Antinomianism is One Gospel Which is Not Another
If works salvation is one heresy I am fighting against, the other is Antinomianism which is one gospel which is not another. In fact, it is a false gospel that declares eternal security to be the right to sin all they please. Although salvation cannot be lost but the idea of teaching that a man can be saved and not result to any righteousness is just another dead end. Antinomians sing the happy anthem from within, "I am free of the Law and I can sin all the day more." without any fear of the consequences of one's sin.
I. The difference of a dead faith and a living faith
James 2:14-26 warns about dead faith against a real, lively faith. Many times, James has been misrepresented either by the works salvation crowd or is overlooked by the Antinomians. I have observed therefor how Antinomianism is either taught directly or indirectly by many churches today especially among the "Easy Christianity" churches that have chosen to dispose of sound doctrine which they want salvation without sanctification. This is indeed the very heresy of easy believism which today has also sent a lot of people to Hell aside from works salvation.
What does it mean faith without works is dead? It is not to suggest that salvation is by works but rather, a true and salvation generates works. A true salvation is not in a permanent state of stagnation, a true Christian may backslide but he or she is destined to endure to the end. If your salvation is real, then it ought to produce good works in the growth of the Christian. Remember the warning that you can say that I have faith but have not works, such a salvation is indeed a sham. I remembered how Pastor Tony Bispo once said in one of the many services of Bible Baptist Church-Katipunan in one of the many services that I attended saying, "If you say you are saved and your lifestyle is different, I put a huge question mark on that!" I couldn't agree more and I have every right to doubt I am saved if I my lifestyle is different.
Hebrews 11 is the hallmark of faith proving that Paul and James do not contradict each other. What James meant by faith without works is dead is that if the faith does not produce works then that faith is really not genuine. In the hallmark of faith remember the great works that were wrought by faith? It was by faith that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain, it was by faith that made Noah build the Ark, it was by faith that causes Moses to return to Egypt to accomplish his mission, it was by faith that the harlot Rahab sided with the true and the living God and it was by faith that the martyrs chose not to be delivered. When faith is planted, it is expected to grow.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said this about conversion:
Another proof of the conquest of a soul for Christ will be found in a real change of life. If a man does not live differently from what he did before, both at home and abroad, his repentance needs to be repented of and his conversion is a fiction. Not only action and language but spirit and temper must be changed... Abiding under the power of any known sin is a mark of our being servants of sin for his "servants ye are to whom ye obey." Idle are the boasts of a man who harbors with himself the love of any transgression. He may feel what he likes and believe what he likes, he is still in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity while a single sin rules his heart and life. True regeneration implants a hatred of all evil and where one sin is delighted in, the evidence is fatal to a sound hope... There must be harmony between life and the profession. A Christian professes to renounce sin; and if he does not do so, his very name is an imposture.
Spurgeon himself was a great preacher during the 1800s and I don't deny that he had written over 3,000 sermons. I am thankful for John F. Macarthur and Phil Johnson who have taken time to actually compile much of Spurgeon's works at the Spurgeon archive. That site has been a great resource site. When I think of why Macarthur himself was accused of teaching works salvation, it was taken out of context. After reading through "Hard to Believe" and "The Gospel According to Jesus", I have thought of how "Easy Christianity" has diluted the Gospel to the heresy of easy believism which has produced a lot of false converts here and there.
Whenever I state those words, I get the blank stare from the "Easy Christianity" crowd who while they claim to be Baptists and Evangelicals, they say, "Spurgeon is no Baptist, he makes salvation so complicated. The fact he put his hand in his waistcoat like a good old Jesuit while he was pointing to the Bible proves he's not a Christian." I beg to laugh at the stupidity of these people because for one utterly absurd reason that they argue based on the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Suppose if two Jesuits shook hands and two godly men shook hands, were the two godly men, don't tell me the two godly men were Jesuits? Sad to say but most people have used the heretical Church of Rome to measure heresy than the Bible. Supposed if a godly preacher had floors as checkered as the Vatican, do not tell me then that godly preacher was secretly a Jesuit in disguise? I have seen the Jesuits do as Christians do like feeding projects but that does not make the feeding projects wrong. I judge the actions of the Jesuits' actions by God's Word, not by some mere guilt of association argument.
When I think of why they hate the preaching of the great godly Spurgeon even to discredit him is because such a man attacks the notion that you can have faith without works. You can have works without faith but not faith without works. When I think of faith, does not it bring forth faithfulness and does not faithless means without faith? If a man or a woman is unfaithful to one's spouse, he or she cheats on his or her spouse. A true faith is not faithlessness as both of them are contradictory to each other. If you are truly saved, you cannot remain in a state of faithlessness, never grow and remain as carnal as ever without the chastising of the LORD.
II. Salvation by grace brings forth good works as a result
These Antinomians may say, "Salvation is by grace, not by works." That is true but how often is it that Ephesians 2:8-9 is quoted but verse 10 is omitted? I have observed how some can defend eternal security without understanding what it means or how some misinterpret the perseverance of the saints without understanding what it means. I am sick and tired explaining the Biblical idea of eternal security to both sides who misinterpret the glorious truth. The works salvation crowd and the Arminians believe it's a promotion to a life of sin while the Antinomians believe that being saved either directly or indirectly gives one freedom from the Law to live as one pleases.
Jude 1:4 calls such unsaved people as those who turn God's grace for lasciviousness. I find the idea that a person gets saved but never results to any change to be utterly unbiblical. Some have even resolved to misquoting 1 Corinthians 6:11 to say, "Well we've been justified." but they ignore the meaning in context with the words, "And such were some you..." and in context, one can see that prior to salvation, you were unrighteous. Homosexuals, thieves, extortioners and the like shall not inherit the Kingdom of God because they are unsaved people as evidenced by their actions. To say that a homosexual can receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior but never be saved from such sin is heresy. When a person delights in sin and has no guilt whatsoever or if they don't receive chastisement, it's time to really say, "You may never be saved to start with because your lifestyle shows me you have no fear of God."
Ephesians 2:10 is clear that a Christian has been saved to serve, not to sin and even if somebody says, "Well I believe that." but preaches, "Can't live the way you want equals works salvation." or "You can be saved and still be living like the devil. Why can't you accept them as brethren?" I am sorry but the Bible says no such thing that even if an immature Christian still has issues but such a person is still a true convert. That person may chicken out for now but when the real persecution comes, such a person may stand boldly by the grace of God. It always amazed me how somebody can chicken out, hide in fear of persecution but suddenly stands brave as ever when the fist or the knife is near. That my friends is the truth of the perseverance of the saints.
Spurgeon said this in regards to good works from his sermon "The Agreement of Salvation by Grace with Walking in Good Works":
But now we come to this second most important part of the subject, namely, THE WALK OF SALVATION. Those who have believed in Christ, and have been the subjects of the Spirit's work, are now "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in them." God desires that His people should abound in good works. It is his great object to produce a people fit to commune with himself: a holy people, with whom he can have fellowship in time and in eternity. He wishes us not only to produce good works, but to abound in them; and to abound in the highest order of them. He would have us become imitators of himself as dear children, possessing the same moral attributes as the Father in heaven possesses. Is it not written, "Be ye perfect, even as your rather which is in heaven is perfect"? Oh, that we came within measurable distance of this blissful consummation!
Titus 2:11-14 teaches this wonderful and dreadful truth that God's grace is no promoter of sin but it teaches true and real change in life and power over sin. If one is saved by God's grace then one is expected to be taught to live righteously by God's grace. For any good works that a Christian produces, it's nothing to do with maintaining salvation but rather it is the manifestation of one's life after salvation. It made me think of how a Christian can be told, "You are a good person." However in humility, a Christian may say, "No, it's the work of God in me. My good works are not my own. It was a result of being imputed by the righteousness of Christ." It is wonderful because I know that my God will not let me live in error. It is dreadful to those who want to be saved and yet they are not at all regenerated. A salvation without a regeneration is no salvation at all, because if you receive salvation then be ready for regeneration.
Hebrews 12:5-6 is also clear that God chastises those He loves. I cannot imagine sinning all I please if God is a loving Father. A loving earthly father would not allow his child to sin nor would he fail to rebuke. Proverbs 13:24 says whoever does not discipline one's child, hates his child. Today, love is so confused with spoiling a child rotten. If you truly love your child, you would discipline them when they do wrong because it will harm him or her. Those who claim that they love their children by spoiling them are indirectly hating them. Although they do care about their children to a certain extent but they do not really care about their well-being, just their children's stupidity. If my Heavenly Father is so loving, He would not hesitate to chastise me like after I got saved, I could only experience Him using other people to straighten up my path and to help me mature in the Christian life.
III. Eternal security is more than once saved, always saved
I have gone to some churches that although they didn't agree with John Calvin's doctrine of unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace however had a slightly different point of view of total depravity and the perseverance of the saints. I could still remember these words from Bible Baptist Church-Katipunan, Cebu that although it is not a Calvinist church but wrote this truth of the perseverance of the saints:
XV. Of The Perseverance Of The Saints
We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare; and that they are kept by the power of God through faith unto eternal salvation.
Psalm 121:3; Matthew 6:20; 13:19-21; John 8:31-32; 10:28-29; 16:8; Romans 8:28,35-39; Philippians 1:6; Colossians 1:21-23; Hebrews 1:14; 1Peter 1:5; 1John 2:19
Having read through the works of Harry Allen Ironside on Eternal Security, although he rejected the doctrine of Calvinism, he wrote the following to justify the perseverance of the saints:
What about Matthew 24:13? "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Weymouth says, “He who stands firm unto the end.”
The writer of this question recognizes that primarily this refers to the great tribulation, but it is a principle that I believe every preacher of the Word should insist on. There is no use in people professing conversion, going forward, raising their hands, going to an inquiry room, joining the church, getting baptized, taking communion, teaching a Sunday school class, doing missionary work, giving their money for Christ’s work, and going on like this for years, and then by-and-by drifting away, turning from it all, denying the Lord that bought them, refusing absolutely the authority of Jesus Christ, and yet professing to be saved. It is endurance that proves the reality of a work of grace within the soul. That is the difference between one who is merely reformed by the teaching of Christianity and one who has been born again. You see this very clearly when you contrast Peter and Judas.
Peter slipped and sinned grievously, but in spite of it all he endured to the end. Jesus said, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," and though his outward life for a brief period was not what it should be, his faith remained, and Jesus restored him, and he went on to the end of his life until crucified for his Savior. Judas was one of the chosen, he was with the apostolic band but never was regenerated, and so when he sinned and sold his Lord, he turned away an apostate and died a suicidal death. Jesus said of him long before, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Not, "One of you is in danger of becoming a devil," but "One of you is a devil." And we are told: "Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place" (Acts 1:25). Peter was a backslider, Judas was an apostate, and there is a great difference between the two. If a man says, "I am saved," let him prove it by going on. That is why I say we should not be afraid of the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. Some say, "But I knew a man who was a wonderful Christian, and now he has given it all up and says he is still saved." He is only deceiving himself. The next time you see him you tell him that the Bible says, "He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." There is no use your carrying on a profession if your life does not prove it to be real. Men can misuse any doctrine.
From the lesson of Ironside, we learn that Peter and Judas Iscariot are differentiated. Judas Iscariot was a false convert, Peter was a true convert. Peter may have slipped off, denied Christ but he was still a saved man. The proof of him being saved.
Pink writes of Judas Iscariot from his book "Eternal Security":
The case of Judas.
Though his be not nearly so difficult of solution, nevertheless it is admittedly a very mysterious one, and there are features about it which pertain to none other. But that which more immediately concerns us here is to show there is nothing in this awful example which militates in the least against the doctrine for which we are contending. That Judas is eternally lost there is no room to doubt: that he was ever saved there is no evidence whatever to show. Should it be said that the Lord would never have ordained a bad man to be one of His favored apostles, the answer is, that God is not to be measured by our standards of the fitness of things: He is sovereign over all, doing as He pleases and giving no account of His matters. Moreover, He has told us that our thoughts and ways are not as His. The mystery of iniquity is a great deep, yet faith has full confidence in God even where it cannot understand.
That Christ was in nowise deceived by Judas is clear from John 6:64, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him.” Furthermore, we are told that He declared on this solemn occasion, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil" (v. 70). Notably and blessedly did that act make manifest the moral excellency of the Saviour. When the Son became incarnate He averred "Lo I come to do Thy will, 0 God" (Heb. 10:7), and God’s will for Him was revealed “in the volume of the Book.” In that Book it was written that a familiar friend should lift up his heel against Him (Ps. 41:9). This was a sore trial, yet the perfect Servant balked not at it, but complied therewith by calling a "devil" to be one of His closest attendants. Christ rendered full obedience to the Father’s pleasure though it meant having the son of perdition in most intimate association with Him for three years, constantly dogging His steps even when He retired from His carping critics to be alone with the twelve.
Appeal is made by the Arminians to John 17:12, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: those that Thou gayest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Yet there is nothing here which supports their contention. Judas was "given to" Christ and “chosen” by Him as an apostle, but he was never given to Him by a special act of grace, nor “chosen in Him” and united to Him as a member of Him, as the rest of the apostles and as all the election of grace are. This is clear from His words in John 13:19, "I speak not of you all (cf. vv. 10, 11): I know whom I have chosen"; that is chosen unto eternal life, for otherwise He had chosen Judas equally with the others. Let it be carefully noted that in John 17:12 Christ says not “none of them is lost except the son of perdition.” In using the disjunctive "but" He sharply contrasted Judas from the rest, showing he belonged to an entirely different class: compare Matt. 12:4; Acts 27:22; Rev. 21:27, where the “but” is in direct opposition to what precedes.
Christ’s statement in John 17:12 was designed to show that there had been no failure in the trust committed to Him, but rather that He had complied with His commission to the last detail. It also served to assure the eleven of this, that their faith might not be staggered by the perfidy of their companion. It gave further proof that He had not been deceived by Judas, for before he betrayed Him, He terms him "the son of perdition." Finally, it declared God’s hand and counsel in it: Judas perished "that the Scripture might be fulfilled." Among the reasons why God ordered that there should be a Judas in the apostolate, we suggest it was in order that an impartial witness might bear testimony to the moral excellency of Christ: though in the closest possible contact with Him by day and night, he could find no flaw in Him, but confessed "I have betrayed the innocent blood" (Matt. 27:4). It was not from saving grace Judas "fell," but from “ministry, and apostleship” (Acts 1:25).
Another example indeed is King Saul as here's what Pink had to say about Saul and Solomon. On Saul, Pink writes:
The case of king Saul.
It is affirmed by Arminians that this king of Israel was a regenerate man. In support of this contention they appeal to a number of things recorded about him. First, that the prophet Samuel "took a vial of oil and poured it upon his head and kissed him" (1 Sam. 10:1). Second, because it is said that "God gave him another heart" (v. 9). Third, because we are told “the Spirit of God came upon him and he prophesied” (v. 11). Then it is pointed out that Saul acted in fearful presumption and disobedience (1 Sam. 13:9, 13), thereby displeasing the Lord so that it was announced the kingdom should be taken from him (vv. 13, 14). That because of God’s displeasure "the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him" (16:14). That later, when menaced by the Philistines, he "enquired of the Lord" but "the Lord answered him not" (28:6). Finally, how that he had recourse to a witch and ultimately fell upon the field of battle sorely wounded, and ended his life by taking a sword and falling upon it (31:4), thereby sealing his doom by the unpardonable act of suicide.
In reply thereto we would say: we grant the conclusion that Saul passed out into an eternity of woe, but we do not accept the inference that he was ever a regenerate man. At the outset it must be remembered that the very installation of Saul upon the throne expressed the Lord’s displeasure against Israel, for as He declared to the prophet “I gave thee a king in Mine anger (cf. 1 Sam. 8:5,6) and took him away in My wrath” (Hos. 13:11). Concerning the three things advanced by Arminians to show that Saul was a regenerate man, they are no proofs at all. Samuel’s taking of the vial of oil and kissing him were simply symbolic actions, betokening the official status that had been conferred upon Saul: this is quite clear from the remainder of the verse, where the prophet explains his conduct, "Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over His inheritance?" (10:1) — not because "The Lord delighteth in thee" or because thou art "a man after His own heart." It is not said the Lord gave Saul "a new heart," but "another". "Moreover, the Hebrew word (haphak) is never translated "gave" elsewhere, but in the great majority of instances "turned": it simply means the Lord turned his heart from natural timidity (see 1 Sam. 10:21, 22) to boldness (cf. 1 Sam. 11:1-7; 13:1-4). That the Spirit of God came upon him so that he prophesied is no more than is said of Balaam (Num. 22:38; 24:2) and Caiaphas (John 11:51).
On Solomon a king who had grievously backslid but later returned to God, Pink writes on the same book "Eternal Security":
The case of Solomon.
This is admittedly the most difficult one presented in Scripture, and it is our belief that God meant it to be such. His history is such a solemn one, his fall so great, his backsliding so protracted, that had his spiritual recovery and restoration to fellowship with the Lord been made unmistakably plain, a shelter would be provided for the careless and presumptuous. In Solomon the monarchy of Israel reached its zenith of splendor, for he reaped the harvest of glory for which David both toiled and suffered, entering into such a heritage as none else before or since has ever enjoyed. But in Solomon, too, the family of David entered its decline, and for his sins the judgments of God fell heavily on his descendants. Thus he is set before us as an awful warning of the fearful dangers which may surround and then overthrow the loftiest virtues and most dazzling mundane greatness.
That Solomon was a regenerate man we doubt not: that he enjoyed the favor of God to a most marked degree the inspired narrative makes plain. That he suffered a horrible decline in character and conduct is equally evident. Neither the special wisdom with which he was endowed, the responsibilities of the exalted position he occupied, nor the superior privileges which were his, rendered him proof against the temptations he encountered. He fell from his first estate and left his first love. His honor and glory were sadly eclipsed, and so far as the historical account of the books of Kings and Chronicles is concerned, he was buried in shame, the dark shadows of a misspent life and wrecked testimony shrouded his grave. Over the fate of Solomon there rests such a cloud and silence that many good men conclude he was lost: on the other hand there are those who do not believe that he so fell as to lose the favor of God and perish eternally.
With others, it is our own conviction that before the end of his earthly pilgrimage Solomon was made to repent deeply of his waywardness and wickedness. We base this conviction upon three things. First, the fact that he was the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes (1:1) and that it was penned at a later period of his life than the Proverbs and Canticles (see 1 Kings 4:32). Now to us it seems impossible to ponder Ecclesiastes without being struck with its prevailing note of sadness and without feeling that its writer is there expressing the contrition of one who has mournfully returned from the paths of error. In that book he speaks out the bitter experiences he had gone through in pursuing a course of folly and madness and of the resultant “vexation of spirit”—see especially 7:2, 3, 26, 27 which is surely a voicing of his repentance. Second, hereby God made good His express promise to David concerning Solomon: “I will be his Father and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: but My mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul” (2 Sam. 7:14, 15). Third, centuries after his death the Spirit declared, “Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God” (Neh. 13:26).
A quote from Arthur W. Pink on the Sermon on the Mount says:
Some of the propagators of the salvation-without-works error during the last century have assumed the garb of the orthodox and thereby obtained a hearing from many who had never listened to them had their real characters been suspected. They have gone to the opposite extreme and preached a "gospel" as far removed from the Truth as the Romish lie of salvation by works. They teach that while good works from Christians are certainly desirable yet they are not imperative, the absence of them involving merely the loss of certain "millennial" honors and not the missing of heaven itself. They have interpreted those words of Christ’s "It is finished" in such a way as to lull multitudes of souls into a false peace, as though He wrought something at the Cross which renders it needless for sinners to repent, forsake their idols, renounce the world before they can be saved; that "nothing is required from them but their simple acceptance of Christ by faith;" that once they have "rested on His finished work"—no matter what their subsequent lives—they are "eternally secure." So widely has this fatal doctrine been received, so thoroughly have these "ravenous wolves" deceived the religious world by their "sheep’s clothing," that with rare exceptions anyone who now denounces this deadly evil is to call down upon himself the charge of being a "Legalist" or "Judaizer."
At the very words of Pink, he was also the very same person who wrote the wonderful classic called "Eternal Security" where he sought to differentiate the true convert from the false convert. Arthur Pink warned from the same book that taught the truth of once saved, always saved also wrote this warning of those who think they are truly saved when they were never saved to start with:
Let us say once more, and it cannot be insisted upon too frequently and emphatically in this degenerate age, that the perseverance of saints which is depicted in Holy Writ is not a simple continuance of Christians on this earth for a number of years after regeneration and faith have been wrought in them, and then their being admitted as a matter of course to Heaven, without any regard to their moral history in the intervening period. No, though that may be how incompetent novices have portrayed it, and how Antinomians have perverted it, yet such a concept is as far removed from the reality as darkness is from light. The perseverance of the saints is a steady pressing forward in the course on which they entered at conversion—an enduring unto the end in the exercise of faith and in the practice of holiness. The perseverance of the saints consists in a continuing to deny self, to mortify the lusts of the flesh, to resist the Devil, to fight the good fight of faith; and though they suffer many falls by the way, and receive numerous wounds from their foes, yet, if “faint,” they “hold on their way.”
Spurgeon also said this of Antinomianism:
I my first pastorate, I had often to battle with Antinomonians- that is, people who held that, because they believed themselves to be elect, they might live as they liked. I hope that the heresy has to a great extent died out, but it was sadly prevalent in my early ministerial days. I knew one man, who stood on the table of a public house, and held a glass of gin in his hand, declaring that he was one of the chosen people of God. They kicked him out of the public-house and when I heard of it, I felt that it served him right. Even those ungodly men said that they did not want any such 'elect" people there. There is no one who can live in sin- drinking, swearing, lying and so on- who can truly declare that he is one of the Lord's chosen people... From my very soul I detest everything that in at least savours of the Antinomianism which leads people to prate about being secure in Christ while they are living in sin. We cannot be saved by or for our good works neither can we be saved without good works. Christ will never save any of His people in their sins; He saves His people from their sins. If a man is not desiring a holy life in the sight of God, with the help of the Holy Spirit, he is still "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity"... the idea of "saving faith" apart from good works, is ridiculous. The saved man is not a perfect man but his heart's `become perfect, he is always panting after perfection and the day will come when he will be perfected, after the image of his once crucified and now glorified Saviour in knowledge and true holiness.
While I was minister at Waterbeach, I used to have a man sitting in front of the gallery who would always nod his head when I was preaching what he considered sound doctrine, although he was about as bad as an old hypocrite as ever lived. When I talked to him about justification, down went his head; when I preached about imputed righteousness, down it went again. I was a dear good man in his estimation, without doubt. So I thought so I remarked, "There is a great deal of difference between God electing you and you electing yourself; a vast deal of difference between God justifying you by His Spirit and your justifying yourself by a false belief or presumption; this is the difference," said I - and the old man at once put me down as a rank Arminian - "you who have elected yourselves and justified yourselves, have no marks of the Spirit of God; you have no evidence of genuine piety, you are not holy men and women, you can live in sin, you can walk as sinners walk, you have the image of the Devil upon you and yet you call yourselves children of God. One of the first evidences that anyone is a child of God is that he hates sin with a perfect hatred and seeks to live a holy, Christlike life." The old Antinomian did not approve of that doctrine but I knew that I was preaching what was revealed in the Word of God.
Philippians 1:6-7 states that to whom God starts a good work, He is bound to finish it on the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. I find it stupid to teach that a person can get saved, sin all they please, die and go to Heaven. Now do I add works to faith when I say that? Instead, what I am against is the idea of the Christian is able to sin as he or she pleases. If you can't live the way you want after you are saved, it's not works salvation, it's a result of salvation. God begins a good work in every believer and He promises to finish it. Remember, whom God saves he also sanctifies. So I have every reason to doubt any man who revels in sin is not an immature Christian but such a person should be considered a false convert.
As Spurgeon says, "If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord's will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Saviour, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness."