A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy
September 27th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
This article first appeared in the Nov/Dec 2003 issue of Pulpit Magazine. In light of our current series, it provides helpful background to the lordship salvation issue.
It has now been 15 years since The Gospel According to Jesus was first published and the lordship of Christ became a matter of intense debate among evangelicals. That book stood for the simple proposition that the gospel is a call to surrender to the lordship of Christ in humble, repentant faith.
My publisher originally assigned The Gospel According to Jesus to their academic division. They had high expectations for the book from the start and initially thought it might sell as many as 30,000 copies—an unusually high number for an academic book of that sort. But it surpassed 100,000 in sales in a few months, and within a couple of years it had reached the quarter-million mark. There are now about half a million copies in circulation, and the book is still in print. That is almost unprecedented for a polemic book dealing with a theological issue.
When I wrote the book, I expected it to be somewhat controversial, of course, because I was defending a view that a handful of respected Christian leaders, (including Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Zane Hodges) had already denounced as “lordship salvation.” But I confess that I did not anticipate the firestorm of intense debate that arose. The controversy seemed to dominate the evangelical world for several years after the book was published.
Most of my theological opponents in the lordship debate were fellow conservative evangelicals who had been my friends and allies in earlier controversies regarding the charismatic movement and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They were men whom I deeply respected (and still esteem highly for much of the work they have done).
But they were promoting a view of the gospel that, from a biblical perspective, seemed seriously flawed. They insisted there is no place in the gospel for the proclamation of Jesus’ lordship. They said those who call unbelievers to surrender to Christ’s authority are preaching a gospel of works. They taught that repentance is a false addition to the gospel message. They objected to any kind of evangelism that employed the language of denying oneself, taking up a cross, and following Christ (cf. Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). They declared that devotion to Christ, love for Him, and obedience to His commands are all matters that pertain to discipleship rather than saving faith. Faith, they said, is merely the acceptance of salvation as a free and unconditional gift—and they portrayed discipleship as a second-level commitment. Therefore, according to their view, the gospel presents Jesus as Savior only, not as Lord.
Nearly all the leading advocates of the no-lordship gospel were associated with Dallas Theological Seminary. In fact, Dr. James M. Boice, who wrote powerfully in defense of “lordship salvation” long before I entered the fray, referred to their view as “the Dallas Doctrine.”
The pedigree of no-lordship doctrine at Dallas Seminary is traceable back to founder Lewis Sperry Chafer. The doctrine apparently stemmed from Chafer’s misguided attempts to develop a uniquely dispensationalist soteriology. Chafer (together with other early dispensationalists, including C. I. Scofield) was so zealous to eliminate every vestige of law from the dispensation of grace that he embraced a kind of antinomianism. That was the seed from which the no-lordship gospel sprouted.
Apparently, no-lordship doctrine no longer dominates Dallas Seminary the way it once did, but controversy over the issue is by no means dead. The past year or so has seen publication of a few new books touting the no-lordship view, attempting to revive the debate yet again. At least one organization, the Grace Evangelical Society, was founded in the heat of the controversy a decade and a half ago and regularly publishes a journal and a newsletter devoted to defending no-lordship theology. The question evidently remains unsettled for many.
My own views on “lordship salvation” have not changed, and if anything I now see the issue as larger and more far-reaching than I did when I first wrote The Gospel According to Jesus. Much more is at stake than just the question of how we proclaim the gospel. The lordship issue has serious ramifications for a number of crucial points of theology.
Grace
The doctrine of grace, for example, is profoundly affected by no-lordship teaching. Defenders of the no-lordship gospel often refer to their unique teachings as “Grace Theology” and their movement as “the Grace Movement.” They are convinced that only their system preserves the gospel’s message of grace. That is precisely why they insist every opposing opinion is a kind of works-salvation.
But they are working with an unbiblical notion of “grace.” Grace is not a liberal clemency or a passive indulgence that simply tolerates and coexists with sin. Divine grace doesn’t guarantee heaven in the afterlife while merely overlooking the evils of this life. Authentic grace is the undeserved favor of God toward sinners, delivering them from the power as well as the penalty of sin (Romans 6:14). Grace is dynamic, “teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12).
Furthermore, grace is not merely God’s response to the sinner’s initiative. Quite the opposite. Because He is gracious, God takes the initiative, drawing the sinner (John 6:44, 65), granting repentance (Acts 3:26; 5:31; 11:18), and awakening the heart to faith (Acts 13:48; 16:14). Every aspect of the believer’s response—conviction, repentance, and faith—is the result of God’s gracious work in the heart. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8).
God’s grace is rooted in Christ’s atonement for sin, which was infinitely costly. In fact, Christ’s death on behalf of sinners is the supreme expression of divine grace. It is unthinkable that God would sacrifice His Son to purchase heaven for sinners but leave them to fend for themselves against the power of sin in this life (cf. Romans 8:32).
Sanctification
That’s why sanctification is another major doctrine whose biblical foundations are undermined by no-lordship doctrine. The whole gist of the no-lordship message is that while justification is a free gift of God’s grace, sanctification is primarily the believer’s own work—and therefore more or less optional.
But Scripture teaches that sanctification begins at conversion. The process of practical sanctification is launched by God’s regenerating work, when He graciously gives the sinner a new heart and a new spirit of obedience (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Just as regeneration marks the beginning of sanctification, glorification marks its end. Sanctification culminates in that moment when we see Christ and are instantly conformed perfectly to His image (1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 13:12). Meanwhile, all genuine believers are being sanctified—conformed gradually to the image of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29). Those who remain unchanged and in unbroken bondage to sin have no true knowledge of Christ (1 John 3:6).
Sanctification is as much a work of divine grace as justification. By portraying sanctification as an optional human work, advocates of no-lordship doctrine actually fall into the very error of works-salvation they profess to deplore. They have made at least this aspect of salvation into a human work.
Justification by Faith
The pivotal doctrine in the lordship debate is justification by grace through faith alone (sola fide). No-lordship doctrine is a corruption of sola fide. The leading proponents of the no-lordship view err because they tend to make justification practically the only work God does in salvation, and they omit or downplay the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification.
Justification is a forensic decree—God’s legal verdict that the sinner has been fully forgiven and credited with the full merit of a perfect righteousness. Justification must be distinguished from regeneration and sanctification, but it can never be divorced from them. There is no such thing as a justified sinner who is still unregenerate or utterly unsanctified.
That is not to suggest that we are justified because of our sanctification. We are not even justified “because” of our faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification, not the ground of it.
The righteousness of Christ—not any work done by the believer or wrought by God in the sinner—is the true ground of our justification. In other words, God gives us a righteous standing only because of the perfect righteousness He imputes to us. We’re not justified because of any righteousness we attain in our sanctification. We’re not justified because of the quality of our faith or the depth of our repentance. God accepts us only for Christ’s sake. Because of our union with Christ, he receives us as righteous in Christ. Thus we are justified because of what Christ has done on our behalf; not because of anything we do, period.
And it is by faith alone that we lay hold of the promise of justification. That’s what Scripture means when it speaks of being “justified by faith” (Romans 3:8; 5:1; Galatians 2:16; 3:24).
But, as the Reformers said, while faith alone justifies, the faith that justifies is never alone. Genuine faith inevitably produces good works. The works are the fruit, not the root, of faith. And justification is therefore complete at the very inception of faith, before faith ever produces a single work. It is not a process like sanctification.
Most who have defended the lordship of Christ for the past decade and a half have labored diligently to make these things clear and to defend the principle of sola fide. This will become more and more important if the debate is rekindled, because there are a number of theological trends on the horizon that tend to undermine the principle of sola fide. These include the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” several recent attacks on the doctrine of imputation, ECT-style ecumenism, and a revival of Anabaptist opposition to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Some who have helped popularize these trends claim that they too are simply battling the shallow “faith” and cheap “grace” of modern evangelicalism, but they actually overthrow the heart of the gospel when they abandon the doctrine of justification by faith.
The errors of no-lordship theology do not find their origin in the principle of sola fide; they stem from an incomplete, man-centered soteriology that refuses to see anything beyond justification. In defending the gospel from no-lordship doctrine, we must take care not to commit the opposite error by downplaying or abandoning the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
The Sovereignty of God
Another doctrine under attack in the lordship debate is the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. No-lordship theology cannot coexist with biblical views of election, predestination, and divine foreknowledge. Simply put, you won’t find a Calvinist who believes in no-lordship doctrine.
If salvation is really all God’s work, how could it be utterly lacking the grace of sanctification? Is surrender to Christ really a human work, or is regeneration with all its effects a sovereign work of God? How can a believer whose heart has been renewed by divine grace fail to bow to Christ’s lordship? As I wrote in chapter 1 of The Gospel According to Jesus:
We must remember above all that salvation is a sovereign work of God. Biblically it is defined by what it produces, not by what one does to get it. Works are not necessary to earn salvation. But true salvation wrought by God will not fail to produce the good works that are its fruit (cf. Matthew 7:17). No aspect of salvation is merited by human works, but it is all the work of God (Titus 3:5-7). Thus salvation cannot be defective in any dimension. “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). As a part of His saving work, God will produce repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, obedience, and ultimately glorification. Since He is not dependent on human effort in producing those elements, an experience that lacks any of them cannot be the saving work of God.
I once listened to a message by S. Lewis Johnson critiquing a book by Zane Hodges in which Dr. Johnson concluded that the central error underlying no-lordship doctrine is nothing but the ancient heresy of semi-pelagianism—the belief that saving grace cannot be efficacious without the prior cooperation of human free will.
Dr. Johnson’s analysis was accurate. Scripture teaches that God’s saving grace is inherently efficacious. All whom the Father has chosen shall come to Christ (John 6:37). Each one of them will be effectually called, justified, glorified, and perfectly conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29-30). No aspect of salvation can fail, because none of it hinges on the fickle human will. All of it is the efficacious work of a sovereign God. Accept those truths and you cannot embrace no-lordship doctrine.
Other Important Points of Doctrine
Where you land on the lordship question will also have far-reaching implications for your views on assurance, faith, repentance, eternal rewards, human depravity, the role of the moral law, and a host of other crucial doctrines. Almost no aspect of soteriology is left untainted by the errors of no-lordship doctrine.
So this is still a vital issue and one pastors can ill afford to ignore. If you are the least bit undecided about where you stand in the lordship debate, you need to study the issue carefully and come to solid biblical conclusions about it. Here are some books we recommend, beyond The Gospel According to Jesus (Zondervan, 1988) and The Gospel According to the Apostles (Word, 1993):
- Belcher, Richard P. A Layman’s Guide to the Lordship Controversy. Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990.
- Boice, James M. Christ’s Call to Discipleship. Chicago: Moody, 1986.
- Chantry, Walter. Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1970.
- Chrisope, T. Alan. Jesus Is Lord. Welwyn, Hertfordshire: Evangelical Press, 1982.
- Crenshaw, Curtis I. Lordship Salvation: The Only Kind There Is! Memphis: Footstool, 1994.
- Gentry, Kenneth L. Lord of the Saved: Getting to the Heart of the Lordship Debate. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992.
- Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
- Kuiper, R. B. God Centered Evangelism. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1961.
- Lescelius, Robert. Lordship Salvation: Some Crucial Questions and Answers. Asheville, NC: Revival Literature, 1992.
- Reisinger, Ernest C. Lord & Christ. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994.
- ___________________. Today’s Evangelism: It’s Message and Methods. Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig, 1982.
- Tozer, A. W. I Call It Heresy! Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1974.
Please note that our recommendation of these books does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of everything by all of these authors.
27 Responses to “A 15-Year Retrospective on the Lordship Controversy”
I am still struggling to come to terms with these truth’s in there fullness. However, I do say Amen to the above! What amazes me about humans (Christians) we say we believe this, but listen when we reason and talk amoungst ourselves, then we are often prooved wrong… All included (oldr and younger believers) to a greater or lesser degree.
regards
Tyrone
I was drawn by God’s grace to Jesus Christ 12 years ago. Dr. Macarthur’s book was one of the first books I read as a new believer. It is still one of the first books I recommend to my church members when they ask me what they should be reading. I am very thankful that there are men who do not take this issue lightly and see the lordship controversy as a biblical gospel controversy.
“But they were promoting a view of the gospel that, from a biblical perspective, seemed seriously flawed.”
The stakes are high, for if their method is flawed, which I believe it is, then there will be many that will say to Christ, “Lord, Lord”, and He will say “…I never knew you.” If salvation is simply a “belief” in a set of facts then we shall see satan and his demons in heaven. This may sound harsh but if a person believes in a no-Lordship salvation, then this statement is its logical end. But, if Christ indeed does require our submission to Him as Lord then the way to salvation becomes much “narrower”. Matthew puts it this way, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Perhaps the purveyance of this “false” gospel is what has led to the anemic body of people that we now call the church. This doctrine must be discussed and passionately contended for, for it is truth.
God Bless!
This book sounds so foreign to the teaching and preaching, and the easy-believeism that is going on around the churches in America today. We keep following the latest fad and teach people to just follow Jesus as an example. Sorry to say but even the Mormons follow Jesus in the way they should live. But, we need to understand that he IS Lord = Adonai and LORD = Sovereign, and THEN follow him.
Some observations:
John writes (emphasis mine):
———-
The whole gist of the no-lordship message is that while justification is a free gift of God’s grace, sanctification is primarily the believer’s own work—and therefore more or less optional.
———-
I am wondering, John (or Lordship Salvationist) is the bold statement your opinion or your assessment having studied Free Grace theology?
We can look at this statement of John’s in several ways.
1) By implication, John believes that sanctification is not optional. I would ask in what way is sanctification required? Since we are talking about soteriological concerns, I am stuck assuming that he means that sanctification is necessary for entrance into heaven. How else would sanctification be “not optional” IOW, “required”?
If sanctification is “required” how then can salvation be a free gift at the same time?
This is the tight-rope that will be continually walked in Lordship thought. Salvation is in some way a free gift, but sanctification is required. What is sanctification? Is it not the perseverance and growth in holiness, works, and faith? If this is true and sanctification is required, then salvation is contingent on works.
2) I will assert here for anyone who is willing to listen. If you come to the conclusion that Free Grace theology teaches that sanctification, obedience, holiness, and dedication to Christ is not required of the regenerate Christian, and that we merely believe it to be optional, then you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of the tenets of Free Grace Theology.
The idea that Mr. MacArthur can assert something this patently false seriously puts his position into question.
Holiness and sanctification are not “optional”. God requires obedience, holiness, and dedication.
Illustration:
As a father I have requirements of my children. They are to be respectful, obedient, and honest, among other things. Does the fact that these rules are “requirements” preclude them from failing to meet them? Are they no longer “requirements” if my children choose to be defiant and stubborn? That a child may rebel from his responsibilities no way makes them “optional”.
Furthermore, when my children fail in their requirements I apply disciplinary action; there are consequences to their disobedience.
In the Bible there is a well articulated doctrine of the accountability of the child of God. In a nutshell, obedience is blessed and disobedience, not being taken lightly in the least, garners both temporal and eternal consequences.
Only a complete ignorance of Free Grace theology’s teachings on the Christian life could assert of it that sanctification is “more or less optional”.
For a treatment of the Free Grace’s doctrines of the Christian life and the accountability of the child of God, please refer to this article on my blog:
The Sobering Accountability of the Christian: It is a Fearful Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God
John describes Lordship proponents as:
———-
[those] who have defended the lordship of Christ
———-
Was not this phrase tailored to caricature Free Grace theology as those who do not believe in the lordship of Christ? Sure it is, and as such is a shameful tactic.
In an article in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society entitled We Believe: Jesus is Lord the late Arthur Farstad writes in conclusion:
“…our practical sanctification and future rewards will be largely determined by how soon and how deeply we submit to this Divine Master. However, these two aspects of Christ’s Lordship should not be confused. If man has to be totally submitted (or even willing to be totally submissive) to Christ as “Absolute Boss,” as a requisite for salvation, one wonders if there will be any at all to enter the kingdom.
In our understandable eagerness to keep works of any kind out of the presentation of the Gospel, we must be careful not to give the impression that we are against Christ’s Lordship [apparantly as some Lordship Salvationists assert]. Far from it! We would be thrilled if all of us who are Christians were suddenly to become, like Paul, “bondservants of Jesus Christ.” While we do not believe in Lordship Salvation, we do believe in Lordship, and in “Lordship Discipleship,” if we may coin a new term.” John writes:
———-
Another doctrine under attack in the lordship debate is the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. No-lordship theology cannot coexist with biblical views of election, predestination, and divine foreknowledge. Simply put, you won’t find a Calvinist who believes in no-lordship doctrine.
———-
This is a comptelely inaccurate statement. As strict Calvinists, there are several I may name: R.T. Kendall, Charles M. Bell, Gordon H. Clark, and John W. Robbins.
In a foreward to Gordon H. Clark’s must-read theologically heavyweight book Faith and Saving Faith John W. Robbins says:
“To understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone, one must understand the doctrine of faith, as well as the doctrine of justification. Err on the side of either doctrine, and one errs on the doctrine of justification by faith alone… [As an error, for example] one might understand faith as a complex pshycological feat, which, if it is not performed satisfactorily by the sinner, and confirmed by meticulous introspection, cannot justify. One can make faith into a work such as ‘complete commitment,’ ‘unconditional surrender,’ ‘life-changing encounter,’ and ‘total trust.’ Many people, including many teachers in conservative churches and schools are offended by the simplicity of the Gospel, and add to the statements of Scripture. They thus destroy the assurance of Christians by making them wonder if they have ’surrendered’ enough, ‘trusted’ enough, or been ‘committed’ enough to be saved.” (What is Saving Faith (two books in one) pg 11).
For a great article from John Robbins, of Gordon’s Clark’s Trinity Foundation, on Matt 7:21-23 (Not Everyone Who Says to Me, “Lord, Lord”) which exposes the errors of Lordship Salvation and critiques John MacArthur’s interpretation, click here: Justification and Judgment
There are many highly articulated Calvinists who are nonetheless No-Lordship! Charles Ryrie is a noted dispensational Calvinist who does not advocate Lordship Salvation.
Furthermore, both Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin believe in a doctrine of Unconditional Election. John Calvin himself mirrors in many ways basic tenets of Free Grace theology: his definitions of faith and doctrine of assurance is light years away from Lordship thought, and which the Free Grace proponent heartily agrees.
John concludes:
———-
Where you land on the lordship question will also have far-reaching implications for your views on assurance, faith, repentance, eternal rewards, human depravity, the role of the moral law, and a host of other crucial doctrines. Almost no aspect of soteriology is left untainted by the errors of no-lordship doctrine.
———-
I agree with his conclusion, except for the last line. I would substitute: “Almost no aspect of soteriology is left untainted by the errors of Lordship Salvation doctrine.”
Lordship doctrine cannot have certain assurance.
Lordship doctrine radically redefines faith (see my article Lordship Salvation’s Radical Re-Definition of Faith which compares John MacArthur and John Calvin)
Lordship doctrine to a great extent really has no doctrine of rewards. “A command that everyone keeps is superfluous, and a reward that everyone receives for a virtue that everyone has is nonsense.”
Antonio da Rosa
Antonio,
The lordship position does not teach that “salvation is contingent on works.” That is a total misrepresentation of the view.
Lordship salvation teaches that true faith (or belief) not only includes intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel, but also includes a change of personal allegiance from oneself to Jesus Christ. This change of personal allegiance is called “repentance.”
Necessarily, “fruits of repentance” (meaning acts of obedience) will result from this change of allegiance in the person’s heart. But salvation is not contingent on those resulting works. The works are only indications that the heart has truly been changed.
Lordship salvation affirms that true faith (as denoted above) is a gift of God that cannot be earned by or attributed to human ingenuity, effort, or merit. Just as the ability to accept the facts of the gospel is a gift from God (not of works), so also is the ability to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord.
Perhaps a helpful way to boil the discussion down to its most basic level is this:
Lordship salvation teaches that true Christians will love Jesus Christ. And vice versa, that those who do not love Jesus Christ are not true Christians. (The ability to love Jesus Christ is a gift of faith from God, based on the fact that He first loved us.)
Love for Christ, then, characterizes the redeemed. And our love for Christ is seen in how we live (John 14:15).
The non-lordship view, on the other hand, asserts that it is possible to be a genuine, born-again Christian and yet be characteristically indifferent toward, or even hostile toward, Jesus Christ.
Antonio,
Who performs the work of salvation? This point is critical. For if God performs the work, then our standing before Him and our desire to follow Him is nothing of our own. Sanctification is as much of a gift from God as justification is. The bottom line is that the pattern of a person’s life testifies to the genuineness of their profession. If as a pattern they are continually in sin then their profession is bogus and their security is false. Check out James, faith and works go together, it is not either/or, it is both/and.
I am new to this whole blog thing, especially talking about or blogging about such serious things. I have been a Christian for 13 years now, and have only in the last three years started to understand just what it is that Christ has done for me. Even though I started out with an “easy believism” type faith, I still understood that to become a true believer that one had to repent of his old lifestyle and desire a lifestyle that was different of the one he had before his conversion. I will admit that the big change in my life did come from the people that I know consider theological giants: John MacArthur, John Piper, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Stott and many more. The reason I consider these people giants, is due to the fact that I used to consume my mind with the likes of: Brennan Manning, Rick Warren, Tony Campola, Erwin McManus, and many more.
After reading Hard to Believe by MacArthur, I could only look at my life as one that has been wasted on the desires of what some would call “Carnal Christianity”, and that a life of being sold-out for Jesus Christ was something that calls for continual repentance, continual transformation, and a continual looking at one’s life to see if they are in the faith.
So I guess what I am trying to say in a long round about way is that I am truly grateful for the people who will continue to sharpen me, and continue to stand-up for truth. Again I say thanks to you all who are standing up against this easy believism, and are doing it very lovingly.
God Bless you all
I think the entire controversy is truly centered around the length of time someone evidences fruitfulness/sanctification in his life. Both Ryrie and MacArthur state in their positions that true believers will manifest a change of life (holiness/spiritual fruit). Both say true Christians will manifest good works. However, the contention comes when one is confronted with those who have claimed Christ as Savior, evidenced fruitfulness for a period of time, but then ceased in spiritual growth and fruitfulness altogether. Ryrie says these people are saved, but carnal. MacArthur would say they are not saved because they have ceased to continue bearing fruit. Both believe a Christian can fall into carnality. However, MacArthur would say a true believer will persevere in the long run because God’s grace is at work within the believer and no work involved in salvation will fail ultimately. It is God’s work and he will perform it unto completion. Therefore, Lordship salvation is a Biblical teaching that guards against the erroneous view of sanctification that the “Dallas Theology” proposes. There are many who have professed Christ as Savior, but have ceased living for Him altogether. The “Dallas Theology” gives these people a false assurance because they do not believe that God’s saving grace necessarily has sanctifying power throughout the believer’s lifetime. This is a dangerous view that will lead many to eternal peril.
I just want to hop on here and say how thankful I am for MacArthur and others standing up and defending the Biblical (as I see it) doctrine of salvation. I have been helped with the posts on this topic so far and am encouraging the readers of my blog to come over here and follow the discussion.
Also, thanks to Nate B. for all the time he is putting in defending these posts in the meta.
God bless you all (and even those who disagree–we hope the best) in Jesus Christ richly,
Bob Hayton
I totally agree with your comment Eric. That says it well.
I have to agree with Eric’s comment as well.
Some of the leadership in my church contend that the absence of any visible fruit in a believer’s life does not mean that person is one of the elect as long as they verbally profess Christ and have been baptized. Yet at the same time these same leaders lament the indifference these believers have in serving or even attending the church !
How can obedience, holiness, and dedication not be optional AND not required?
If they are merely suggestions by God, then what determines a true brother from a false one?
Nate,
You wrote, “The lordship position does not teach that ‘salvation is contingent on works.’ That is a total misrepresentation of the view.”
From a Free Grace perspective, the flaw in your thinking is that you are trying to separate faith from works in your logic. Unfortunately the Lordship position does not allow you to do this. Without works, saving faith is said not to exist. Works have become a constituent part of saving faith. While you would like to say that works are the fruit of saving faith, such talk is meaningless when saving faith is made to depend upon works for its very existence. Therefore, from your perspective, salvation is indeed contingent upon works: No works means no faith means no salvation.
You likely hold to this understanding of saving faith (no works=no saving faith=no eternal life) based in large part on your interpretation of James 2:14-26. As you are no doubt aware, the Free Grace community does not hold the same understanding of James 2:14-26. See Niemela’s explanation of the passage here:
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/v6n2_1.pdf
Cordially.
Solifidian,
Thank you for comment, and for allowing me to clarify.
It is a complete misrepresentation of lordship salvation to claim that the lordship view makes human effort, human achievement, or human merit a precondition for or basis of salvation.
The lordship view teaches that salvation is solely a work of God, not of man. Just as the command to believe demands a human response, and yet is a work of God (John 6:29); so also the command to repent demands a human response. But the ability to respond is fully a work of God in the heart. It is not the result of human willpower or ingenuity.
The desire to transfer one’s allegiance (from self to Christ) in the sinner’s heart is no less a work of God than the willingness to embrace the facts regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. If repentance is considered a “human work,” than belief must be as well. And yet the Bible describes neither one as something that can be credited to human initiation or determination. They are both the work of God; and they both go hand-in-hand.
It seems to me that non-lordship advocates often confuse the “fruits of repentance” (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) with actual repentance. Repentance itself is a change of allegiance, which takes place at the moment of conversion. The fruits (or results) of that repentance are seen in the active obedience of a believer’s life. Salvation then is not based on good works, but it does inevitably result in good works. In other words, justification is not based on sanctification. But justification does begin the sanctification process. If a person lacks evidence of sanctification (“fruits of repentance”), it calls into question whether or not they have actually been justified (cf. Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 John 3:10).
Thanks again for your comment.
- NB
It seems to me that as long as true believers manifest a change of life, the debate can remain a matter of perspectives. However, grave problems surface when we see the Free Grace position handled by “seeker sensitive” teachers. The no-lordship position quickly becomes the MAN-lordship position. A false gospel rises up, not with Christ as Lord, but with man and his ‘felt needs” as lord. As soon as men stop emphasizing Christ as Lord, men will scramble to sit on Christ’s throne.
Free Grace may be properly understood and applied by some, but it is being turned into a hersey by far too many. In our self-centered society, we must teach an true understanding of Christ’s lordship rather than allow the heresy of man-lordship to prevail.
Thanks for your observation that FG can be properly understood and applied. (Though, again, just to clarify, a changed life is necesarry to obey the command to repent it is not necesarry to prove our own salvation to us or for final salvation.)
And if I could I’d like to comment that Willowcreek itself has a Reformed gospel and understanding of sanctification, even if that core is not emphasized in its efforts to create a inoffensive environment:
On WC’s statement of Faith it reads:
___________________________
THE ESSENTIAL ACCOMPANIMENT of a genuine saving relationship with Jesus Christ is a life of holiness and obedience, attained by believers as they submit to the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.
And
THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF GOD’S REVELATION in Scripture is to call all people into fellowship with Himself. Originally created to have fellowship with God, man defied God, choosing to go his independent way, and thus was alienated from God and suffered the corruption of his nature, rendering him unable to please God. The fall took place at the beginning of human history, and all individuals since have suffered these consequences and are thus in need of the saving grace of God.
The salvation of mankind is, then, wholly a work of God’s free grace, not the result, in whole or in part of human works or goodness, and must be personally appropriated by repentance and faith. When God has begun a saving work in the heart of any person, He gives assurance in His Word that He will continue performing it until the day of its full consummation.
_______________________________________
Not strong lordship but on this side of the aisle we’d call that a lordship message despite its use of the term “free grace”. I know of know free grace chruch that is seeker-sensitive.
God bless.
Jodie
It doesn’t matter what seeker churches say about themselves or how they label themselves. What really matters is the fruit.
I echo Mr. LaPierre’s response. Seeker churches, from my exposure to them, have this tendency to make repentance/discipleship a suggestion or an ideal rather than a real essential spiritual discipline. “Take up your cross” is replaced with “take up your gift bag.”
But that’s for a different subject matter…
Peace out.
-JS
Dear Antonio,
If God does not save me, then I cannot be saved.
To think that I could generate belief enough to satisfy God’s requirement of faith does not recognize just how woefully depraved I am (“all our righteous acts are as filthy rags”). For that which
God requires, (both faith and sanctification) he
also freely gives. “I will be gracious to whom
I will be gracious”. The biblical text that supports
God’s sovereignty in all things are too numerous to
review, and Jesus’ clear teaching in almost the entire book of John says to the Jews “you do not
believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice.” John 10:26,27. The sheep hear his voice and believe. It doesn’t say “they believed and became a sheep”. If you are not a sheep, you don’t believe. God’s sovereignty in
salvation is so plain. John 12:39 “For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.” Who did the blinding Antonio? Yet in John 9 who made the blind man to see? And did not Jesus say in the beginning of John 9, “this man was born blind that the work of God may be displayed in his life” and at the end
of the chapter Jesus puts the blindness into the context of judgment and guilt, and thus the work of salvation(seeing) is God’s and his alone. In no place do the scriptures teach self-determination. It is assummed upon the text. Put it this way. If God’s glory is the end of all things, how does he get the glory if I generated the believing. He should be thanking me for believing so that he could get the glory. But then I would be getting the glory. I don’t think God wants to rely on me for anything, but especially the glory of his name. If there is any good in me at all, it all comes from him, “for of him and through him and to him are all things ROM 11: 36
Blessings. Dan
[...] Let’s look a little more closely at the dispensationalist tendency to make unwarranted contrasts between related or parallel truths (see yesterday’s post for the background on this). It is important that we delineate carefully between essentially different biblical axioms (2 Tim. 2:15). But it is also possible to go overboard. The unbridled zeal of some dispensationalists for making dichotomies has led to a number of unfortunate impositions on the gospel. [...]
It may not matter what seeker-sen churches say about themselves from your own perspective on their being lordship, but those statements rule out their being Free Grace. Would we all agree that there may be churches with which both sides of the debate are uncomfortable with? I’ve felt for a while that there is significant commonality between FG and LS in that we both promote a self examination focused theology that puts us at odds with prevailing evangelicalism–a culture which may talk the talk of lordship without the action you need to see.
Dan you write:
———-
For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isiah says elsewhere, He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they can neither see with their eyes nor understand with their hears, nor turn-and I would heal them. Isiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him
———-
If total depravity = total inability, why would God have to judicially blind their eyes if they were blind from birth via depravity?
Antonio,
Excellent question Antonio. Answer. He doesn’t. His
judicial blinding is accomplished by withholding
his Grace. In other words they are already in a state of blindness and he allows them to remain that way.
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor: chpt 1.
Additionally, Romans 9 states it perfectly….
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
God’s mercy cannot demanded, Praise GOD. In verse 18
clearly his Name is what’s at stake and the glory of
his name is revealed when Moses asks God to attend his going forth with the people…Exodus 34:
18 And he(Moses) said, “Please, show me Your glory.”
19 Then He(God) said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
Grace to You,
Dan Thomas
Fantastic Book!!!
This brings to mind a belief of mine, which would fall on the Lordship side. I am a conservative Presbyterian, but I think that we are a little too quick to condemn the Catholic position of being saved by faith plus works. I think we should say that we know that true faith and works always live together. You can’t have water without both Hydrogen and Oxygen. You don’t have a saved person without both faith and good works being present in that person. Evangelicals say that the person is justified by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Catholics say that the person is justified by faith and good works. I say maybe it is a chicken and egg question, that we can’t understand the relationship between the two, except to say that they always live together. Anyone who professes to have faith, but doesn’t have good works, does not have faith. Any redeemed person will have faith and good works. I am not saying both are required for redemption, or that only one is necessary for redemption, I am saying we don’t know because we can’t tease them out, because they are always seen together in nature.
Sadie, I think you are right that Reformed people should be more receptive to Catholic theology because it is in rapport with their own views. At this point Sproul’s position against them seems simply cultural bias. Though I don’t think it is, it seems that way.
God bless.