Looking at our world from a theological perspective, this is the Theology Central Podcast, making theology central. Good morning, everyone. It is Friday, January the 17th, 2025. It is currently 1019 a.m. Central Time, and I am coming to you live from the Theology Central studio located right here in Abilene, Texas. So, what comes to your mind when you hear the phrase, Lordship Salvation? What comes to your mind? lordship salvation. Come on, tell me, what comes to your mind? Is it good thoughts? Is it bad thoughts? Is it like lordship salvation? That's just salvation. That's the way it is. Like, you are committed to lordship salvation, and when you go to a church, you basically ask if they hold a lordship salvation. If they don't, you're not going to go to that church, because all those other churches, that's easy believism. That's cheap grace. They're antinomians. And you absolutely are a supporter of Lordship Salvation, or maybe you're someone and like you hear the term Lordship Salvation, you're like, oh no, been there, done that, got the t-shirt, never going back to that. That was a horrible experience. I want as far away from it as possible. Do you see Lordship Salvation as Well, they just have a different perspective on salvation. Or do you believe Lordship Salvation is, well, actually it's heretical. Where do you fit in when it comes to this? Well, I have a long history with Lordship Salvation, so let's begin there. Let's go back, all right? We're going to go back in time for just a little bit. We're going to have story time, right? We're going to go back in time. I'm going to explain my involvement with Lordship Salvation, my struggles with it, and in some ways my leaving it. And then, well, we're going to have a kind of an interesting discussion and exploration about what AI thinks about Lordship Salvation. And this is probably going to take a number of episodes to work through. And it may end with almost like a book written by AI about Lordship Salvation being produced. I don't know if it's going to ultimately end there, but that's kind of the direction I think this may go. And you're going to walk through the entire process. So are you ready? First, we have to go backwards. We're going to go back to when I was a teenager, right here in Abilene, Texas. Now, at the time, I wasn't living in Abilene, Texas. I was living in Buffalo Gap, Texas, but I become a Christian. I'm a teenager, right? And so I become a Christian and I start thinking, well, if I'm a Christian, then I need to buy some Christian books, right? So I don't really have a lot of direction, nobody to really tell me what to do. But I'm like, okay, get in my car, drive to Abilene, Texas. What about 15, 15, 20 minutes away, about 15 minutes away. Buffalo Gap to Abilene, Texas. I end up on Butternut Street in Abilene, Texas, and there is the Bible Bookstore. I pull into the parking lot of the Bible Bookstore. Now, the very first time I go in there, I've told the story countless times. I'm a teenager looking around. I've never been into a Bible Bookstore ever in my life. I mean, I don't know anything about them. I'm just kind of looking around at everything. And this older gentleman walks up and kind of start asking me some questions. Like, can I help you with anything? I'm like, well, you know, I'm basically a brand new Christian. I don't even know where to begin. Now he sees a teenager. He could have taken me over to the youth section. He could have taken me over to, you know, some of the Jesus junk that, you know, some Bible bookstores sell. Just who knows what he could have handed me. But instead he hands me a systematic theology. written by James Montgomery Boyce, who is the pastor of 10th Presbyterian Church, I believe in Philadelphia. And it was like a full-blown systematic theology. It was amazing. It was awesome. So that was like the first book I ever bought was a systematic theology. And I forever will be grateful to that gentleman for not just seeing a teenager. He could have looked at me, oh, teenagers, they don't know anything. I'm a brand new Christian. He hands me a systematic theology. He treated me not like a teenager. He treated me like someone who could understand. And I think too many times churches treat teenagers like all they can do is eat pizza and play fun games and they can't understand anything. I hate that. I was treated with respect and dignity and handed a systematic theology and that ultimately changed my life Because from that point on, I mean, obviously, what have I done with my entire life? Study theology, study theology, study theology, study theology, go to school for theological studies. That's all I've done my entire life. So I'm forever grateful to that. Now, the good news with that... Or at least, I think, good news for me, you may just find it interesting, is years and years later, many years later, I, of course, I join the military, I leave Texas, the military then brings me back to Texas, and then when we move back to Texas, we're visiting churches, and I'm in this church, and here's this older gentleman, and guess who it is? The man who all of those years ago handed me James Montgomery Boy's Systematic Theology and placed it in my hands, and I was able to thank him for that. But that started my pursuit of theology, and it really began my going to the Bible bookstore. going to the Bible bookstore. Now, I don't know if it was my second trip, third trip, fourth trip, fifth trip. I don't know exactly which trip it was to the bookstore. The first one I'll never forget because that was when I got my hands really on my first systematic theology. But it was somewhere after that Again, I don't know if it was a week, a month, I cannot narrow it down, but I go into the Bible bookstore and there is a book called The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur. All right? I purchased this book and I start trying to process what I'm reading, right? Now, you've got to remember, I'm a brand new Christian. So in my mind, at this point in time, you have to understand this. You've got to put this in its proper historical context. My assumption was all Christian books basically teach the truth of Christianity. I didn't really yet understand, like, wait, this group versus this group versus this group versus this group. I didn't quite yet understand it. I was already starting to ask some of those questions because the church I was saved in, baptized in, and started attending was First Baptist Church, Tuscola, Texas. Well literally right next, I mean literally right next to First Baptist Church, Tuscola, Texas, I mean literally right next door was the Church of Christ. So I was kind of like, well, wait, why are they right next door if we believe the same thing? And then I was being told, well, we don't believe exactly the same thing. And so then I started having, well, what about the Catholics and what about the... I wasn't getting a lot of good answers, but in my mind, still, when I went to the Christian bookstore, I was a little bit naive. Well, all these books have to teach, you know, the truth of Christianity. I didn't really see, well, they could have books for the... Catholics, or they could have books for their church of Christ. I still was trying to process it all. So in my mind, when I read the Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur, I thought, well, this is the truth of salvation. You see, there are lots of people who claim to be Christians, but they're not really Christians. They're not really saved. They profess to be saved, but they're not saved. And how do you know? Because look at how they live. If they're truly saved, they would do this. They would love God. They would read their Bible. They would miss church. They would memorize scripture. They'd be reading systematic theology. They'd be doing this, and they'd be doing this, and they'd be doing this, and they'd be doing this. So then in my mind, I was like, okay, well, If I'm truly a Christian, I better read more than anybody else. I better study more than anybody else. I better listen to more sermons. I'm never going to miss a church service, because if I'm truly saved, I'm going to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and then I could go, well, those people aren't saved, and those people aren't saved, and those people aren't saved, and those people aren't saved. Now, I found myself having struggles with this sometimes, because I was also a teenager, and I kept realizing I was having sinful thoughts, and I was sinning, and I was doing this. But I would be like, but, but, but, but, I still read more, and I study more, and I pray more, and I go to church more, and I do this, and I do that. So it was like I was trying to almost For any sin, I would overcompensate with doing more religious things, praying more, reading more, studying more, because I gotta prove that I'm saved. Because, hey, if I truly am saved, I've surrendered myself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I'm following Him, I'm obeying Him, because if you don't do that, you're not really saved. So I just kind of begin to accept this way of thinking as this is Christianity. Like in my brain, I didn't even realize that there was a possible different way of thinking about it. I was like, Lordship is Christianity. If you truly are saved, when you believe in Jesus, you surrender yourself to his Lordship and you know that you have because of what you do. So you've got to constantly be looking at your life going, oh, I did this and I did this and I did that. And I didn't, I still, there was so much I did not quite understand. Now, as I stayed at First Baptist Church in Tuscola, Texas, lordship salvation just became, like, that's the one thing I no longer—I didn't even question it. I just, like, that's salvation. Because even in the church, I would hear basically similar thoughts. There's a lot of you who may claim to be a Christian, but unless you do this and do this, I'm like, okay, everyone talks this language. I would hear a little bit of it on Christian radio. There's a lot of you who profess to be saved, but you're not saved. How do you know you're saved? You do this, you do this, you do this, you do that. And so, and then I would run into some, I started running into charismatics who would teach, you can lose your salvation. And Church of Christ was very prominent, obviously, here in West Texas. You can lose your salvation. I'm like, okay, well, they believe you can lose it. We believe you never have it. But I mean, it's the basic same thing. If you're truly saved, you'll do this, you'll do this, you'll do this, you'll do this. And if you don't do this, you're not saved. That's just, I mean, that was just the dominant way that I was thinking. I mean, I didn't know anything else. Well, but as I stayed at First Baptist Church in Tuscola, Texas, I started having more and more theological questions, just asking questions, asking questions. And I wasn't getting any good answers, right? There was just, it was a lot of emphasis on evangelism, a lot of emphasis for me being a teenager on fun, food, fellowship, lock-ins, pizza. And I didn't, my attitude was like, guys, I didn't come to church so that I can have entertainment. I can entertain myself. I came here to learn. So I became very frustrated and ultimately I left and became a Lutheran. Now, in the Lutheran Church, I started learning the proper distinction between law and gospel. I still didn't quite understand how this connected with lordship salvation, but here's where things got confusing in the Lutheran Church. I had a lordship mentality. In some ways, law and gospel should have been kind of telling me that this lordship salvation idea may not be right, but the Lutheran church also taught me that a lot of these kids who have been baptized as babies, who supposedly were saved, well, they lost their salvation when they got older. How do you know they lost their salvation? Based on what they do, which again, is not a very law gospel distinction. So I'm like, wait a minute. So they believe you can lose your salvation. So Christianity is divided into two camps. You lose it or you never had it. But the bottom line is you got to do a lot to prove you have it. Or you got to do a lot to keep it. So my understanding was all kinds of messed up, right? So then as I move forward, I become much more involved with reform theology, learning about, quote unquote, what some people would call Calvinism, election, predestination, all right? But again, lordship, I fit everything into the lordship framework because that's all I knew. Now, the one thing I began to struggle with was, one, I was becoming more and more aware that Yeah, I'm doing a lot of overcompensating, right? Like I'm reading more, going to church more. I've already, I think, you know, I already have an associate's degree. I already have a bachelor's degree. I'm already pursuing all of this education about theology and I'm doing this and I was doing great there. Nobody could touch me in my study and my knowledge because that's how I knew that I would almost look to that as proof of my salvation. But I was becoming more and more aware of my own sinful mind and thoughts and desires. I was just realizing, I'm godly on the outside, but I'm not quite as godly on the inside. So how does this fit with lordship? So I was starting to have some struggles trying to figure it out. And then I was like, lordship, I mean, at some point I kept saying, Lordship, if I keep going this direction, there's not going to be anyone saved, right? Because that person's not saved, that person's not saved, that person is not saved. So I was starting to have some issues. But really, the moment, the epiphany is when I decided, you know what, I'm tired of hearing all of these non-Catholics criticize Catholicism, and they clearly have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to Catholicism. So I was becoming more and more bothered by a lot of the ignorance I would hear non-Catholics say about Catholicism. They just seemed to have no clue what they were talking about, borrowing from who knows what, and I was just like, oh, come on now, this is ridiculous. So I'm like, you know what? When I speak about Catholicism, I want to do so from a position of knowledge, not one of ignorance. So I decided to enroll in a Catholic university to pursue a degree in Catholic theology. And it was within that school having back and forth with the professors, priests, students, going back and forth, that I began to be challenged about this whole concept of Lordship Salvation. And basically what I was told, hey, your Lordship Salvation is more Catholic than you even realize. Your lordship salvation is far more in line with Catholicism than it is with the Protestant Reformation. And if you can't admit that, and you don't know, then you don't understand Reformation theology. You don't really understand what you're doing. If you're going to hold the lordship salvation, basically, you should just come back to the Catholic Church, because it's basically a non-Catholic version of Catholicism. That irritated me. That ticked me off so much that I was like, no, that's not right. And basically, I was challenged with this. Well, do you believe in a justification by an imputed righteousness or do you believe in a justification by an infused righteousness? If you truly believe it's imputed and not infused, well then you should be moving away from Lordship Salvation, not such a staunch supporter of it and defender of it. And I was kind of like, and then I began to have almost a crisis of faith. I was like, man, I mean, my church, we hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which clearly emphasizes a justification by an imputed righteousness, and it rejects the infused righteous concept. Am I being consistent with an imputed righteousness, or am I on one hand saying I believe justification by an imputed righteousness, but in reality, I'm contradicting myself? And then the crisis of faith began to unfold, and I began to question and doubt and disagree with lordship salvation, which was not a good thing for me and my ministry, because I didn't realize how many people held to a lordship idea, even if they didn't use the terminology, even if they had never read MacArthur's book. And all of a sudden I was like, what do I do? So I have moved forward. I mean, I reject lordship salvation now. I reject it because I believe it's basically a Protestant form of Catholicism. So I have struggled with it and I've gone through this long journey. I've been in it. I've been out of it. I've been a supporter of it. I've now been a critic of it. I've been all over the place with it. But it's 2025, ladies and gentlemen. We now have a tool called artificial intelligence. So I decided, hey, artificial intelligence, are you busy right now? Okay, of course you're not busy. You're ready, you're always ready 24 seven to help me with anything. So, hey, artificial intelligence, let's have a conversation and I need you to work with me and challenge me and critique anything I have to say. We're gonna go on a journey and we're gonna discuss, well, lordship salvation. So I am going to walk you through the conversation. And then, so what you're going to do, a lot of this may be somewhat repetitive. I know that's going to drive some people crazy because you always criticize me of it, but that's okay. We're gonna walk through the conversation. Now, the reason the conversation may be repetitive is because I'll ask this, and then so it'll give me this, but then I may ask a clarifying, and then it will give me that, and maybe some of what it's already given me. So there will be some repetition, but the repetition is a good thing because it will drive home some of these essential philological points and some of the major issues with lordship salvation. Now, when I started, I did not realize I did not think necessarily that AI would be opposed to lordship salvation. But the other day when we were using AI to review that sermon on James 2, 14 through 26, remember AI kind of basically walked into saying, It didn't name Lordship Salvation, but clearly AI was going against the theology of Lordship Salvation. And I was like, whoa, it's literally saying the very kind of things I have said now for years about Lordship Salvation. So that caught my attention, and that's what led to this. So this is how the conversation began. So what we're going to do over the next, I don't know how long, we're going to just You're going to listen to me walk you through my conversation with artificial intelligence about lordship salvation. There's no way we're going to finish this conversation. That's why I labeled this part one. But over the next, I don't know how many episodes, this is what we're going to focus on. So are you ready? All right. So here is how I began. Because in my mind, now let me at least explain this. As I've stated before, AI is an amazing tool. I think it's the greatest invention in human history. It's the most amazing thing. But I have come to realize the more theological knowledge you have, I think the better you can utilize the tool, right? If you go in with no theological knowledge, all you can really do is ask questions and you just kind of have to accept whatever AI says. The more knowledge you have, the more you can say, well, what about this or what about that? So because of my long journey with Lordship Salvation, and because of my experience pursuing a degree in Catholic theology, I know that the starting point to all of this is the difference between the understanding of salvation by an infused righteousness versus salvation by an imputed righteousness. That is the issue. Lordship salvation may say, oh, we believe in imputed righteousness, but I believe they contradict that in practice, right? So here we go. So this is where we have to start. So I began by asking AI the following question. Isn't it accurate to say that the major difference between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity is Catholicism teaches a salvation based on an infused righteousness and non-Catholics, for the most part, teach salvation based on an imputed righteousness? Now please note, I'm asking AI, is this correct? So this gives AI the opportunity to go, no, you're completely wrong here. Just as when we've given AI some parts of sermons and what does AI have to, this is completely wrong. So AI, I know AI will say you're wrong when you're wrong. I know that because we've watched it happen too many times, all right? So, but here's what AI, how AI replied. Yes. That is a key philological distinction between Catholicism and many forms of non-Catholic Christianity, particularly within Protestantism. Here's a breakdown of the concepts. Are you ready? Infused righteousness. This is the Catholic view. I want you to understand the Catholic view. I want you to have the Catholic view. Now, this is me talking. I want you to have the Catholic view burned into your brain because the more you understand the Catholic view, the more you understand infused righteousness, I think then you become much more prepared to go, wait a minute. In my Baptist church, in my Reformed church, in my Bible church, I think I'm hearing far more of a perspective that's more in line with infused righteousness than it is imputed righteousness. And remember, it was my studying of Catholicism and understanding of salvation by infused righteousness that made me go, wait a minute. this this sounds like lordship salvation and it was them saying it is okay and i was like wait there there's a problem here so here's infused righteousness you're right ready here we go Catholic theology teaches that righteousness is infused into the believer through the sacraments, particularly baptism, and it is sustained and increased through cooperation with God's grace, good works, and participation in the sacramental life. But please note, Protestants, non-Catholics may disagree that this infused righteousness happens through the sacraments or through baptism, but if you listen to Christians talk, they go, when I became a believer, and they almost speak as if something infused, something was put inside of them. This is very close to an infused righteous idea. Now back to AI. Salvation involves both God's grace and the believer's cooperation with that grace—synergism. So Catholics have a synergistic idea of salvation. Just keep that in mind. Next, this view emphasizes an internal transformation where the person becomes truly righteous over time through sanctification. So in Catholicism, you are transformed on the inside. You are made righteous on the inside. You are infused with the righteousness of God. Maybe that's not the completely correct way of saying it, but that's a good way of describing it. Now, this sounds just like much of Protestantism. Hey, when you became a Christian, you became a new creation. Old things passed away. Old things have become new. And they teach that to be true in a practical sense. That's the same concept. You've been transformed on the inside. You'll never be the same again. That's Catholicism. Justification and sanctification are seen as interconnected and an ongoing process. Now, this is where Lordship Salvation would say, no, no, no, justification is a one-time event. But they say it's a one-time event, but guess what? You've been justified. However, no, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You don't really know if you've been justified because how are you going to know if you've been justified? Based on what you do, based on what you do, based on what you do, what you do. So you can't really ever know if you're truly justified because your works are going to be the thing that proves you're justified. So you got to make sure you have enough works and the right kind of works when you get to the end of your life to know if you're truly saved. Well, all this is about works, works, works. It's about an internal transformation. So Lordship would say things a little differently, but the concepts are very, very similar. Now, so that's infused righteousness. Let me say them again. Catholic theology teaches that righteousness is infused into the believer through the sacraments, particularly baptism, and it is sustained and increased through cooperation with God's grace and good works and participation in the sacramental life. Salvation involves both God's grace and the believer's cooperation with that grace, synergism. The view emphasizes an internal transformation where the person becomes truly righteous over time through sanctification. Justification and sanctification are seen as interconnected and an ongoing process. And within a lot of the lordship idea, they would say, well, justification is instantaneous, but sanctification is a process. But sanctification is the thing that proves your justification. So unless you're progressing in sanctification to the right degree, well, then you were never saved. So really, your salvation becomes based upon your sanctification and lordship, no matter how much they want to deny it. Because if you're not having sanctification, then they say you were never justified, meaning you've got to have a certain level of sanctification in order to be saved. It's saying the same thing! But what is imputed righteousness? Many non-Catholic Christians, especially within Reformed and Lutheran traditions, teach that righteousness is imputed to the believer. This means that the righteousness of Christ is credited to the believer's account through faith alone, not because of any inherent transformation or work. In fact, imputed righteousness does not transform. Imputed righteousness is just where God's righteousness is credited to me and I'm declared to be righteous even though I am not. I'm not made righteous in a practical sense. I am declared to be righteous in a positional sense and being declared righteous in a positional sense does not transform me practically. And if you say it does, you are a liar and you're going with an infused righteous concept. Salvation is viewed as a monergistic, God-alone-accomplishes-it, and justification is a one-time declarative act where the believer is declared righteous even though they remain a sinner in practice. Did you hear that? See, in the imputed righteousness system, you are declared to be righteous even though you remain a sinner in practice. Even AI understands this. If you believe in imputed righteousness, you are declared to be righteous, even though you remain a sinner in practice. That is what the imputed righteousness view teaches. But you've got all of these, especially within the lordship camp, who almost deny this. They're like, no, no, no, you're justified. by imputed righteousness, but you no longer remain a sinner in practice. You are transformed. You are changed. And if you're not, then you were never saved. That's not imputed righteousness, ladies and gentlemen. Imputed righteousness is you're declared to be righteous even though you remain a sinner in practice. In the imputed righteousness world, sanctification is distinct from justification and it follows as the believer grows in holiness, but it does not contribute to their standing before God. Now, what are the key differences between infused and imputed righteousness understanding? The source of righteousness Infused righteousness emphasizes an actual transformation of the believer, while imputed righteousness focuses on the believer being declared righteous based on Christ's merits. Did you hear that? It is the infused righteous philosophy that emphasizes the transformation of the believer. And Protestants do this all the time. You've been transformed. You've been changed. What was is no longer. You're different. You're new. You are a new creature. The old is gone. Protestants sound more Catholic than Catholics. When you emphasize transformation, that is infused righteousness. Because let me state it again, imputed righteousness does not transform you practically. It transforms you positionally. Positionally, you are a new creature. Positionally, the old things are gone. Positionally, all things are new. Positionally, you are holy. Positionally, you are righteous. Positionally, you are obedient. Practically, you are the same sinner you were before you were saved. Even AI knows this. So he stated again, the key difference between infused righteousness and imputed righteousness is infused righteousness emphasizes an actual transformation of the believer, while imputed righteousness focuses on the believer being declared righteous based on Christ's merits. the role of works. In Catholicism, good works are necessary as a part of the process of salvation. In Protestantism, good works are the result of salvation, but not a contributing factor to it. Now, please note, they say that within Protestantism, good works is a result of salvation. Keep that in mind, right? Because I'm going to ask some clarifying questions here, because this is where things get convoluted and confused not only within Lordship, within Protestantism, Fundamentalism, and general. So just keep that in mind. Justification vs. Sanctification. Catholicism sees them as intertwined, while Protestants often distinguish them as separate stages. This distinction was a major issue during the Reformation and remains a dividing line between Catholicism and Protestantism. However, it's worth noting that there is diversity within both traditions and not all Protestants or Catholics articulate these concepts in exactly the same way. And I do appreciate... AI at least acknowledging, hey, not everything's going to be stated this clearly. And clearly within the Protestant world, it's not understood this way. The Protestant world is all over. I would say the Protestants have the most convoluted gospel you could find anywhere. At least Catholics have some sameness about what they have to say, because they have to articulate things as given out by the magisterium and the authority of the church, say in the catechism, etc. Within the Protestant, it's every man for themselves. So they will explain the gospel saying, we've got the true gospel, but you listen to them, you're like, I think you're describing a salvation by an infused righteousness, even though you're denying that you are, that's exactly what you're doing practically. Now, I had to ask, AI then a question. Even though this is the key distinction between the two, even though this is a key distinction, infused righteousness and imputed righteousness, even though this is the key distinction between the two, and again, listen how I state this, I ask AI, isn't it accurate to say that much of non-Catholic sermons Bible studies and teaching seems to contradict the imputed righteousness understanding and inadvertently almost teach an infused righteous idea. Please note, I ask AI. I don't tell AI. I don't say, hey AI, here's my perspective. I'm giving AI the opportunity to go right or wrong, just as we have demonstrated that it does with many of the things we've heard in sermons. How many things have I said, hey, this sermon said this, and AI's like, no, wrong, not correct. Very dogmatic. So I'm giving it the opportunity to say that I'm wrong. So I'm like, hey, doesn't it, when it comes down to it, within the Protestant world, they inadvertently almost teach an infused righteous system? Here's what AI said. Yes, that is an insightful observation. While imputed righteousness is central to much of Protestant theology, particularly in Reformed and Lutheran traditions, it is true that many non-Catholic sermons, Bible studies, and teaching often lean towards language and concepts that resemble infused righteousness. This can create tension between their stated theology and their practical teaching. Hey, in their theology, it sounds good, but when it comes down to their practical teaching, it's infused righteousness. So AI then says, basically, do you want me to explain why this happens? And I'm like, yeah, explain to me why this happens. Here we go. It happens, number one, emphasis on sanctification and moral transformation. Now, if you listen to sermons at all, it's always about sanctification and transformation, transformation, transformation, transformation, transformation, in a practical way. And guess what this ultimately does? It almost leads you back to an infused righteous understanding. is what AI said. Many Protestant churches place a strong focus on personal holiness and moral improvement and spiritual growth, which can inadvertently suggest that righteousness is something developed within the believer rather than something fully credited to them by Christ. If we listen to sermons, it's almost always about some kind of a practical righteousness, something inside of you, some transformation, not imputed righteousness, but something, even though they don't use the word infused, but that's where the language goes. And sermon after sermon after sermon in the Protestant world, or the Baptist world, if you don't want to be called a Protestant, or the Bible church reform world, whatever world, the non-Catholic world. Sermons often stress becoming more like Christ, or living out your faith, which, while important, can blur the distinction between justification, imputed righteousness, and sanctification, the process of becoming holy. So within the Protestant, non-Catholic world, there's this emphasis on transformation, transformation, transformation, that almost leads to this idea that you've been infused with something. Now you work it out. You do something. Now you've got to do this or, well, you're not truly saved, which leads to point number two, conditional language and assurance of salvation. Some teachings unintentionally tie assurance of salvation to visible evidence of transformation such as good works or spiritual fruit. That's literally lordship salvation. Did you hear that? AI say, hey, the reason there's this like confused, messed up thing that where Protestants claim they believe in imputed righteousness, but inadvertently revert back to an infused righteous understanding is because in their teaching, they unintentionally, they may not even realize what they are doing. It may not be intentional, it may be unintentional. They tie assurance of salvation to visible evidence of transformation. Now, just look, the minute you say, well, this proves that you're saved, or this proves that you're saved, and you're looking for some kind of moral action, some kind of transformation, some kind of spiritual fruit, ladies and gentlemen, the minute you do that, you have reverted back to an infused righteousness. Because you are saying, if you've been infused with righteousness, then your outward life will produce that righteousness, and if it doesn't, then you were not infused with righteousness. Because if you believe in imputed righteousness, You would never even offer this as an idea. Why? Because imputed righteousness does not change you. It does not transform you. It does not produce anything in you because it's imputed. It's just righteousness accredited to your account. You cannot prove imputed righteousness by doing, you could do 700,000 good works. You could be supposedly righteous. None of that proves imputed righteousness. because imputed righteousness does not manifest itself in any practical way because it's imputed. How do we not understand that? We say we hate Catholicism. Well, we go around and basically teach Catholicism. So let me read this again. Some teachings unintentionally tie assurance of salvation to visible evidence of transformation, such as good works or spiritual fruit. This can lead to practical theology that suggests believers maintain their salvation through their own efforts, resembling the Catholic idea of cooperating with grace. Now, lordship salvation, they would word it differently, but that's literally what it comes down to. If you're truly saved, you'll do this, you'll do this, do this, do this, do this. If you don't, you were never saved. Wait a minute. I was saved by an imputed righteousness. That doesn't do anything in me. It declares me to be something that I'm not. So, how does this all come about? Well, within the non-Catholic world, they emphasize sanctification and moral transformation. And number two, they add a conditional language and assurance of salvation. Number three. This happens because of a misunderstanding or oversimplification of justification. Many pastors and teachers may unintentionally conflate justification and sanctification in their preaching, leading to the impression that believers are progressively made righteous in a way that determines their standing before God. And that's exactly what happens in lordship salvation. Your sanctification determines your standing before God. If there's not enough sanctification, the wrong kind of sanctification, if it's somehow missing, then you are lost. You were never saved. So your sanctification determines your standing before God. That is an absolute denial of justification by imputed righteousness. Instead of emphasizing the finished work of Christ, they focus heavily on what believers must do to either remain in good standing or to prove their good standing. If you want proof of my good standing before God, don't look to me, look to Christ, because my standing before God is determined by an imputed righteousness, not by a practical righteousness that I either live or don't live. You completely demonstrate that you are Catholic even though you claim you're not. I've been saying this for I don't even know how many years and people get mad at me and get furious at me and accuse me of being an antinomian or easy believism. It's like no. It's like if you believe in imputed righteousness this is the only logical conclusion you can come to. But they want to say they believe in imputed righteousness while over and over saying, I get so sick of it. I get so tired of it. Look, if you want this lordship idea, then do me a favor. Go to a Catholic church. Stop pretending not to be Catholic when you are actually Catholic. People say that, they get all, I am not Catholic. I am not Catholic. Well, in your understanding of salvation, you are. No, I'm not. I believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone." Until you start literally how it works out, then it's going to be like, but you got to do this and this and this and this and this in order to be saved. Meaning, I have to do this in order to be saved. Meaning, you are now looking for something other than imputed righteousness as the proof of one's salvation. Imputed righteousness cannot be tested by sanctification because it's imputed. You can test salvation by sanctification if you believe in infused righteousness, because infused righteousness then will produce the good works. Then you can test it by looking at someone's sanctification. It's just, how can you not understand this? It's like logic 101. So number four, pressure for practical application. In many Protestant contexts, there is a strong emphasis on application in preaching and teaching. This often results in messages that prioritize what Christians should do, behavioral change, over what Christ has already done, imputed righteousness. This application-heavy approach can overshadow the declarative nature of justification and make righteousness just feel like something earned or maintained. Because in Protestant preaching, it's like, do this, do this, you gotta do this, you need to be doing this, you're not doing this, do this, do this, don't do this, do this, don't do this. It's la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. And the idea is, if you're really saved, you will do this, you will do this, you will do this. Once again, using sanctification as a proof of justification, which does not work if you believe in an imputed righteous system. 5. The Influence of Moralistic and Legalistic Tendencies Protestant churches are not immune to moralism and legalism. Where the Christian life is framed primarily as a set of rules to follow or behaviors to exhibit, this can make it seem as though the believer's standing with God is dependent on their performance, which contradicts the doctrine of imputed righteousness. While most Protestant traditions officially hold to imputed righteousness, the practical teaching in many contexts often drifts towards a functional infused righteousness. I want you to hear this again. This is what AI has to say. You've got to hear this. You want to write this down. While most Protestant traditions officially hold to imputed righteousness. The practical teaching in many contexts often drift towards a functional infused righteousness. This inconsistency can lead to confusion among believers, causing them to rely on their own efforts for assurance rather than resting in the finished work of Christ. Nobody—they don't rest in the finished work of Christ because they have to constantly be trying to prove that they're really saved by what they do, and then they feel convicted They may come down to the altar. They may cry. They may cry out to God. God, I'm trying. I want to do better. I want to show you that I'm really saved. Well, guess what? You can't show God that you're really saved by what you do because the proof of salvation is not in what you do. It's what in Christ did. That's when we believe in imputed righteousness, not in infused righteousness. You cannot prove imputed righteousness by what you do. You cannot prove it by what you do. How do we not understand this? I'm telling you, the study of Catholicism was the greatest thing that ever happened in my life, theologically, because it opened my eyes that I'm being so inconsistent with what we supposedly believe about imputed righteousness. AI says, addressing this problem requires deliberate teaching that clearly distinguishes justification from sanctification, consistently emphasizing that salvation is fully accomplished by Christ and not dependent on the believer's ongoing transformation. AI's like, you're gonna have to deliberately work on this. You're gonna have to deliberately explain this. because people just don't understand. So then I asked AI another question. Would it be accurate to say that the theology of lordship salvation is a clear example of a non-Catholic theological system that seems to basically return people to a more Catholic understanding of salvation while denying that they're doing this? Now, once again, please note, I'm giving AI the opportunity to say I'm not being accurate. I'm giving AI the opportunity to say, no, you are wrong. Just like when we do use AI to review sermons, I give AI the opportunity to say, is this sermon right or is it wrong? And when it's wrong, it will tell me. It will stand its ground, which I'm glad. I don't want it to be too wishy-washy. Sometimes, if I feel like it's wishy-washy, I will call out AI and say, don't be wishy-washy. Take a stand, OK? Tell me if I'm wrong! So let me read you the question again. Would it be accurate, because I say this all the time and people get mad at me, so I wanted AI to tell me if I'm wrong. Would it be accurate to say that the theology of lordship salvation is a clear example of a non-Catholic theological system that seems to basically return people to a Catholic understanding of salvation while at the same time denying that they're doing this? Here's what AI said. Yes, that is a fair critique. The theology of lordship salvation, while rooted in Protestantism, does seem to blur the lines between justification and sanctification in a way that can resemble a more Catholic understanding of salvation, despite its proponents denying the connection. Here's how this works. So AI's like, yeah, it does this and they will deny it. Here are the key features of Lordship Salvation. This is how AI breaks down the key features of Lordship Salvation. Number one, faith and works connected. Lordship Salvation teaches that true saving faith will necessarily produce a life of obedience and good works. Okay, so Lordship Salvation, AI was about to start talking to me right there. Okay, so I had to stop it really quick. All right, so let's do this again. So the key features of Lordship Salvation, they connect faith and works. Lordship Salvation teaches that true saving faith will necessarily produce a life of obedience and good works. While it does not claim that works merit salvation, it insists that works are the inevitable evidence of genuine faith. Please note, Lordship says the inevitable evidence of salvation is good works. Ladies and gentlemen, I can't even say that and not see the contradiction. If you tell me good works is the evidence of saving faith, then you are believing in an infused righteousness. Because imputed righteousness, good works can't prove imputed righteousness because imputed righteousness does not produce good works. It declares me to be perfect without works. That's the whole point. So number one, they connect faith and works. Number two, an emphasis on transformation. The doctrine places heavy emphasis on moral transformation and submission to Christ's Lordship as essential components of salvation. This can make salvation feel contingent on the believer's level of obedience and sanctification, which it is. And Lordship salvation, whether they want to deny it or not, my salvation is completely contingent. It is dependent on how much I've been transformed, how changed, how obedient I am, because if I haven't done it enough, then I prove I was never saved. Meaning, I have to do it in order to be saved. This can make salvation feel contingent on the believer's level of obedience and sanctification. 1. Faith works connected 2. Emphasis on transformation 3. Perseverance and assurance Assurance of salvation is often tied to the presence of visible fruit in a believer's life. This can lead to introspection and doubt, as believers assess their performance to determine their faith is genuine. How do you determine your faith is genuine? By your performance. So your assurance is determined by your supposed perseverance. No, no, my assurance is determined by the perseverance of Christ. the perseverance of His righteousness, His good works, His obedience, which is imputed to me." Now, how does all of this resemble Catholic theology? Well, it's the blurring of justification and sanctification. Like Catholicism, Lordship Salvation often intertwines justification being declared righteous with sanctification becoming holy. Catholics see justification as an ongoing process involving cooperation with grace. Lordship salvation similarly implies that ongoing obedience and transformation are integral to the assurance of salvation. Now, lordship would say, no, justification is instantaneous. They say that, but then how do I know I'm justified? Well, there's got to be this process that will actually prove if I'm justified. Well, if I've got to have an ongoing process to prove that I'm justified, then I can never know I'm justified until we go through the ongoing process and see how it ends up. And at any point through this ongoing process, I could possibly prove that I was never justified because I did A, B, C, D, E. And, well, you can't do that and truly be saved. Okay, well, then I really wasn't justified in an instant because you're making my justification almost like I'm on probation and I got to prove it because I can't know that I really have it yet. It's the same blurring of the line that Catholicism does. Number two, within lordship salvation and within Catholicism, you have basically conditional assurance. In Catholicism, assurance of salvation is never absolute because it depends on continued cooperation with grace and avoidance of mortal sin. Lordship salvation parallels this by tying assurance to the believer's ability to demonstrate fruit, making assurance conditional and subjective. And those in lordship salvation, or at least think that way, listen to them talk. if a pastor falls into certain sin where there's no way he could be saved and do that. Oh, oh, that person, that person, we found out that they're in a secret homosexual relationship. There's no way they can be saved and do that. So, guess what? Lordship, many Christians hold to a mortal sin concept. If you commit a mortal sin, whatever that mortal sin, it may be homosexuality, it may be adultery, it could be pornography, whatever it may be, that's the mortal sin, which proves that you were never saved. That's Catholicism! If I commit a really horrendous sin, that doesn't prove whether I'm saved or not saved, because the proof of my salvation is based on what Christ did by an imputed righteousness which is not proven or disproven by me committing some horrible sin. How do you not understand that? The minute you go into that way of thinking, you're over here in the infused righteous camp. If you don't believe this is how most Christians think today, just read any Christian website and look at the comments under any article about someone falling into sin. A true believer would never do this. A true believer will never do this. Meaning that they have certain mortal sins, and if you commit that mortal sin, you're not in a state of grace. It's Catholicism, ladies and gentlemen. Let me just make it clear. Luther lost. The Protestant Reformation he lost. Catholicism has won out because most Protestants think like Catholics. Lordship salvation parallels this by tying assurance to the believer's ability to demonstrate fruit, making assurance conditional and subjective. Practical Synergism While Lordship salvation claims to uphold monergism, salvation by God's work alone, its heavy emphasis on the necessity of works as evidence of salvation can feel practically synergistic, as if the believer's efforts play a role in maintaining their salvation. Now, they will say, no, no, no, we're monergistic, we're monergistic. But it becomes synergistic because I got to do this and I got to do this. Now, what they will say, Lordship will say, no, God is the one who will do it through you and for you. Well, if God is the one doing it through me and for me, well, then my work should be perfect. So should every other Christian's work be perfect. So why are they not perfect? Well, if they're not perfect, that means I can impact the lack of perfection. Well, then it's synergistic. And then once again, you're looking at something that's synergistic and me involved, that somehow then I've got to prove my salvation by me doing enough to be able to prove my salvation. Because if it's monergistic, I don't have to do anything. My work should be perfect, right? I mean, the whole thing falls apart. Now, why this matters. Classic Protestant theology emphasizes that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and Christ alone. Lordship salvation shifts the focus towards a believer's response, which risks undermining the sufficiency of Christ-imputed righteousness. The practical effect of lordship salvation can lead to fear, doubt, and a workspace mentality, even if it's unintentional. This stands in contrast to the freedom and assurance offered by the doctrine of imputed righteousness. While Lordship salvation denies being Catholic, its emphasis on the necessity of works and ongoing obedience as evidence of salvation creates a framework that bears striking similarities to Catholic theology. It effectively reintroduces a performance-based element into salvation, which can contradict the Reformation's emphasis on the sufficiency of Christ's work and the believer's justification by faith alone. So then I had one more, well, I have, we're gonna stop it right here, but I'm gonna give you one more interaction I had with AI. So I asked AI this, isn't it really circular reasoning to say works don't save you, but works prove your salvation? Because what you are still saying is you must have works to be saved. It's like a verbal game. So AI said, yes, it is a form of circular reasoning and can indeed feel like a verbal game. The argument that works don't save you but works prove your salvation often creates confusion because, practically speaking, it still ties salvation to works, albeit indirectly. Here's why this reasoning is problematic. 1. The Circular Nature of the Argument The claim is, you are saved by faith alone, but if you don't have works, your faith isn't genuine. However, this makes works a necessary condition for proving salvation, which functionally ties salvation to… works. The logical implication is that without works, a person cannot have assurance of salvation, meaning works are still required in practice, even if not explicitly stated as the basis of salvation. See, even AI knows the logical fallacy here. It's circular reasoning. Hey, works don't save you, but works prove you're saved, meaning I have to have works in order to be saved. You can play all the games you want. You're just talking in circles. You're still saying works are required for salvation. Ladies and gentlemen, if works prove my salvation, then guess what? If I believe in imputed righteousness, it's the works of Christ that prove my salvation, not my works. Because I'm saved by imputed righteousness. If I believe in infused righteousness, then works could prove my salvation. Because it would either indicate I have been infused or not infused. But you can't prove imputed righteousness by what I do or don't do because it doesn't change me. It just declares me changed positionally. Number two, This shifts the focus from Christ to the believer. This framework shifts the focus from the sufficiency of Christ's finished work to the believer's performance. Instead of resting in the imputed righteousness of Christ, believers are left examining themselves to see if they have enough evidence of works to prove their salvation. This undermines the assurance offered by the gospel, where salvation is based entirely on Christ's work, not on the believer's. 3. The Problem of Subjectivity How many works, now this is what AI says, or asks, AI asks this question. How many works are enough to prove salvation? What kind of work? This introduces subjectivity and can lead to doubt as believers constantly question whether their faith is genuine based on their performance. The Bible teaches that even the best works of believers are imperfect and tainted by sin, Isaiah 64 6, Romans 7, 18-25. If works are proof, how can anyone be sure they've done enough? AI can figure that out. AI knows, wait a minute, if you say this, how many works? What kind of works? How do you know if you've done enough? How do you know if your works are truly pure? AI says this undermines the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Reformation emphasized that salvation is by faith alone and works are a fruit of salvation, not a proof of it. You can say works are a fruit of salvation, but they don't prove salvation because you don't prove salvation by what I do or don't do because that is proved by what Christ has done. When works are made the proof, they suddenly become a requirement which reintroduces a works-based element to salvation and contradicts the doctrine of justification by faith alone. So, AI said if you want a better way of approaching this, you could argue this. Works are evidence of growth, not salvation. Instead of saying works prove salvation, it would be more consistent to say works are the natural outworking of faith and evidence of spiritual growth. True faith will result in transformation over time, but this transformation is not the basis or the proof of salvation. It is the result of God's ongoing work in the believer. Assurance should rest in Christ's finished work, not in the believer's ability to measure up. So AI's like, hey, if you want to do something with good works, you could say good works will prove your growth. Doesn't prove your salvation. It's an evidence of growth. So then AI stated this. This is AI's final statement here and what we will cover today. The idea that works don't save you, but works prove your salvation risks creating a theological contradiction. It makes works functionally necessary for salvation while at the same time denying that they are causally necessary. This creates confusion and undermines the assurance that comes from resting in Christ-imputed righteousness. A clearer and more biblical approach is to emphasize that salvation is entirely by grace through faith and any good works are the fruit of God's work in the believer. They are not a test or a proof of salvation. because the minute they become that, you believe in infused righteousness and you are denying imputed righteousness. That, I cannot stress this enough. AI is able to identify the problem. AI is able to go see the logical contradiction. AI can call out the circular reasoning. AI can call out the complete nonsensical approach of claiming, no, I believe in imputed righteousness, while practically everything in your theology screams you believe in infused righteousness. And this drives me crazy with trying to have conversations with Christians. They will say, I believe in imbued righteousness. And then five seconds later, it's like, everything you just said screams you believe in infused righteousness. Go be a Catholic. And they look at me like I'm crazy. I'm like, you are more Catholic than Catholics. And they don't get it. They don't understand. AI can understand. Why can't AI figure this out? Because AI can look at theological issues and understand them factually, logically, and not be so blinded by our own crazy concepts. If you want to believe in lordship salvation, then by all means, go be a Catholic. And just stop pretending you believe in a salvation by imputed righteousness, because you don't. You believe in one and infused righteousness. Just accept that. That's okay. Just accept that you believe in a salvation by an infused righteousness and go be a Catholic. Just do it. Stop pretending to be something that comes from the Protestant Reformation when you're denying the key teaching of the Protestant Reformation, which is a salvation based off an imputed righteousness. I am declared to be that which I am not. I am declared to be righteous when I am not righteous. I am declared to be righteous when practically I still sin and I am a sinner. The ultimate transformation happens in glorification. The transformation that took place now is positionally. The practical one happens in glorification. In between, I am someone declared to be righteous, even though I'm a sinner and I am struggling to live out this Christian life. and trying to live out a godly life, even though, no matter how godly I am, it's filled with sin. That's why when you look to my works to prove salvation, you've got to be out of your mind to think your works prove your salvation, because your works are tainted and corrupted with sin. And how many works If you break one point of the law, you're guilty of all of it. So how many works then prove you're saved? When you've broken one, you're still guilty of all the law. You are a constant in a perpetual state of being a lawbreaker of all the laws because you're constantly in violation of at least one law in some way, shape or form. It's fascinating to me that AI can tear this all apart. And remember, the only reason we got here is because AI was reviewing a sermon on James 2, 14 through 26, and AI kind of called out, this is a problem here. This is logical consistency issues here. So I wanted to see if AI would, what it would do with lordship salvation. And guess what it did? It 100% connected it with Catholicism, which has been my hypotheses for like, I don't know, 10 years, 15 years. and people got mad at me. And guess what? AI never once accused me of being an antinomian. Not once. And in fact, later on, I ask it about antinomianism and it says, and guess what it says? Lordship salvation, the problem with lordship salvation has nothing to do with easy believism or cheap grace or antinomianism. The problem with lordship salvation is the difference between infused and imputed righteousness. Lordship salvation at its very heart does not like imputed righteousness. It believes in an infused righteous system, practically speaking. And I've said before, when everyone starts griping about Catholicism, I'm like, don't complain about Catholicism. Don't say one thing about Catholicism until you can demonstrate to me that you clearly understand the difference between infused and imputed righteousness, because that's the issue. And if you go over here condemning Catholicism, well, and everything you believe about salvation screams infused righteousness, then why are you yelling about Catholicism? You believe in an infused righteous system. All right, we will stop there. This was AI versus Lordship Salvation part one. We'll continue to work on this. Add mold shape until we can Well, we'll see where it ends up. We will see where it ends up. All right. Now, what I'm going to do here, I'm going to check something. All right. Well, our live numbers were not great today, but that's OK. Hopefully, the download and streaming numbers will be better. Or, look, I'm just going to be honest, remember when I was talking to AI about this very concept and that relationship to the James 2, 14 through 26 sermon? Remember what AI told me? That my way of thinking puts me outside of the majority of Christianity. When I go after this lordship way of thinking, I know, I would not be welcomed in any church. I don't have a home in Christianity, but you know what, what's kind of sad is I'm now the outsider to Christianity. I'm an outsider in the very Christianity that claims some allegiance and some connection to the Reformation while literally denying the key teaching of the Reformation. How ridiculous is that situation? I simply want to go back to, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We're supposed to believe in imputed righteousness. all of this is a contradiction of imputed righteousness and then they're like, be gone, you're not welcome, you're the heretic, I'm not going to your church, you're an antinomian, you're wrong. Well, you say I'm wrong, you're the one denying the Reformation. In fact, it would be better for me, for me just to go back to the Catholic Church because I'm not even welcome in the non-Catholic world. I just said, well, just embrace infused righteousness and say, well, if you can't beat them, join them. At least I'll go back to the original infused righteous idea and stop pretending with all these fake Protestants and fake non-Catholics who are more Catholic than Catholics. I mean, what's even the point of even participating? I'm, I'm the outsider. It's kind of frustrating when you try to simply say, wait guys, Hey, Hey, let's consider this. And it's like, no, you're wrong. Okay. Well, go play your little Christian games where you convince yourself that whatever you think you are, it's just, it's embarrassing. It really is. It's just frustrating. Because any of the debates I've had with this never, they never end up anywhere good because no one really wants to discuss this. And, but AI is more than willing to discuss it. AI is like, well, yeah, it's complete contradiction and denial of imputed righteousness. I'm like, well, thank you, AI. Thank you. So yeah, me and AI just need to just go to church with AI. AI will be like, you're welcomed here. And I'll be, thank you, AI. Like, you're OK. You're not an outsider here. If you go to those other churches, you're going to be an outsider. But you can hang out with me. So me and AI will hang out together on Sundays. All right. Everyone have a great day. God bless.