck”, slapped by Cher and told to “Snap out of it!”

    And frankly, I’m relieved and would like to move on. I would really like to re-examine, perhaps with private correspondence with you, Jack (time permitting of course) where I may be off and where I’m not (Phil. 2:12). I don’t want to be guilty of hero worship, and that can be a very real danger in any of our lives.

    I hope readers will keep in mind all the reservations I expressed earlier in the thread, and that I have been sorting through much of all I have been taught this last year.

    And no, I don’t believe in “second blessings”, “annointings” etc…but I do believe in revival.

    Thanks again, Jack.

  83. Pearl,

    Please personally correspond as you wish. Question or present your case in short paragraphs.. My attention span is limited.. I’ll do my best.

    I would suggest that Ian Thomas has been thoroughly examined. So let’s do move away from him.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  84. Jack,

    I agree with what you have just said concerning salvation.

    Pearl,

    My point was that sanctification and glorification will take place after conversion. There is no way that a person can void their salvation by not fulfilling some second part. The result of conversion – sanctification and glorification ( when we are in glory – after death or the rapture) will take place. This is not to say that two believers could not have different experiences in the sanctification process. Some will be better disciples than others. Some will take more opportunities to put their faith into action ie. sharing the gospel, preaching, teaching, prayer etc. Some will be more obedient than others to God’s Word and the leading of the Spirit than others. Our performance during the sanctification process however does not determine our final state. That is already established at conversion when we become a child of God.

    You referred to the statement,
    “Christ’s sufficiency to save them, but continue on in the flesh to “thank Him”, “work” for Him.”
    I would say there that, yes ,believers should not try to serve God in the strength of the flesh. That is why we are told to walk in the Spirit. The things we do in the flesh for God, out of sinful pretenses and motivations, will result in a loss of reward. It would be as wood, hay, and stubble. That said, Maybe this is not entirely what Maj Ian Thomas was talking about.

    I am not so worried by Thomas that I couldn’t read “The Saving Life of Christ”. Maybe I’ll do just that when I get a chance. I also agree with Jimmy that I would like to see what you you define as the second half of salvation and why.

    I’ll try to comment on your other post a little later. Thanks for your cordial spirit.

  85. Pearl and Jack,

    I hear what you are both saying. I’m content to drop the topic of Maj Ian Thomas. If anyone wants to discuss the particulars of salvation or sanctification in regards to the original thread then I’m game. Pearl I’m glad to hear that you have learned much. I too only found this blog a short time ago because I had originally come across Lou’s blog while doing a search on Lordship Salvation. I have to say that both blogs have contributors and postings that have been very encouraging.

  86. Pearl:

    Thank you for sticking it out with this thread. Regardless what conclusions you reach with regard to some of Ian’s statements, your willingness to interact was, IMO, a testimony to Christ.

    Your friend and brother in Christ,
    Jimmy

  87. Thank you, Jimmy.

    Iron sharpens iron, right? Thankful for you all.

  88. Another interesting article from William Newell called “Precious Truths About God’s Grace”. Note the following quote:

    “There being no cause in the creature why Grace should be shown, the creature must be brought off from trying to give cause to God for His Grace…He has been accepted in Christ, who is his standing! He is not on probation…

    The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…

    To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order and preach law, not Grace. The law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so – in proper measure.”

    http://duluthbible.org/widgets/download.aspx?file=%2ffiles%2fResources%2fGrace_Family_Journal%2fGFJ_2000_PDF%2fGFJ_2000_03_MayJun%2fGFJ_2000_03_GodsGrace_00_Newell.pdf

  89. Pearl, Bruce, Eddy, Jack, Jim F., Jimmy, JR and others:

    Thank you for your friendship and engagement on this website. I am a relatively new believer with much to learn. This website is my primary outlet for Christian interaction and I am very much humbled by the diligence each of you has shown in rightly dividing the Word of God.

    Please pray for me as I grow in the knowledge of Grace.

    Thanks. John

  90. Dear Pearl,
    I just want to you let you know that I am very happy for you. We all learned a great deal from each other, and I certainly witnessed brotherly love among all of you here.

  91. Thank you, Eddy. It turned out well enough, didn’t it?

    John, this, too, has become my primary source of fellowship, my church, where I have also learned a great deal from all of you.

    Needing to get step away from the discussion in my “defense” of Thomas (and what I believe), it did me good to prepare dinner, partake with my family and settle my thoughts by watching some TV, where I caught the first quarter to one of my favorite movies of all time “Fiddler on the Roof”.

    I found myself identifying the Tevye, the main character, and his silly reasoning always preceded by the phrase “On the other hand…”. In one scene, listening to his Rabbi and friends argue with an “enlightened” wandering scholar about the right attitude to have regarding the disturbing happenings outside their little village, Tevye finds himself agreeing with all of them! “You’re right!” he says to the scholar; and to the displeasure of one of the traditionalists who responds with a pithy rebuke, Tevye says “You’re right too!” “What? How can we all be right?” they exclaim in amazement.

    I’ve never been in the place where I’ve been asked to make my beliefs clear, and it’s been a very good exercise. This was a good time to learn the wisdom of Paul’s counsel to Timothy, to “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.” 2Tim 4:2 No doubt, I’m rusty on some of the finer points of doctrine. It’s also good to know what I believe without having to reach for a commentary to speak on my behalf, and this is where I stumble.

    So, realizing I left a few loose threads, I will do my best to better explain how I understand salvation, which leads me to say “I agree with Jack.” New birth is a one time event, period. Or as JimF said “That’s it.”

    On the other hand… ;-), I also agree with what I have learned thus far by my “hero” and others, that when I say I disagree with “That’s it”, I’m meaning to get to the heart of the matter, which is to not settle merely on the fact that we’re saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit, sent our merry way heaven bound, but that the Holy Spirit is the very vehicle and source of the Christian life here on earth. I realize we all know this, but perhaps it’s more the same way we have read a verse 10,000 times, and it has become so familiar to us that skim over it without ever really tasting and savoring its meaning. In this case, it would be most of the New Testament.

    I was given a book called “The Rest of the Gospel – When the Partial Gospel Has Worn You Out”. I’ve never read it because it was given to us by one who is all over the ecumenical, contemplative map – it sits on my shelf amongst the tens of other books I’ve accumulated over the years. But without having to open the book, I already understand its premise, which is that too often, when communicating the gospel, we stop short when the person believes on Jesus Christ as their reconciler to God the Father, but rarely do we emphasize the ministry of the Holy Spirit, that it is Jesus Himself, Who is to be the Origin of all that one does from here on out. And just by looking, hearing, reading – we know that’s not the case. There is no “rest”, but worry and exhaustion.

    And this is where we come full circle: Keswick and its crew, which as I stated before is a mixed bag of denominations, but all unified in their belief that the Church, the Bride of Christ, is playing ball without the ball (Jesus Christ). We are exhorted to be of “One Mind” which is the Mind of Jesus Christ – the Head of the Body. Doing good works as a Christian is not sufficient, because I may very well be out of the will of God by doing so. Origin (the Source of my works) matters, no matter how purty they may be on the outside. But how to determine if my works are of the Spirit or of my flesh is what brings so much heartache and tireless examining of self, especially in the Keswick context, where terms like “full surrender, exchanged life, victorious life, etc, etc” are used in abundance. There is something to it, but not all.

    And that’s what I mean by my careless wording of “half” the gospel. Now I’m done.

  92. Personally, I never worried whether I am doing things for the Lord “in the flesh” or “in the Spirit” — but that I am doing things for the Lord. As I began to grow in Christ and His Grace a couple of years after trusting in Jesus for my salvation, I began to realize that “… the love of Christ constraineth [motivates and compels] us; …. 2 Corinthians 5:14a

    That was my motivation. I determined to study the Word and share Christ at every opportunity, without stressing whether I was doing it “in the flesh” or not.. (I just left that up to the Lord). There are millions of folks out there who are just as lost as I was for 35 years of my life. Looking back, I would have loved someone sharing Christ with me during that 35 years of my wandering. And had I trusted Christ as my Savior 20 years earlier I would not have cared whether the person telling me was “in the flesh” or not. The Gospel is still “the Power of God,” free for me (and all) to believe any time.

    And Yes, after one trusts Christ as Savior, we should emphasize and teach the wonders and benefits of the believer’s life in Christ and the blessings we receive by our obedience to Him. (Ephesians 2:10 and many other verses).

    I recall Bible college students discussing whether or not to go out and share Christ with the lost — Some were hesitant, debating whether they were doing it “in the spirit or in the flesh.” I was somewhat put off by that — fully aware that my friends and family were lost — souls were at stake. So I determined I was just going to do it at every opportunity. No stress — Just let the Lord sort out the motives later.

    Sure, I fumbled and stumbled — and still do today — but the important thing is that as we learn and do, we
    … grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. 2 Peter 3:18

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  93. John,

    Thanks first for the Newell quote and also for your note of appreciation for our folks here — I think most of us find a kindred fellowship in Christ on this web site. The Lord has blessed us here with so many of you who visit, read and comment. As one who is unable to get out and “go to church” I appreciate your fellowship and love in Christ. We pray for each of you daily for the Lord’s wisdom as we all grow in Grace and knowledge of our Savior.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  94. And Jack, your attitude is precisely why I have found rest here at your blog. I’m tired of trying to figure it all out, and at the end of the day, I am encouraged by these two verses:

    “For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” Phil. 2:13

    “Faithful is He that calleth you, Who also will do it.” I Thess. 5:24

    I weigh the moments, and knowing God made me as I am, go for it, right or wrong.

  95. Pearl,

    AMEN — and thanks for your dear friendship.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  96. Dear Pearl,

    Thanks for sharing those encouraging verses with us today. I particularly love the one from 1 Thes. I read it often to be uplifted—God does the calling and He does the enabling!

    You are a dear sister!

  97. Pearl,

    you said: Doing good works as a Christian is not sufficient, because I may very well be out of the will of God by doing so.

    I’d say that we can only be out of the will of God if we are going against His Word. There is not another standard on top of that. True goods works are of the Spirit anyway. They definitely don’t come from the old man.

  98. I hear ya, Jim. I’m working through years of all I’ve learned, also asking myself these very questions to which I feel tempted to fall back on the responses I’ve learned mostly by Thomas, and a few others. But are they right? I honestly don’t know at this point.

    (Thank you, Bruce! Right back atcha!)

  99. “But how to determine if my works are of the Spirit or of my flesh is what brings so much heartache and tireless examining of self…”

    Indeed it does bring “tireless examining of self”. It’s good and healthy to make sure we are doing things with the right motivation, but too much introspection can take our minds off Christ and the lost. It’s my opinion that when we get busy about reaching the lost for Christ…and then discipling the found, there’s adequate help from the Holy Spirit where the flesh is concerned. I sometimes wonder if we all at times aren’t guilty of trying to put the Holy Spirit out of a job.

  100. So astute, Jimmy. Motivation is everything! Reminds me of a great article by Charlie Bing I found under his GraceNotes category.

    I think examining my motivation might be a better determiner as to identifying the origin of the “good” work.

    Thanks for that insight.

  101. Dear Jim F,
    You said: “we can only be out of the will of God if we are going against His Word.”
    I agree with you. As long as we are sticking to His Word, we are walking in the Spirit. I am troubled by the teaching of the Exchange Life advocates that there is some kind of supernatural entity, in their wording the Holy Spirit, invading us, possessing us and even controlling us to do everything “according to the Spirit”. If that is really the case, we are no different than robots. Instead, God loves us and want us to love him back. God is not a dictator or a “control freak”. God does not want to control us. God wants us to exercise our free will to act out our faith according to his word, i.e., yielding to the Spirit. Without free will one is incapable of love. Walking in the Spirit is a moment by moment endeavour. We are not passive, we are active. We make our daily decisions to act according to His will. His will is clearly stated in His Word.

    “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15

  102. John, Eddy, JimF, Jimmy, and all concerned ~

    Several days ago, Jack sent me this link which delves into Wesleyan theology, its evolution through the years and its ultimate, though tempered, expression in the Keswick movement which has gone on to influence just about every single, Christian denomination and respected bible institution.

    http://bible.org/article/wesleyan-amp-keswick-models-sanctification

    I think it’s safe to say that it’s best to steer clear of Maj. Thomas, and all deeper life teachers.

  103. Pearl,

    Thanks — that article is well worth more than a cursory glance.. It probably explains (exposes) lots of things multiplying in all sorts of churches even today.

    Calvinism plus the unholy marriage of Wesleyanism/Keswick are two subversive, evil twins up to no good.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  104. Dear Pearl,
    Thanks for your pointer to that very informative article on Keswick Models of Sanctification. Because of your background, you certainly know much more on Keswick movement and deeper life theology than me. Your experiences are valuable resources to us and other visitors here. Although we are from different backgrounds, the Lord has gathered us here under His wings. Let us praise Him together.

  105. Wow. Have totally enjoyed reading through this article and comments and can’t wait to explore the blog further! Came upon this blog because I was searching for someone, ANYONE on the internets who had a problem with Eric Ludys’ teachings on salvation. I live on a bible college campus (husband in seminary) and everyone loves the Ludys with a passion that is nearly cultic. When I search online for critiques of their view I can only find the one I wrote – and this page where he is mentioned. I agree completely – stay away. This issue of LS is very important to me as I spent most of my life suffering under a false gospel similar to what you’ve been discussing – Keswick and all. Thank God, good theology saved my faith! Thanks for discussing this and giving me hope that I’m not the only one out there concerned about this. :)

  106. Rae,

    Welcome– we are happy you stumbled across our Gospel site. Our mission is to share the clarity of the Gospel of God’s Grace and expose those like Ludy and others who would pervert it.

    Your Campus experience with Ludy and those who idolize him is not unusual and we appreciate your clear perspective. Join us regularly in our effort to preserve the ever diminishing Gospel of Salvation by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.

    In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

  107. Rae, I have thanked God that you found us and decided to drop in.

    As someone who suffered under LS, you are likely very attuned to its subtleties.

  108. So wonderful to learn, Rae, that you’ve been long searching for confirmation of your own reservations which led you here. Just a technical curiosity, though: did a search engine highlight this thread based on your search of Ludy? Or was it a pure “coinkadink” which brought you here, given that he was not even mentioned (tagged), let alone known of, in the body of the main article? Either way, God is good!

    I hope you will expound on your discoveries and concerns with Keswick. Like you said, there are more out there who share them but have no doubt come up with little to substantiate those concerns.

    So glad you took the time to comment. It was a blessing to read.

  109. Rae,

    Like you, I am also looking for critique of any of Eric Ludy’s works (articles, books, sermons, videos, etc. ). You said you have written one regarding his ministry? I found one that critiques their ministry : http://oleanderhoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/fully-surrendered-eric-and-leslie-ludy.html , not sure if this blog is yours but this is an excellent observation of the ministry of the Ludys. The same reason you got here is the same reason i came back here since i posted in this same thread before and i remember pointing out Ludy as well. Not sure if i’m the first one to mention him in this blog ever. Let me give you the link of their video [removed]

We appreciate you. Please leave a reply & subscribe to our Web site and comments using check boxes below,

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s