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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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?

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