Wrongly Dividing the Word
September 28th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
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.
For example, Jesus is both Savior and Lord (Luke 2:11), and no true believer would ever dispute that. “Savior” and “Lord” are separate offices, but we must be careful not to partition them in such a way that we divide Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13). Nevertheless, loud voices from the dispensationalist camp have historically put forth the teaching that it is possible to reject Christ as Lord yet receive Him as Savior.
Indeed, there are those who would have us believe that the norm for salvation is to accept Jesus as Savior without submitting to Him as Lord. They make the incredible claim that any other teaching amounts to a false gospel “because it subtly adds works to the clear and simple condition set forth in the Word of God.”[1] They have tagged the view they oppose “lordship salvation.”
Lordship salvation, defined by one who labels it heresy, is “the view that for salvation a person must trust Jesus Christ as his Savior from sin and must also commit himself to Christ as Lord of his life, submitting to his sovereign authority.”[2] It is astonishing that anyone would characterize that truth as unbiblical or heretical, but a chorus of voices still continues to echo the charge. The implication is that acknowledging Christ’s lordship is a human work. That mistaken notion is backed by volumes of literature that speaks of people “making Jesus Christ Lord of their lives.”[3]
We do not “make” Christ Lord; He is Lord! Those who will not receive Him as Lord are guilty of rejecting Him. “Faith” that rejects His sovereign authority is really unbelief. Conversely, acknowledging His lordship is no more a human work than repentance (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25) or faith itself (cf. Eph. 2:8–9). In fact, surrender to Christ is an important aspect of divinely produced saving faith, not something added to faith.
The two clearest statements on the way of salvation in all of Scripture both emphasize Jesus’ lordship: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31); and “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Rom. 10:9).[4] Peter’s sermon at Pentecost concluded with this declaration: “Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36, emphasis added). No promise of salvation is ever extended to those who refuse to accede to Christ’s lordship. Thus there is no salvation except “lordship” salvation.[5]
Opponents of lordship salvation have gone to great lengths to make the claim that “Lord” in those verses does not mean “Master” but is a reference to his deity.[6] Even if that contention is granted, it simply affirms that those who come to Christ for salvation must acknowledge that He is God. The implications of that are even more demanding than if “Lord” only meant “Master”!
The fact is, “Lord” does mean “God” in all those verses. More precisely, it means “God who rules,”[7] and that only bolsters the arguments for lordship salvation. No one who comes for salvation with genuine faith, sincerely believing that Jesus is the eternal, almighty, sovereign God, will willfully reject His authority. True faith is not lip service. Our Lord himself pronounced condemnation on those who worshiped Him with their lips but not with their lives (Matt. 15:7–9). He does not become anyone’s Savior until that person receives Him for who He is—Lord of all (Acts 10:36).
A. W. Tozer said:
The Lord will not save those whom He cannot command. He will not divide His offices. You cannot believe on a half-Christ. We take Him for what He is—the anointed Saviour and Lord who is King of kings and Lord of all lords! He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that He can also guide and control our lives.[8]
_______
NOTES:
[1] Livingston Blauvelt, Jr., “Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?” Bibliotheca Sacra (January–March 1986), 37.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 38.
[4] Some dispensationalists would confine the application of Romans 10:9–10 to unbelieving Jews. It is true that Romans 9–11 deals with the question of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah and the nation’s place in God’s eternal plan. But the soteriological significance of those verses cannot be limited to Israel alone, because of verses 12–13: “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
[5] I do not like the term “lordship salvation.” It was coined by those who want to eliminate the idea of submission to Christ from the call to saving faith, and it implies that Jesus’ lordship is a false addition to the gospel. As we shall see, however, “lordship salvation” is simply biblical and historic evangelical soteriology. I am using the term here (and have done so through the years) only for the sake of argument.
[6] Ibid., 38–41. See also G. Michael Cocoris, Lordship Salvation—Is It Biblical? (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1983), 13–15.
[7] Proper understanding of any biblical term depends on etymology, context, and history. Etymologically, kurios comes from a Greek root that means “rule, dominion, or power.” Contextually, taking Peter’s use of kurios in Acts 2:36, it is important to note that verses 34–35 quote from Psalm 110, a messianic Psalm of rule and dominion (“Rule in the midst of Thine enemies,” Ps. 110:2). Peter was not saying merely that “God has made Him … God”; he was affirming Jesus’ right to rule. Historically, Peter’s sermon addressed the Jews’ role in crucifying their Messiah (v. 23). At the trial of Jesus before Pilate and the Jewish mob, the issue was clearly his kingship, mentioned at least a dozen times in John 18:33–19:22. Clearly, careful historical-grammatical exegesis of Acts 2:36 can lead to only one conclusion: Jesus is the divine King who rules in the midst of both friends and foes. Having thus identified Christ as Lord of all, Peter makes his gospel appeal. Note carefully that Paul preached Jesus in exactly the same way (2 Cor. 4:3–5): Jesus is our sovereign Lord, and we are His servants.
[8] A. W. Tozer, I Call It Heresy! (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1974), 18–19.
It makes sense that dispensationalism (which tends to deemphasize the present kingly ministry of Christ) would also deemphasize his lordship in salvation.
Brad,
Thanks for your comments.
No-lordship is not inherent in dispensationalism, it is rather the byproduct of some dispensationalists who have carried their system farther than Scripture allows.
John MacArthur is himself proof that one can view the Scriptures through a dispensational lens and yet affirm the lordship of Christ in salvation.
This thread is not the place to begin a debate on the dispensational issue. But I thought I should clarify that point lest it was confusing to our readers.
Thanks,
NB
I would love to hear from some who hold to Free Grace on this question:
What is it about the notion “true belief results in action” (i.e. faith results in works) that is so detestable? Why is it that this is a logical fallacy to you?
Imagine yourself driving down the highway, and on the radio you hear an announcement that there has been a huge accident about a mile ahead of you. At this point you have two options. You can either genuinely believe the report of the accident and take preventative action to avoid plowing into a pile of cars, or you can refuse to believe, or only partially believe, the radio announcement.
Genuine belief in anything will naturally result in action. If you believe that the stock market is going to crash tomorrow, you will be taking your money out today. If you truly believe that your sin is detestable to a holy God, and that God has sovereignty given you a new heart and a new life that caused you to believe on Christ for salvation from hell, this has natural ramifications for the believer. Who among us, after being saved, has felt no compulsion to clean up some area of our lives in reverence of Christ?
What do we say of a Republican or Democrat who votes against their party? We call that person a scoundrel, one who does not truly believe in the principles of their party and they should just do everyone a favor and admit that they are on the opposite side. It matters little if we can talk the talk, but if we do not walk the walk, all of our talk is an empty lie. We are either for Christ or against Him, and those who love Him keep His commandments. The love for, and faith in Christ that is put into us by God Himself causes believers to keep His commandments.
So, back to my original question: What is it about the notion “true belief results in action” (i.e. faith results in works) that is so detestable? Why is it that this is a logical fallacy to you?
Nate,
You’re right. I probably stated my observation a bit too broadly. Still I see tendencies (not universal) to deemphasize (not deny) lordship among those who are reluctant to say that Christ is presently reigning. It seems from this post that Dr. MacArthur recognizes these tendencies as well (though he would probably not attribute them to the same cause that I have).
Since you technically asked 2 question let me answer them separately.
What is it about the notion “true belief results in action” (i.e. faith results in works) that is so detestable?
My two cents are that this idea sometimes seems to almost personify a person’s faith and therefore seems to me to steal a bit of the credit from Christ in us. When a person believes in Christ for his eternal life, He is born again. He receives eternal life. We know from the ending verses of 1 John that eternal life is Christ himself. So we know that at the point of regeneration Christ himself takes up forever residence in him. The real him is now the regenerate self, Christ in him. Because we can do all things through Christ we know that it is He and His resurrection power that works the works God has selected for us to walk in. So…
When someone talks about how faith by definition produces works and true faith results in good works, I admit to a degree my skin crawls. It seems like they are taking something they sincerely believe to be a gift from God and personifying it and claiming for it almost super powers that go far beyond the Scriptural information. We know from Scripture that sometimes God’s gifts become a distraction for the receiver of the gift, maybe that goes too far.
I agree that faith is a victory over the world, but that is because we are confident in Christ’s power to give us victory over sin in our lives and that He will give us boldness and make manifest the pure love that knits us together with our Christian chums.
But when seen as something that if authentic will years and years later result in good works… I see that as a conceptual competitor with Christ in us. Obviously, the “gift of faith” isn’t a member of the Trinity, so what makes it so powerful as to result in so much?
Why is it that this is a logical fallacy to you?
If you are talking about faith-in-time, an incredibly strong inner conviction in the present, than I do believe that type of “present” or ongoing belief tends to be acted on. (However, their may be competing beliefs, fears, deceptions and affections that stall, slow down or reverse the action.) But this in-time faith is what Hebrews is talking about. Faith located in the present that looks forward to the future in Christ and His rewards inspired to action Abraham, Moses, certainly the martyrs and all the rest. They were looking for a city built by God. And Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before Him. Even your illustration was about a prospect in the future(meeting up with the traffic in a certain area).
Thanks for a specific question that wasn’t demeaning.
God bless.
Jodie
Sorry to answer Matt B’s question first, but I’ve been meaning to blog on that for a while…
About Dr. MacArthur’s essay…
Obedience to God is a nonnegotiable. This is a humanity-wide truth. We are condemned because of our sin against God, and sin is the rejection of His insight and expectations. Our sin personally certifies our general human condemnation that began when Adam sinned. God is legitimate when he judges for many reasons, one being that He created us. His redemption is another. But that fact, His redemption giving us more logical reason(s) to obey Him, doesn’t mean we can brush aside John’s Gospel and determine for ourselves, using human wisdom, what the offer of eternal life is or should be, and how to represent God’s nonnegotiable expectations in the offer of eternal life. God’s Word tells us the terms of that offer.
So obedience is a non-negotiable, but the offer of eternal life simply isn’t part of those negotiations. It’s a free offer.
Let me put it this way, if my rebellious teenager accidentally set fire to our trailerhome, I would attempt to save her without reference to her guilt. Later her guilt would be an issue. We think the NT describes a generous God who, while we are sinners offers us eternal life.
Further, in the Hodges/Wilkins model, the wrath of God is on sin and sinners generally, not just on the unsaved. God deals with sin because He hates it.
So it is necesarry to submit to the King of the Universe because He is that. And because He calls for it. And because He will see us destroyed if we mock Him with our sin. God is not mocked. Those who draw near to Him must be holy. Imp. verse: Leviticus 10:3
God bless.
Jodie
(Gentlemen, If you’d like me to clarify before giving me your critique, I’d love to… Just let me know what aspect… Trying to sketch a wholly different paradigm of the NT in quick comments is quite a challenge. But I’m trying to be clear even if it means committing to things you see as totally unacceptable, so this exchange can provide, from both sides, more light than just heat!
I wonder if it would be helpful to drop the lordship label and just refer to what we are talking about as Reformed soteriology?
The issues are certainly not new in the church but have been addressed before
Jonathan Edwards on conversion: ‘The scriptural representations of conversion strongly imply and signify a change of nature . . . therefore if there be no great and remarkable abiding change in persons, who think they have experienced a work of conversion, vain are all their imaginations and pretences, however they may have been affected. Conversion (if we may give any credit to Scripture) is a great and universal change of the man, turning him from sin to God. [On Religious Affections in Works I, p. 302, Banner of Truth edition]
Edwards on perseverance:’That all true saints, all who obtain eternal life, do thus persevere in the practice of religion, and the service of God, is a doctrine so abundantly taught in the Scripture, that particularly to rehearse all the texts which imply it would be endless. I shall content myself with referring to some in the margin.’ [Works I, p. 315]
Edwards on evidence of salvation: ‘Practice is the most proper evidence of a true coming to Christ, and accepting of, and closing with Him. A true and saving coming to Christ, is (as Christ often teaches) a coming so as to forsake all for Him.’ [Works I, p. 331]
Calvin on false faith: ‘We must scrutinize and investigate the true character of faith with greater care and zeal because many are dangerously deluded today in this respect. Indeed, most people when they hear this term, understand nothing deeper than common assent to the gospel history.’ [Institutes I, p. 543, Battles edition]
Calvin on faith and works: ‘you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [I Cor. 1:13] . . . Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works.’ [Institutes I, p. 798]
One Luther quote seems particularly appropriate to the issue:
Luther on faith and works: ‘If we teach that nothing but faith alone justifies, then wicked people neglect all works. On the other hand, if we teach that faith must be attested by works, they immediately attribute justification to these. A fool always veers to one or the other extreme.’ [Works vol. 15, notes on Ecclesiastes, p. 111]
i.e. Luther taught both truths that faith alone justifies and that it must be attested by works and saw misunderstanding on both issues.
I agree, Jerry, it’s best to drop the lordship lable and go for the historically accurate terminolgy. I’m even cool with Sandemanianism, unless its divorced from Hodges’, Wilkin’s (and others of course) emphasis on self-examination. Good quotes, as well. & I’m impressed with the way this blog references sources!
Jerry,
Thanks for those quotes. In The Gospel According to Jesus, MacArthur provides many more from the Reformation and post-Reformation period…showing that the protestant Reformers and those who came after them held to a lordship understanding of salvation (a “Reformed Soteriology” as you rightly describe it).
MacArthur also points to those in early church history who held the same position. Thus, in an appendix of his book, he writes:
Coming back to the Reformation, MacArthur also cites the first four of Luther’s Ninety Five Theses which read as follows:
And in the preface to his commentary on Romans, Luther writes:
More citations could be added to this list. But lest this comment get any longer…
Jerry,
Sorry in advance for the length of this comment, but I was doing a little snooping in the church fathers this evening (being motivated by your earlier comment). I came across The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which was probably written in the late first or early second century.
Anyway, Clement had some pretty amazing things to say about repentance, faith, and good works. He emphasizes both the importance of repentance, and yet maintains the fact that justification is on the basis of faith alone (which results in good works). As an advocate of a “Reformed Soteriology,” I was encouraged by Clement’s discussion. Here are some sections (again forgive me for the length).
(The citations below are from Schaff’s edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Emphasis added.)
****
[From chapters 7–8]
Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites; but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.
The ministers of the grace of God have, by the Holy Spirit, spoken of repentance; and the Lord of all things has himself declared with an oath regarding it, “As I live, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance;” adding, moreover, this gracious declaration, “Repent O house of Israel, of your iniquity….” Desiring, therefore, that all His beloved should be partakers of repentance, He has, by His almighty will, established [these declarations].
****
[From chapters 32–37]
All these [men of great renown in Israel’s history], therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. … We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. … We see, then, how and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.
The good servant [of his Master] receives the bread of his labor with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: “Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work.” He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will. Let us consider the whole multitude of His angels, how they stand ever ready to minister to His will.
Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them. [At this point Clement quotes Psalm 50:15–23, a Psalm that condemns those who claim to love God but fail to back that claim up with their lives.] …
This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Savior, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity…. But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.
Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals.
****
[From chapter 58]
May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh - who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people - grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-pleasing of His Name, through our High Priest and Protector, Jesus Christ, by whom be to Him glory, and majesty, and power, and honor, both now and for evermore. Amen
****
[Nate again]
I know that was a lot to wade through. I’m sorry.
But what a profound first-century testimony to biblical soteriology. We are justified by faith, not by works. And yet that faith includes the “grace of repentance” (as Clement calls it), and results in a Christian life of obedience. Those who believe serve Christ as His soldiers and emissaries. Those who do not serve Christ, but instead practice wickedness, are His enemies and the objects of His hatred.
That is lordship salvation! (I think Clement might be my new early church hero…at least for tonight.)
(Clement’s use of the servant-master and soldier-king illustrations only underscore his understanding that the life of faith is characterized by the lordship of Christ. To be a Christian is to be both a servant subject to Christ’s bidding and a soldier under His command.)
Nate - thanks for posting the Clement quotes. I think it is helpful to keep things in a historical perspective. I find it baffling that anyone would want to charge lordship salvation with being a false gospel. It’s not like MacArthur has tried to reinvent the wheel.
Thanks for the historical background, Nate B and Jerry.
I know you don’t see the theology of church history as authoritative as the Scriptures, so I was a little surprised by Jerry’s last comment. Do you guys think the views of the church fathers pretty much cinch the argument?
What about the Royal Society pledge/motto or whatever.
Nothing by mere authority.
The early church also didn’t want to allow into fellowship anyone who denied Christ during the Roman persecution, in flagrant contradiction to the Lord’s treatment of Peter after he denied Him. So that would be more evidence that they supported a position similar to yours but, at some level, so what, since our argument is that the Scriptures show your model to be lacking certainly not tradition. And in fact that early lack of forgiveness was not Scriptural.
Back to the topic are you surprised that FG sees obedience as an absolute non-negotiable?
Lord’s blessings.
Jodie
Hi Jodie,
Although church history is not authorative, it is a helpful guide. All forms of heresy can be traced back to a historical source. In the case of non-lordship salvation, we can see traces of it in the Sandermanian (spelling?) heresy. Everyone who claims “Bible only” carries a lot more loaded presuppositions than they can even understand it themselves.
As for your comment on the early church, you will realise, that one of the first lessons that early church (pre-AD400) taught to their new converts was “obedience until death” and that was not negotiable. Martyrdom was common and in fact, those who faltered, disobeyed and followed the dictates of the Roman empire will be excommunicated for a very long time. Sometimes even the truly repentant will not be admitted back into the church.
How is that for Free Grace?
Hi Jenson,
Well, I would say their attempt at wisdom was less than Scriptural. Peter denied Christ (3x) and was received back warmly. I don’t say “Bible only” but I would see it is our ultimate authority, and one that should have teeth. If something digresses from the Bible it should be digressed from even if it meets the Marine’s standard~the few/the proud!
God bless.
Jodie
Hi Jodie,
“Peter denied Christ (3x) and was received back warmly.” - At least Peter wept…
Apart from that statement you made, I am afraid I do not understand the rest of your reply. Were you making some statements?
Doesn’t matter, I will let others comment.
Thank you.
Jenson,
I was cryptic because I was replying to specific things you brought up. Sir, the people who wouldn’t allow back into the church those who denied Christ–and I suspect that some weeping occured–were acting in an unscriptural way. They should have accepted them the way Jesus accepted Peter, with wisdom. They were in error to excommunicate or threaten to excommunicate those who were repentant.
With all due respect, I wonder if we could get back to the point of the original post, “Wrongly Dividing the Word”. I have long maintained that the Free Grace position can not be arrived at without what has been recently coined the “Dallas Theology”. It draws unbiblical divisions into the word as Dr. MacArthur points out in this post. One can not expect their conclussions to make sense to anybody who is not used to handling the Word of God in this way. The burden is on the Free Grace position to prove that their hermeneutic is the way to interpret scripture. Then, and only then, will we be on the same page. Right now these discussions are much like trying to convince a JW that Jesus is God because he uses the “NEW WORLD TRANSLATION” of the Bible. In that case you would be using your translation that states John 1:1 as saying “and the Word was God” while his translation states that He was “a” god. You can not hope to come to the same conclussions with that person. So it is with this debate, we are using completely different ways of interpreting scripture. One from the Free Grace position must prove that Zane Hodges’ way of interpreting scripture is THE way it ought to be done. History is not on their side.
Hi Mark,
Glad you decided to weigh in. I would say that the best place to show that this is not the case is the book of James. The FG arguments on the contextual are far and away stronger than the Reformed arguments. Most other contested passages are just less extreme cases of the same pattern. The Free Grace expositions are more detailed and more thorough.
Blessings!
Jodie
“The FG arguments on the contextual are far and away stronger than the Reformed arguments. Most other contested passages are just less extreme cases of the same pattern. The Free Grace expositions are more detailed and more thorough.”
After 500 years of Reformed Christianity, do you expect me to believe that FG actually improved on expositions of the Bible? Which commentaries have you compared yours with? JFB, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Thomas Manton on James?
Jodie, my dear old friend and sister in Christ, Hi!
What I was trying to indicate with my last sentence “History is not on their side” is that there is a very small window of time in history in which Hodges’ brand of Dispensationalism has been employed. To create a dichotomy between a believer and a disciple, and that view of James are recent innovations, even at DTS. I can point to Merril F. Unger, who earned his Th.M. and Th.D degrees at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1948, who wrote that the non working faith in James does not save. And what of what we hear that DTS has in later years departed from Hodges’ views?
When looking at C.I. Scofield and his take on Romans 10:13 “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” his notes on “saved” take you right back to Romans 1:16 - the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Hodges’ view is indeed novel in this merely speaking of temporal salvation.
So, looking back historically on the Dispensational scene there is indeed that window of time to consider. As recent as 1948 Merril Unger’s views differ with Hodges’ and the recent departure at DTS from his views, due to the rise of Progressive Dispensationalism, well, it kind of isolates Hodges. I believe his views will appear as a short blip on the radar of history.
I have no bad feelings against you, my old friend, just against that system.
Mark
Jenson,
Just look at the bottom of the “weekend Roundup” post. I briefly describe one of three arguments on James that prove James is being misconstrued.
Take a look.
God bless.
Jodie
Thanks Mark!
And I’m sure you know I feel the same
About your comments, as a former Catholic I’m just not THAT impressed with tradition no matter how impressive. I’m not saying I don’t respect and desire to honor the gift of teaching in each tradition. But Hodges is a Huss for today so I’m on his team. You should be too
God bless.
Hi Jodie,
All I see is you were praising Hodges and modern scholarship, both of which I have seen the fruits and they are not very nice.
You have not read any Reformed commentary on James, have you?
Jodie,
I was not trying to impress you with tradition. I was trying to illustrate that Hodges’ views are not historical, nor are they going to survive the test of time. On the other hand, the “traditional” interpretation of James 2:14-26 enjoys acceptance among Reformed and non-Reformed alike. Most of Calvary Chapel (very anti-calvinistic) would hold to the so-called Lord-ship interpretation of that portion of scripture. They would unquestionably stand with the Reformed brethren in pointing at the Free Grace position as error.
Your brother in Christ,
Mark
Nate & Others,
Thank you for this post! I have heard far too many times in my life the phrase “make Jesus Lord.” Of course we can’t, because He is Lord no matter what we may say or do.
I DO have a question though…
Can a child be saved (at age 7) with no clear understanding of Christ’s Lordship? Ok, ok…I am referring to my own conversion!
In other words, I was shown I Corinthians 15:1-4. I believed Jesus died, paid for my sins, was buried and rose again. I believed that I could do nothing but believe and accept the free gift of eternal life. There is no discussion about Lordship in this passage. NOW, with that said…I know I was saved because of the Holy Spirit’s work in my life. PLUS, I started going to a church where a Godly man preached the Word faithfully week after week. My understanding of who Christ was began to grow. I learned over the course of time that in my salvation “I may have believed” BUT it was actually God who “made me alive” and who “drew me unto Himself.” In other words, I realized that God chose me and saved me for His own good pleasure. I also realized and continue to realize just how glorious Christ is AND that HE IS LORD…the One who should be loved and adored and obeyed everyday of my life.
SO…sorry it took so long to get here…BUT, do you all who teach Lordship see a difference between a person who may have only heard I Cor. 15 rather than those passages mentioning “Lord” AND the person who has been shown both? In other words, I won’t explain the gospel today to someone without both sides because I know both sides now. BUT, what if someone unacquainted with both only shares I Cor. 15 and never mentions Christ’s Lordship? It is possible for someone to do this sincerely (especially in places where there is little teaching or limited access to the Scriptures).
I absolutely believe in Christ’s Lordship and bow to Him everyday. It is a joy and privilege that humbles me every hour. But I did not always understand, it truly was a process for me since I was saved at an early age.
Any comments would be appreciated!
In Christ,
Greg
Hi Mark,
Maybe the narrow way is narrower than you think, and the minority position is accurate. Theoretically it’s possible, anyway.
Do you have any comments on the actual biblical argument on the weekend roundup page?
God bless, brother