A Quote from Zane Hodges
September 26th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
As we launch our discussion on lordship salvation, it is perhaps helpful to cite an extended quote from Zane Hodges (one of the leading opponents to the lordship position). Understanding the “Free Grace” position (from quotes like this one) will help explain what lordship salvation is safeguarding against. Thanks to Jonathan Moorhead for heads up on this quote.
The quote itself comes from a message that Zane Hodges delivered at the Church of the Open Door, pastored by G. Michael Cocoris. The series of tapes is entitled, “Great Themes in the Book of Hebrews.” (The online source for this quote, along with several other similar quotes, comes from here.)
[Beginning of Quote — by Zane Hodges]
I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God’s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary. And about the time when he and his wife left Dallas his wife contracted a very serious illness which over the years got progressively worse until she was reduced to being a complete invalid, and after the death of his wife I visited my friend (who now lives in the Midwest and who teaches Ancient History in a secular university).
And as we sat in the living room together, face to face, he told me very frankly but graciously that he no longer claimed to be a Christian at all, that he no longer believed the things that he once preached and taught, and the situation was even worse than he described because I heard through others that in the classroom on the university campus he often mocked and ridiculed the Christian faith. As I sat in that living room I was very painfully aware that it was impossible for me to talk that man into changing his mind. It was impossible for me to talk him back to the conviction he had once held. It was impossible for me to renew him to repentance. You want to find someone harder to deal with than an unsaved person? Find a person like that….
Oh how disgraceful for a man to have known the truth and proclaimed the truth and then to deny the truth! He has put the Son of God to an open shame! Well you say, “I guess he’s headed for hell, right? I guess he’s headed for eternal damnation. He’s renounced his Christian faith.” Wait a minute. I didn’t say that, and neither does the writer of Hebrews. Let me remind you that Jesus said, “I am the bread of life. He that cometh to Me shall never hunger and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.” And He also said, “He that cometh to Me I shall in no wise cast out.”… God’s will is that He lose no one (John 6:37-40). He has never lost anyone and He never will! And I grieve because my friend and brother has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him. He has lost his faith but Christ has not lost him! Do you believe in the grace of God?
[End of Quote — Emphasis added]
That is an astounding conclusion, especially in light of the New Testament’s emphasis on the dangers and consequences of apostasy. Nonetheless, it is statements like this that characterize the ”Free Grace” (non-lordship) position, and help underscore the need for a biblical response.
1 John 2:18-19: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for it they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
This is absolutely frightning. I mean, I was actually confused yesterday when I noticed that “Lordship Salvation” was a debate( For some). I knew what “lordship Salvation” was before I heard the term, because it is Biblical. This reminds me of purgatory, or universalism. How scary that people with good intentions teach such wrong things….Lets pray for this author and all who cling to this message.
-Steven
The mixture of the no-lordship gospel with an unbiblical view of security and the complete absence of any doctrine on the perseverance of the saints can only be considered a disaster. Thanks for the post and the quote, Nate.
I was in college at BJU while this debate stirred the nest. For me it was a defining time when I began to see God, my Bible and His Work in a new refreshing way. Here was a guy (John MacArthur)- apparently a heretic - who was laying out from the text of Scripture what I had, in my own closet, concluded to be the truth about the Gospel. My thoughts were in seed form, but when I began to read Zane’s and Charles Ryrie’s books along side of “The Gospel According to Jesus” my soteriology began to take shape.
I do sense a resurgence of the “free grace” position among the ranks and the person in the pew. So, it is a doctrine I will need to keep pressing…
Rod
Here is another unbelievable quote from Hodges:
“People are not saved by believing that Jesus died on the cross; they are saved by believing in Jesus for eternal life, or eternal salvation.”
Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14 (Spring 2001): 10.
Bill,
Thank you for that quote. It underscores the extreme statements that Free Grace advocates make.
For those who are interested, here is a site that outlines more of what Zane Hodges teaches. The hermeneutical bungee-jumping that is required to support his position is, well, simply absurd.
To summarize, Hodges teaches that a person can be described (in Scripture) as illegitimate, without God, a child of the devil, an antichrist, an apostate, and one who will not inherit the kingdom of God but be cast into the outer darkness… and yet still be saved!
There comes a point where, in reading Hodges, it’s hard to even know how to respond, except to say… this is ridiculous. Or even more to the point: This is not the gospel as it is taught in the New Testament.
This is a very serious matter. In the last 50 years we have been programmed into thinking that this easy-believism is biblical. Isn’t it also interesting that church attendance is down. Many people say that they want God to send revival. Think about this…Why would God send a revival based on a message that doesn’t lift Him up to a position of supremacy? Why would God send revival to people who just want to escape hell and not pledge their allegience to Him? The answer is He wouldn’t and He won’t. We must get the message right if we truly want revival. Repentance and obedience gives God the glory that he is so extremely worthy of. Thanks for sharing truth. God Bless!
The problem: The king’s subjects are in rebellion against him, and the king declares the penalty of death for all who refuse to lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy.
Lordship solution: The people lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy.
Easy-believism solution: The king withdraws the penalty. Nothing else changes.
Nate,
Although the website you give is contrary to Zane Hodges, the same website takes a stand against Lordship Salvation. The website has many articles contra-Lordship theology.
The statement is only “incredible” if one has accepted the presuppositional theology of the Lordship Salvationist. Rather than go to a text, and show by a well-reasoned exposition of it that Zane’s statements are false, you merely emote your “shocked” stance and end with a prooftext that most definitely does not support your claim.
For a very concise and well-written expositional and exegetical treatment of 1 John 2:19 click here:
1 John 2:19 Commentary
Antonio,
Thank you for your comment.
You are right in pointing out that the site I linked to earlier (regarding Zane Hodges) is not a pro-Lordship website. I apologize if that was confusing to anyone. The only reason I linked there was that I felt they accurately summarized Hodges’s teachings (which I believe are similar to those promoted by you on your website).
In both this thread and in the comment thread on yesterday’s article, you have repeatedly accused us of proof-texting. But our reason for presenting the lordship position in summary fashion with multiple Scripture references is simply because we are still introducing the subject. We will explore various passages in much greater depth over the upcoming weeks.
Moreover, prooftexting is only prooftexting if the references in question are being misused or taken out of context. You can accuse us of prooftexting if you like. But I think the posts yet to come will show that honest exegesis necessarily leads to the lordship view, and leaves the free-grace alternative hermeneutically untenable.
As Paul told the Romans, “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Nate,
Thank you for your courteous reply. I look forward to your coming editions.
Antonio
PS:
You will find that contextually, “calling on the name of the Lord” and “confess[ing] with your mouth” in Romans 10 are synonymous. You will also find that “calling on the name of the Lord” and such like phrases signify a Christian/regenerate activity (do a word search) which appeals to Christ for temoral deliverance. Further down in the context, you will note, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed?”. This further demonstrates my point. Belief comes first for regeneration (with the heart one believes and is justified) and confession or calling on the name of the Lord comes chronologically later (resulting in temporal salvation).
Antonio said, “Belief comes first for regeneration (with the heart one believes and is justified) and confession or calling on the name of the Lord comes chronologically later (resulting in temporal salvation).”
So then you believe there are “believers” who are not regenerate, void of the Holy Spirit and have never called on the name of the Lord? This seems to be the end result of your logic. Just trying to understand your statement.
Mr. Lamey,
Please re-read my statement and then yours.
They are non-sequitor.
When one believes in Christ they are justified. When one confesses with the mouth, calling on the name of the Lord they are saved (in a temporal sense). Calling on the name of the Lord (calling = appealing) is appealing to the Lord to deliver from temporal difficulties.
Antonio
Like I said I’m just trying to understand your statements since they appear to be fairly novel and not well represented by the majority of people who have read the Scriptures for 2,000 years. Thanks for the attempt at clarification.
The real question that Antonio has to answer is this: if Lordship theology is works righteousness (and that’s his position as he has presented to me on at least 3 occations), what is the definition of “works” he is using — and why doesn’t it disqualify the act of “believing” but it does, in fact, disqualify the act of “obedience” which is manifest in “repentence”.
I look forward to the rest of this series, and Nate’s interaction with Antonio.
Nate,
For a fuller explanation of Romans 10:9-10 from a Free Grace perspective, you can read chapter 8, “If I Don’t Confess Him, Do I Possess Him?” (i.e., pp. 116-123) from R. Larry Moyer’s book on evangelism entitled Free and Clear. The entire book is available online at the following address:
http://www.evantell.org/Read_online/books/freeclear.pdf
Cordially.
Hermeneutical Bungee Jumping? (lol! I’ve NEVER head that one before)
Anyway, it seems to me that from the Zane quote, the “Free Grace” fellas have something in common with the open theists (like Boyd and Saunders), theistic evolutionists (like Lamoureux) and the ex-conservative Charismatics (Like Deere and Arnott).
A few years ago I did a search for patterns in a few dozen works by several people in those those camps, I saw a continual pattern of “I used to think (whatever the biblical doctrine is) but then some crazy experience happened to me and I started doubting it, now I have abandoned it and amazingly find my new heresy ALL over the Bible!”
It seems that Zane thought his Bible College Professor friend was DEFINITELY saved, but somehow rejected the Lord after experiencing extreme suffering. So then Zane is left with two options:
1. He WAS a Christian before and is no longer a Christian.
2. He WAS NOT a Christian before and now his sufferings have only brought his unbelief to the surface. (Like the seed sown among the rocks or thorns in Mark 4:1-20)
What does Zane think? Obviously the first option.
What’s his justification for his friend being a Christian?
“I have a friend, and more than a friend, a man who labored with me side by side in the ministry of God’s Word in the little group that has become __________ Bible chapel and this friend has fallen away from the Christian faith. He graduated from Bob Jones University and from Dallas Theological Seminary.”
So Zane thinks his friend was saved because:
1. He was a pastor.
2. We graduated from conservative schools.
Is it any wonder that Hodge’s has trouble reconciling his experience with his doctrine? With the “if it simply looks like a duck…” test for salvation, no wonder he’s confused.
I gotta admit though, seeing people like that (pastors from Conservative schools) show their ‘true colors’ is TOUGH.
I once had a similar situation. A professor of counselling at a Conservative Canadian school (whom I had personally sat under for 2 years and who had a similar education to the guy Hodges was talking about) once left and took up a pastorate in Canada. One of my good buddies was working as associate pastor alongside him and being discipled with him. Then one day, after secretly struggling with tremendous depression, that pastor walked out back behind the church, put a shotgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.
My buddy who was associate pastor had a TINY bit of a struggle with how his mentor of 2 years, who had a PhD and no absence of biblical knowledge, could commit suicide.
I mean, that is a tough one, and I don’t want to talk about the Lordship issue too much in jest. None the less, CRAZY experiences like that don’t dictate truth. My buddy and I had to work through the whole “what is a Christian?” question, and ultimately we came to understand his experience in light of the scripture, not vice versa.
I would suggest, though only to certain people here, that the scripture vs. experience conundrum is what lies at the heart of this debate, as it does many others. Once you’ve made up your mind to reject biblical teaching, you can find anything you want in the Bible.
This debate is a difficult conversation. God grant us wisdom. I need to respond to the Armchair Theologian’s answer to Hodges’ quote: you should know that Free Grace proponents do not believe that anyone who is a true Christian can lose their salvation. I assume that you believe that Hodges’ friend never was a Christian from the beginning; the Free Grace teachers, on the other hand, if they believe such a one is truly a Christian, believe that he is quite obviously failing to persevere in discipleship and sanctification.
For my part, I believe that in order to be rescued from the penalty of sin, one must ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 16:31), and will thus completely trust that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord and Master (alone worthy of our obedience), and that He is the Christ of God, anointed of His Father to live for us (earning our peace with God through His righteousness), die for us (bearing the penalty of our unrighteousness), and rise for us (guaranteeing our life). The believer, now justified, will begin the life-long process of discipleship and sanctification, which is the result of justification, and I must also add, the gift of God.
I often struggle with the arguments of lordship salvation proponents, who often seem (to me) to merge what is required for justification with its inevitable fruit, sanctification. Sanctification is the result of justification, not its requirement.
I would appreciate any comments and corrections.
Mike, I don’t know if all Lordship proponents would agree with me on this, but I see the salvation offer to be as Jesus described: a new covenant. A covenant has parties, terms and an oath. When Paul says “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord…” as part of the salvation event, it is covenantal language. What does it mean to confess Jesus as Lord? It is not a requirement of sanctification, but a willing acceptance of the terms. Lordship is a term. To agree to that term is not a work, but it is “required for justification.”
Antonio,
Thank you for your comments above.
I responded to some of your other statements on the other thread, so I will wait for your response there before commenting more.
Also, we will be discussing Romans 10 more in the coming days here on Pulpit. So I will wait on my response to your interpretation of that passage.
But I do appreciate your willingness to interact. And I look forward to going to the Scriptures together (as our ultimate authority on these matters), in looking at how the New Testament delineates repentance and its relationship to salvation.
Also, I hope you were able to read John MacArthur’s most recent article (regarding the “retrospective on the lordship debate”). It provides some helpful introductory background to this entire discussion.
Thanks,
NB
Paul Lamey responding to Antonio said: “So then you believe there are ‘believers’ who are not regenerate,”
I am also a firm believer like you, Paul, that regeneration precedes faith. You conclude that Antonio’s position (faith precedes regeneration) results in the illogical idea of unregenerate believers. But this way of stating things can be turned against us. It could just as easily be argued that the postion that regeneration procedes faith results in regenerate unbelievers.
Gentlemen, Antonio does not believe that there are unregenerate believers! While not wanting to speak for him, I’ll add my two cents.
Antonio said:
Belief comes first for regeneration (with the heart one believes and is justified)…
(So we see here that belief results in regeneration.)
…and confession or calling on the name of the Lord comes chronologically later (resulting in temporal salvation)
Calling on the name of the Lord results in… what Antonio has called temporal salvation. He is contrasting eternal salvation with temporal salvation. Eternal deliverance with temporal deliverance.
The term salvation has become a term of art which we as evangelicals “know” means regeneration/salvation from Hell etc., but in fact the 1st century term means simply deliverance from something.
See Ro 13:11…
And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.
Notice that this use cannot be equated with regeneration/salvation from Hell etc. and seems instead to be eschatological (of some sort). Also salvation through childbirth is not talking about etrnal salvation from Hell but the type of deliverence we need in the here and now, perhaps deliverence from a sense of insignificance may work in the context because Paul has been talking about men lifting up holy hands in prayer in the public meetings.
At any rate Paul in speaking of the need to be public Christians who cry out to God is talking about a very practical here and now deliverence, not the need for eternal salvation.
God bless.
js
Bill,
You’re right to point out the problem with the converse perspective. If you read my comment I made no claim as to what I actually believe on the ordo salutis. I was trying to understand where Antonio was coming from.
I do see “logically” how some view regeneration as coming before faith but logic is often shut-out by the clarity of Scripture. I agree with George Zemek who has written “that the better part of biblical wisdom beckons us to junk all such ‘logical’ orders authored and defended by finite men and spend more time with the scriptural data, once again allowing the balance of the Bible to humble us.” I think the a more biblical solution to the “what preceeds what” debate is to view regeneration and faith as happening concurrently.
Hi all,
I have to agree with Steve above when he said “I knew what “lordship Salvation” was before I heard the term, because it is Biblical.”
When I first heard the gospel back in the late 70’s from a friend who got saved it took me just over two years before I actually trusted in Christ as my Savior. The reason was that I knew right away that the life I was living would have to change. The whole concept of the gospel was to bring us back into relationship with God, a relationship that was lost at the fall. I understood that I needed salvation because I was a sinner who was, obviously, living a life which was not pleasing to God. The obvious was when I turned to Christ I would start living a new life, and leaving an old one. I understood that before I was saved and when I did finally put my trust in Christ for salvation then my life did change. If Jesus is God, he has to be Lord.
I have seen over the years since then more emphasis on easy-believism. Young people I know who come back from Bible-camps or rally’s tend to say they “got saved” but do not seem to be any different than before. When I questioned these things and make reference to what the bible says some have gotten angry and ask “why do you keep bringing up the bible?” Could you imagine a new-born babe in Christ not wanting the bible being brought up. It’s not hard to see that the natural man would love to have the best of both worlds, Christ and the life they want to live. Not many admit this but some do. This is in stark contrast to Jesus’ teachings on the cost of discipleship. You can’t have Christ and the world, and this is what easy-believism seems to produce.
As far as falling away goes, I have also had a period in my life when I strayed from the Lord as a result of being angry over an unwanted divorce. I spent far too many years not walking in the Spirit, a “carnal Christian” I believe is the proper term. I wondered afterwards about these same issues and wondered if I was always saved during those years or if I fell away or what. But in looking back I realize that during that time I did not deny the faith, or say that I no longer believed those things but I acknowledged that I was rebelling against the Lord. I just tried to go on with life not thinking about it. I avoided Christians for the most part and occasionally made feeble attempts to go to church but was not consistent. By contrast some family members, near and dear to me, who have left the church after appearing to live Christian lives for a time are quick to admit that they do not want any part of “Christianity” now. From their own lips they admit they are not Christians and do not want to be. This is also consistent with the biblical teaching of those who “fell away”.
Through various circumstances the Lord brought me back to Himself and now I am serving faithfully, regretting the lost years, but looking forward. This shows too that those who belong to Him He will not lose. I have seen others who have strayed too but once again, they were clearly not happy at those times and were either making excuses or rationalizing their behavior but not denying the faith. This is consistent with scripture. Nobody is saying the Christian does not sin but clearly the ability to continue in sin and be unconcerned about it is not characteristic of the true believer.
Sanctification is the obvious outcome of salvation. Now that the relationship with God is restored (by grace through faith) I’m thankful that God does not just leave us to continue in a life that is unpleasing to Him. We were created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and God takes on the responsibility of sanctifying us as well as saving us. When I sin now I am in anguish over it, confess it, know that it is forgiven, and move on. I cannot consistently be in sin and say “well, it’s ok because I trust in Christ so I’m saved and I don’t have to worry about it because that would be works.” If the Spirit of God lives in me how could there not be a change. These are the real life experiences that I see in myself and those around me which are consistent with the teachings of scripture.
Although he stated it as a struggle I agree with Mike’s summary here in his post, that Sanctification is the result of justification, not its requirement. I would only add that it is an inevitable result.
thanks
john
Zane is left with two options:
1. He WAS a Christian before and is no longer a Christian.
2. He WAS NOT a Christian before and now his sufferings have only brought his unbelief to the surface. (Like the seed sown among the rocks or thorns in Mark 4:1-20)
What about this option? We can’t tell right now if his friend is or is not a Christian. If he is, then before he dies, he will repent of his unbelieving years and profess Christ again. If he never returns to the faith, then he never was a Christian. Zane can pray for his friend that the holy spirit will work in his heart and he will return to faith.
Sadie,
There’s another option Free Grace thinking holds that the Apostles and NT writers were well aware that a born again person could fully apostatize from the faith, and warned people to not drift because of the horrendous threats to true Christians.
Paul writes:
(1) …That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 1 Cor. 11:30
(2) …holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim. 1: 19-20 (that was 1 Timothy, now to go on to 2 Timothy…)
(3)Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 2 Tim. 2: 17-18
I see this as Paul speaking forthrightly of apostasy. But this offends man’s pride, so centuries of theology assume this is impossible.
God bless
Jodie
Sadie,
See 1 Cor 3 for Paul’s discussion of someone who will be saved but have now good works to show for it:
14If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Now here’s a controversy that ought to be much ado about nothing for Christians. However, it appears that many have their own problems and agendas which seem to be the lens through which they view life and faith and practice (which are all one and the same) rather than viewing life and faith and practice through the lens of Scriptures.
Luke 6:44-46 44 “For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. 46 “And why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
John 14:15 15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”
Now, here’s an interesting take on Lordship. Those who follow and love Jesus seek to do His will—according to Jesus. A Christian, that is someone saved (born again–you get the picture) is someone who seeks to follow Christ, who is the Light of the World. After all those who love Christ, those who no longer walk in darkness but believe in Him (visit John 8:12-30) seek to please Him. Why? Because they believe that He is God (John 8:24) having committed to following Him as the Light of Life, the Light of the World (John 8:12ff). And so they will not die in their sins. Out of love for Christ, they obey Him. They try (however imperfectly) to do what He says. They try and submit (however inconsistently and imperfectly) to His Lordship.
Now, you can try and make the case that the words “Lordship Salvation” do not appear in Scripture–you’ll be following the same line of reasoning the Jehovah Witness cult uses in denying the Trinity. Think about that.
But more importantly than trying to create a straw man position that you can defeat by redefining Lordship (or misquoting people John MacArthur) remember this: when you and I came to Christ there was a lot we did not understand as new believers. As we studied His word, we grew in our understandine we might not have understood Lordship but in our hearts (through the Holy Spirit?) we desired to please God. Therefore, when His word (through His Spirit) as we cooperated in our sanctification by studying the Bible, revealed to us areas in need of change–we tried to change. And with each passing year, as we grow in grace and see new areas in need of change we haven’t seen before and seek to change.
Sometimes we struggle against the need to follow Christ, to love Him by obeying Him. But in the end, a tree is known by the fruit it bears and as His followers no longer walking in darkness we seek His pleasure.
Lordship has become an academic argument for some, a battle cry (one way or the other) for others, and a hobby still yet for others. But, as John MacArthur once succinctly summarized his view on Lordship, “if you are a Christian it will show.”
Talk about free grace (it cost Jesus alot) all you want. Grace is we get better than we deserve through God’s unmerited favor. However, He still has expectations of us in this life, even though we are free from the penalty of sin in the next life. As Romans 6 puts is we do not sin more so that grace will abound more… instead we stop presenting our bodies as instruments of sin because if we love Jesus we will obey Him.
You don’t have the grace to do what you will and call yourself His follower. Grace isn’t something I give you or you give yourself (we call that cutting ourselves some slack–it’s usually a sign of sin or some other lack of motivation). Grace is God given. It is His gift–deliverance from the wages of sin in the life to come through Christ. Our loving obedience is what we give Him after we are saved, after all, as Jesus puts it:
John 14:15 15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Do you love Him? Then do what He says—if He is your God (that means your Lord) and Savior. Now go and fulfill the Great Commission, if you love God and your neighbor and stop debating how many angels can dance on the point of a needle lay aside your pride and submit to His Lordship. You can’t be a Christian if He is not your Lord. He permits no other Gods (cf Exodus 20:3ff).
For what it is worth, Paul’s letter to the Romans tells us we are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. In other words, our master (Lord) is either sin or righteousness.
With righteousness (Jesus) as our Master, we seek to obey and acknowledge His authority in our life. This is the nature of a Master/Servant relationship. If we disobey, we are disciplined.
There cannot exist a “lounge chair” servant mentality in a relationship with Jesus. That is to say, Jesus has become our Master but we haven’t yet become his servant. We can’t just lounge about and sip on His tall, cool glass of “grace” until we are ready to obey our new Master.
Matthew Henry (1706) put it like this: He said that salvation is not a religious discipline to be learned and understood but it is a NEW NATURE. As Paul said, “all things are become new.”
This New Nature is spiritually engineered to obey (works) its Master, Creator and LORD…Jesus. It is impossible to be new and old at the same time. If we aren’t ultimately seeking to be obedient, we aren’t new and so aren’t saved.
[…] Pulpit Magazine has started a series on Lordship salvation vs. No-Lordship (a/k/a “Free Grace” or easy believism) salvation. This was the issue that John MacArthur addressed in The Gospel According to Jesus. The series begins with an intro to the concept of Lordship salvation, and has been followed up by a passage from Zane Hodges, who is a big advocate of the no-Lordship side. The short version: To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ’s authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation. […]
In response to Tim T’s quote above:
“The problem: The king’s subjects are in rebellion against him, and the king declares the penalty of death for all who refuse to lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy.
Lordship solution: The people lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy.
Easy-believism solution: The king withdraws the penalty. Nothing else changes.”
No, Tim, I believe this is more biblically accurate:
The problem: The king’s subjects are in rebellion against him, and the king declares the penalty of death for all who refuse to lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy.
MacArthur solution: The king’s son offers to pay the debt himself, but the king refuses. So the people attempt to lay down their arms, renounce their rebellion, and throw themselves at the king’s mercy…sometimes. But they stumble often, some to the point of rebellion like before. And the priests of the day stand by and either question their prior belief or demand more works, fostering guilt and placing the focus squarely on the poeple either way. Nothing else happens to bring glory to the king’s son.
Hodges solution: The king’s son offers to pay the debt himself. Both the people and the king accept this offer and the king withdraws the penalty. The people then begin the process of changing slowly over time, but they stumble often, some to the point of rebellion like before. The king’s son stands continually at the king’s side reminding his father that the debt has been paid in full. No further punishment is necessary and glory is brought to the king’s son.
Hodges has the more correct view biblically.
Oops, correction to the above:
Hodges solution: The king’s son offers to pay the debt himself. Both the people and the king accept this offer, SO THE KING PLACES THE PENALTY ON HIS SON AND INFLICTS WOUNDS THAT LEAVE ETERNAL SCARS. The people then begin the process of changing slowly over time, but they stumble often, some to the point of rebellion like before. The king’s son stands continually at the king’s side SHOWING HIS WOUNDS and reminding his father that the debt has been paid in full. No further punishment is necessary and glory is brought to the king’s son.
I suspect that both sides of this discussion are arguing against the extremes of the other and there is more agrement than disagreement. The Lordship arguement seems to take offense to the “walk the aisle” person who shows no subsequent signs of faith and yet Hodges might claim is still saved. The other side of the discussion would object to the extreme of returning to a brand of empty righteousness where the end goal is good behavior , outward transformationa dn not inward, involement in self behavior at teh expense of the welfare of others.I myslef was never so sure of my salvation as the day I recognized it was God’s work in Christ that saved mne not “any” effort of mine. The Daily ” working out of my salvation” is a lifelong journey as I allow myself to be transformed by Grace and emmulate the LORD in his seldless act/s of Love. I cannot speak to the extremes except to say that they are in God’s hands and to try to avoid overaanalyzing th core message fo the Gospel to deal with something that makes me uncomfortable.
When I first began seminary I had some confused ideas about the Gospel. A teacher I admired suggested to the class that we take Zane Hodges for whatever we could. On his advice I did. Zane mainly taught advanced Greek courses on books in the Bible. My first class with him was in the book of Hebrews. We had to read the Gospel Under Siege–which remains to this day the best book I’ve ever read.
There were particluar passages that gave me a tough time. I had always believed the simple truth of John 3:16 and therefore had assurance of my salvation. But being exposed to lordship teaching had caused me to doubt a “faith alone iin Christ alone” message, i.e. I had come to believe I had to have “fruit,” good works, couldn’t “practice” sin and be a “true” believer, and so forth…and for the first time had begun to have doubts about my salvation. These positions–free grace and lordship salvation were mutually exclusive.
The book mentioned above dealt with the tough passages in a very exegetical, contextual way. Further, Zane answered my many questions…and what was noteworthy was his sensitivity to every word and jot and tittle of the text. It had great power (the lordship teachers, I felt, glossed over words, generalized, made special pleading arguments, and most especially–I felt–consistently imposed their theology onto the text, rather than just taking the text on its face).
Logically, Hodges well pointed-out that if any lordship element were made to be a part of the Gospel for getting eternal life, then objective assurance was impossible, i.e. if our faith is directed inwardly or toward something that is not perfect and complete (fruit, works, repentance, etc.)objective assurance was impossible.
We could go on and on here. But one of the things Zane did was to help us not confuse discipleship passages or reward passages (that so often mention warnings, cost, or the forfeitable nature of these things) with the clear and simple Gospel passages that talked about a gift, free, eternal, irrevocable and conditioned on simple faith alone. To mix the passages has created great confusion, and actual contradiction.
Zane passed away this week and in the thirty years I have gotten to be a close friend with him, I found him to be the most gentle, noble, wisest, most loving fellow I know…and these are the feelings common among all who knew him. –But that he was such a gentleman does not mean his views were correct. There are good and decent gentlemen on both sides of the debate. The issue has to be, What do the Scriptures affirm? Not what our theology says about them, or our traditions, or our own presuppositions…but what do the Scriptures teach. I believe we have to have an approach that allows for the least amount of gymnastics with the text and best lets the words and text say what it does.
One of Zane’s favorite verses was John 6:47, “Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” It is the saddest thing I can think of that people feel this is not a complete Gospel statement or that explanations, addendums, caviats have to be added. Zane would have us note: Assurance is part and parcel of the Gospel, “Most assuredly…” That the Gospel requires believing Him that all we have to do is “believe” Him. That we are believing Him for something that’s “eternal.” And that WHEN we believe, we have eternal life.
The free grace position is that we are simply believing Christ at His Word. That’s the issue for eternal life. It’s objective (outside of myself), assuring (if I “believe Him,” then I “know” it, or else I’m not believing), eternal, by faith, and depends on CHRIST, not me!