It was a reaction to easy-believism which basically said if you agree with certain Biblical truths you're saved even if you continued living your life as you always did, committing sin, etc.

Is getting saved hard?

Christ did the hard part, you know.

If it's submitting, following, striving, obeying then it's not faith.

It's very hard. Indeed it impossible for man to save himself but with God all things are possible. But even "the righteous are scarecly saved". 1 Peter 4:18

Well, the righteous will scarecely be saved from the judgement of God

But the Spirit enables the sinner to submit, strive, obey. It's all from the power of the Spirit indwelling the believer

They are part of his household.

That's why they get it first.

It's all from the power of God in the soul of the believer. It's not by his own strength.

And some of the righteous are living wickedly.

Yes they do I don't deny that.

But if someone who claims to be saved was living a wicked life and they showed no signs of guilt about it I would question whether they are saved

Be the guy in James 2 then, go wild.

What do you mean?

"Show me your faith without works."

You can question, but asking questions does not make a thing so, or not so.

You understand that question is facetious? The whole point of the question is that one can't show faith without works. James is arguing that true faith always produces fruit.

There is no such concept as "true faith".

There is faith.

There is "dead faith"

There is no "true faith".

True faith is an expression that is used because it's useful

When faith is dead, what is it that is dead?

Covenant of works does not appear in the Bible but is very useful theological shorthand

The word Trinity does not appear in the Bible either

"Covenant of works" is nonsense.

I thought you were a Calvinist?

I was 😃

What church are you a member of?

'cmon, call me an Arminian.

Ditsem! @Malcolm the Seceder, you just advanced to level 18!

Do you want to visit?

Ditsem! @Derde, you just advanced to level 4!

No I want to know from what context you are arguing. You accused MacArthur of not following Calvinism and I was responding to that. I assumed you considered yourself a Calvinist

There's a spectrum of Calvinism. TULIP pretends to answer great philosophical questions about salvation, but it does not claim to be the gospel. That's old-school calvinism. It's broadly compatible with salvation by grace through faith without works.

However, when you follow it to the hard conclusions and you stick to them doggedly, you are preaching salvation by faith with works.

(And for a bonus, you don't need the gospel, since it's God's secret election that ultimately saves, but that's off the point.)

TULIP was a response to specific complaints raised by the Remonstrants against the teaching of the Reformed churches. Those five points were never meant to encompass all Biblical teaching. There's a lot more to being Reformed than just the five points which is why, for example, MacArthur isn't Reformed. But those five points do accurately summarise the Biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.

Which is why churches which use the Canons of Dordt as part of their offical subscription also subscribe other catechisms. Because on their own the Canons don't sufficiently summarise the Reformed faith

The British Presbyterian Churches subscribe the Westminster Standards which encompass the teaching of the Canons