Clarifying the Lordship Debate (Part 1)
October 9th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Comparing the No-Lordship Views
The 9 specific tenets of lordship salvation have already been outlined in a previous post.
So what does the no-lordship camp espouse? They agree with lordship proponents that: (1) Christ’s death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.
But they disagree on other crucial soteriological points. For example, the no-lordship advocates teach that:
1. Repentance is simply a change of mind about Christ (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 96, 99). In the context of the gospel invitation, repentance is just a synonym for faith (SGS 97–99). No turning from sin is required for salvation (SGS 99).
2. The whole of salvation, including faith, is a gift of God (SGS 96). But faith might not last. A true Christian can completely cease believing (SGS 141).
3. Saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel (SGS 156). It is confidence that Christ can remove guilt and give eternal life, not a personal commitment to Him (SGS 119).
4. Some spiritual fruit is inevitable in every Christian’s experience. The fruit, however, might not be visible to others (SGS 45). Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness (SGS 53–54).
5. Only the judicial aspects of salvation—such as justification, adoption, imputed righteousness, and positional sanctification—are guaranteed for believers in this life (SGS 150–52). Practical sanctification and growth in grace require a postconversion act of dedication.
6. Submission to Christ’s supreme authority as Lord is not germane to the saving transaction (SGS 71–76). Neither dedication nor willingness to be dedicated to Christ are issues in salvation (SGS 74). The news that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead is the complete gospel. Nothing else must be believed for salvation (SGS 40–41).
7. Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality. A whole category of “carnal Christians”—born-again people who continuously live like the unsaved—exists in the church (SGS 31, 59–66).
8. Disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one’s faith (SGS 48).
9. A believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing. God has guaranteed that He will not disown those who thus abandon the faith (SGS 141). Those who have once believed are secure forever, even if they turn away (SGS 143).
Some of the more radical advocates of no-lordship doctrine do not stop there. The “Free-Grace” movement further stipulates:
1. Repentance is not essential to the gospel message. In no sense is repentance related to saving faith (Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free, 144–46).
2. Faith is a human act, not a gift from God (AF 219). It occurs in a decisive moment but does not necessarily continue (AF xiv, 107). True faith can be subverted, be overthrown, collapse, or even turn to unbelief (AF 111).
3. To “believe” unto salvation is to believe the facts of the gospel (AF 37–39). “Trusting Jesus” means believing the “saving facts” about Him (AF 39), and to believe those facts is to appropriate the gift of eternal life (AF 40). Those who add any suggestion of commitment have departed from the New Testament idea of salvation (AF 27).
4. Spiritual fruit is not guaranteed in the Christian life (AF 73–75, 119). Some Christians spend their lives in a barren wasteland of defeat, confusion, and every kind of evil (AF 119–25).
5. Heaven is guaranteed to believers (AF 112) but Christian victory is not (AF 118–19). One could even say “the saved” still need salvation (AF 195–99). Christ offers a whole range of postconversion deliverance experiences to supply what Christians lack (AF 196). But these other “salvations” all require the addition of human works, such as obedience, submission, and confession of Jesus as Lord (AF 74, 119, 124–25, 196). Thus God is dependent to some degree on human effort in achieving deliverance from sin in this life (AF 220).
6. Submission is not in any sense a condition for eternal life (AF 172). “Calling on the Lord” means appealing to Him, not submitting to Him (AF 193–95).
7. Nothing guarantees that a true Christian will love God (AF 130–31). Salvation does not necessarily even place the sinner in a right relationship of harmonious fellowship with God (AF 145–60).
8. If people are sure they believe, their faith must be genuine (AF 31). All who claim Christ by faith as Savior—even those involved in serious or prolonged sin—should be assured that they belong to God come what may (AF 32, 93–95). It is dangerous and destructive to question the salvation of professing Christians (AF 18–19, 91–99). The New Testament writers never questioned the reality of their readers’ faith (AF 98).
9. It is possible to experience a moment of faith that guarantees heaven for eternity (AF 107), then to turn away permanently and live a life that is utterly barren of any spiritual fruit (AF 118–19). Genuine believers might even cease to name the name of Christ or confess Christianity (AF 111).
What Is Really at the Heart of the Lordship Debate?
It should be obvious that these are real doctrinal differences; the lordship controversy is not a semantic disagreement. The participants in this debate hold widely differing perspectives.
Nevertheless, the issues have often been obscured by semantic distractions, distorted interpretations of lordship teaching, mangled logic, and emotion-laden rhetoric. Often it is easier to misconstrue a point than answer it, and sadly that is the tack many have taken. All it has done is confuse the real issues.
But, to be clear, the lordship controversy is not a dispute about whether salvation is by faith only or by faith plus works. No true Christian would ever suggest that works need to be added to faith in order to secure salvation. No one who properly interprets Scripture would ever propose that human effort or fleshly works can be meritorious —worthy of honor or reward from God.
The lordship controversy is a disagreement over the nature of true faith. Those who want to eliminate Christ’s lordship from the gospel see faith as simple trust in a set of truths about Christ. Faith, as they describe it, is merely a personal appropriation of the promise of eternal life.
But Scripture describes faith as more than that—it is a wholehearted trust in Christ personally (e.g., Gal. 2:16 ; Phil. 3:9 ). Not merely faith about Him; faith in Him. Note the difference: If I say I believe some promise you have made, I am saying far less than if I say I trust you. Believing in a person necessarily involves some degree of commitment. Trusting Christ means placing oneself in His custody for both life and death. It means we rely on His counsel, trust in His goodness, and entrust ourselves for time and eternity to His guardianship. Real faith, saving faith, is all of me (mind, emotions, and will) embracing all of Him (Savior, Advocate, Provider, Sustainer, Counselor, and Lord God).
Those who have such faith will love Christ (Rom. 8:28 ; 1 Cor. 16:22 ; 1 John 4:19). They will therefore want to do His bidding. How could someone who truly believes in Christ continue to defy His authority and pursue what He hates? In this sense, then, the crucial issue for lordship salvation is not merely authority and submission, but the affections of the heart. Jesus as Lord is far more than just an authority figure; He’s also our highest treasure and most precious companion. We obey Him out of sheer delight.
So the gospel demands surrender, not only for authority’s sake, but also because surrender is the believer’s highest joy. Such surrender is not an extraneous adjunct to faith; it is the very essence of believing.
I like the artical!!! I believe that we must understand the two camps and be very cafeful how we present the most precious gift of all. I believe there are preachers who have distorted the idea of Repentance to the point that a lost person would easily come to the conclusion that they have a “punch list” of things they HAVE to do in order to come to Christ.
I do not have an issue with “lordship or grace” the Word of God seems very balanced on the two. I do not believe you can seperate Lord from Savior. My concern is putting a “back pack” on the Gospel, that is, preaching repentance in such a way that it can easily be unsdtstood as works. Yet, may I go on sinning so that grace may abound? May never be!!! I have great concerns with the extremist in either camp. Manipulative alter calls add to this concern.
Well said… I think the free grace advocates error can be traced back to a failure to understand divine regeneration. They do not understand when it occurs (before faith), it’s power (Eph. 2:4-5, John 3:3), or it’s result (santification, Rom 8:10).
A hearty “thank you” to John MacArthur and the staff for clearing the fog on the Lordship debate.
I actually serve as an elder in a rural IFCA church in Northern California and I have to say just mentioning the words “repentance” and “obedience” in several sermons (apart from “Lordship” even) have already caused a backlash here. I have found that the FG position has so saturated people’s thinking that, from what I’ve observed, folks can flaunt their own sins even towards their own pastor while still thinking that they’re on the way to heaven.
At this point, I wouldn’t mind so much seeing Dr. MacArthur’s notes incorporated into our modern churches’ doctrinal statements. If the next generation can be saved from the damaging effects of the FG position, all the better.
Please do press on, Nate B., Matt W., and others…
Thank you.
-JS
Your part on the free-grace movement is most helpful. Therein we see the extreme biblical connection coming from seemingly smart people. Yet, how smart are they in Christ’s eyes? Indeed, the most wise thing we can do in life is to love God. In contrast, what does it say about God the Father if his children don’t passionately love and trust him after conversion. Of course you all know this and agree, but I hope that perhaps through these discussions that the church will be guarded from the free-grace movement and things like these. Blessings to you for taking a stand when few are willing to do so.
I know FGers would like to distance themselves from the modern seeker movement but it seems to me that there is an undeniable similarity.
David Wells: ‘Why is it, he [Barna] wondered, that Boomers were initially so opposed to institutionalized religion now make up fully half of the born again movement? The answer, he concluded, is that they are practised consumers who were offered a deal that they simply could not turn down. For “a one time admission of imperfection and weakness” they received in return “permanent peace with God”. The result was that “millions of Boomers who said the prayer, asked for forgiveness and went on with their life, with virtually nothing changed.” And Barna adds that they “saw it as a deal in which they could exploit God and get what they wanted without giving up anything of consequence.”‘
Wells: ‘Here lies the principal false premise upon which this marketing of the church is based. It is treating sinners as customers and that is bringing into the church the insipid commitment and ignorance which has so alarmed Barna.’ [Above all Earthly Pow'rs, p. 302]
Perhaps one could make the case that the prevalence of FG theology in the churches of the 70s and 80s laid the foundation for the seeker movement of today.
Dr MacArthur,
Thank you for your ministry in Christian media. I can’t tell you how important your radio broadcasts were to me as a new Christian. I borrowed your strength and became more confident that God’s Word could be trusted despite the hostility that was part of my environment. My disagreement with your position on the gospel has never taken away from my respect for your emphatic stand on God’s Word.
Thank you for beginning with the agreement between your position and that of Free Grace. I even would tentatively agree with you that both sides are together on #2 that “the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone” but that the position of the Lordship Salvation is simply a dramatically distorted view (almost but not quite as distorted as the Roman Catholic view), however, as you know, most Free Grace people would not see this as I do.
In order to not quibble straight off with your interpretations of Hodges’ views, I’ll respond to what you say is the heart of the LS debate first, than in a separate comment use your numbering to restate the issues you raise.
Dr. MacArthur, I respectfully disagree with your belief that Free Grace representatives are responding to a misconstrued understanding of your position. This is like saying the Puritan divines shouldn’t have called Anne Hutchinson an antinomian because she failed to label herself that way. It’s appropriate to draw rational conclusions on the implications of one’s opponents even if they wouldn’t self-describe themselves that way.
I would further suggest that your choice to paint Hodges as if he cared little for biblical self-examination except by way of a selfish desire for eternal rewards has done the seriousness of the debate a short service. I believe you owe him a formal apology.
You wrote that Hodges believes that saving faith is by believing facts about Christ: “Those who want to eliminate Christ’s lordship from the gospel see faith as simple trust in a set of truths about Christ…. Scripture describes faith as more than that—it is a wholehearted trust in Christ personally (e.g., Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9). Not merely faith about Him; faith in Him. Note the difference: If I say I believe some promise you have made, I am saying far less than if I say I trust you.”
Actually, Hodges himself has written: “I have heard people say this: ‘In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.’ In the context of our present discussion, I mean that this is their summary of the requirement of faith. It is not just one item, among others, to be believed. Whenever I hear that nowadays, I get extremely uncomfortable… The simple fact of the matter is that the statement I am criticizing is technically incorrect. 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… I would like to see grace people abandon this form of invitation to faith. Let us always point men to Christ Himself as the object of faith, rather than to some concept that must be theologically clarified before it can really be understood.” (BTW, In my opinion this isn’t a change from his position in Absolutely Free!, but if you see it a development, I won’t quibble. These quotes are from How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1 and Part 2, which were published in 2001.)
Sinners need to believe in Christ Himself–for eternal life–since that is the content He repeatedly asks us to trust Him for in John’s Gospel. Otherwise, we would fail to believe that He himself was the “Resurrection and the Life.”
But that doesn’t seem to be the whole of your disagreement, you write, “Believing in a person necessarily involves some degree of commitment. Trusting Christ means placing oneself in His custody for both life and death. It means we rely on His counsel, trust in His goodness, and entrust ourselves for time and eternity to His guardianship. Real faith, saving faith, is all of me (mind, emotions, and will) embracing all of Him (Savior, Advocate, Provider, Sustainer, Counselor, and Lord God).”
Clearly, as you say, this is a key place in your disagreement with Hodges, who writes:
“It is precisely the ability of Jesus to guarantee eternal life that makes Him the Christ in the Johannine sense of that term. Our Lord’s exchange with Martha in John 11:25-27 demonstrates this clearly… ‘Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?’’ (John 11:25-26). Her reply is a declaration that she believes Him to be the Christ. Martha said, ‘Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world’ (11:27). Notice here that to believe that Jesus is the Christ means to believe that He guarantees resurrection and eternal life to every believer.”
Also, it is Martha’s words that appear to be quoted by John in his purpose statement: “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
The evidence in John doesn’t end here. (I can’t believe you would argue, along with your co-workers, that it is not John but the whole Bible we believe, since this is an argument that also destroys Luther’s great argument concerning Romans and Galatians.) The focus in John is on the Christ’s dependability in securing deliverance from death:
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life 5:24
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.6:40
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 6:47
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. 8:24
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” 11:25-27
(B)ut these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. 20:31
Yet you say: “Trusting Christ means placing oneself in His custody for both life and death. It means we rely on His counsel, trust in His goodness, and entrust ourselves for time and eternity to His guardianship. Real faith, saving faith, is all of me (mind, emotions, and will) embracing all of Him (Savior, Advocate, Provider, Sustainer, Counselor, and Lord God).”
John 6:35 seems to contradict your view:
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” 6:35
How can trusting in Christ for eternal salvation mean that we will “rely on His counsel” and “trust in His goodness” if Jesus said the person who believes in Him will never be hungry and never be thirsty? This shows that your graphic is exactly right. Lordship Salvation tends to mix oranges with other fruit. Christ’s promise is that He provides eternal life, it is not a promise to receive the sinner’s reliance and trusting in time, since this is something any normal Christian will consistently continue to thirst for.
God Bless.
Jodie
Let me add some Free Grace detail to the issues which divide us.
1. It should be obvious that the call to repentance is bad news (even if it yields beautiful results) and is therefore not part of the gospel message. Yet, crucially, the New Testament call to repentance never becomes negotiable and is universally proclaimed to all men. It calls men to forsake the sin(s) that God is already chastising them for, or that He will begin to chastise them for. Acts of repentance should be understood as the substance of Christian growth.
2. The faith that saves is not a member of the Trinity. Since this faith is not the Living God himself it lacks divine power to accomplish what only Christ in us can accomplish. It only has indirect “power” due to God’s using it as a condition for his work in regenerating us and in sanctifying us. To consider faith a choice or a chosen “act” is irrational. Nancy Pearcey has defined a belief as a thought that sticks around. A belief is an inner conviction that the evidence leans toward or necessitates. In the case of saving faith it is a conviction responding to the Word of God and the convicting work of the Spirit.
3. The free offer of eternal life is not part of the God/Man negotiations (so to speak) regarding repentance and obedience; indeed it is just that, an offer of eternal life, without cost.
4. Disciples exist who have never adequately believed in Christ for eternal life, and believers exist who have very inadequately followed. Works accomplished in the Spirit are spiritual fruit, and are a direct result of Christ’s finished work on the cross and the power of his resurrection., but are not necessary to prove faith in Christ.
5. In the NT, as well as in English, deliverance and salvation are synonyms. When Paul speaks of salvation he is sometimes speaking of eternal salvation sometimes of some other type of salvation. “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.” (Romans 13:11) Also, F.F. Bruce considers Hebrews 2:3 to be another place that salvation is not indeed to mean eternal salvation.(The Epistle to the Hebrews , Revised, 1970 see discussion on 2:3)
6. Obedience is never negotiable and is universally expected of all men. Calling on the name of the Lord in the Roman Empire was a public identification with a religion on the verge of becoming illegal, so Hodges’ view is that Paul was insisting on a public display that was indeed costly.
7. Love for God and harmonious fellowship with God are not automatically guaranteed results of being a true Christian. For these, the Christian must humbly abide in God’s Spirit and repent of any known sin.
8. For the person who believes in Jesus alone for his eternal life, his adoption by God is transparent. He can know adoption has happened. But discipleship is only transparent to the degree that he honestly examines his heart attitude and accomplishment of loving works. WHile there are those who try to follow who have never believed, their disobedience to the will of God (that they should believe) will result in eternal condemnation. There are also many who think they are saved because they said a prayer or walked an aisle, but this is contrary to Free Grace Theology. These types of things are tragically dangerous and unbiblical Church routines.
9. Bob Wilkin has said that when people ask him “than why can’t I go out and live like the devil?” he tells them “For the same reason I don’t bash away at my leg with a sledge hammer. I don’t want to destroy my life!” Sin destroys lives. When true apostasy happens in the life of a regenerate person they are dealt with by a majestic God who knows how to parent.
Hope this helps to contextualize these hot button issues.
God bless.
I am thankful the Lord our God has given us the scriptures and prayer (Acts 17:11) and the leading of the Holy Spirit to teach us(John 14:26).
His great mercy toward humble hearts will lead us to the truth according to His sovereign will(Psalm 25:9). He will beautify the humble with salvation (Ps.149:4a).
With thanksgiving I praise God for such faithful men as Mr. J. MacArthur for preaching the truth in love; and for loving people enough to speak it regardless of those who say we should not tell someone else they are in error (as though this broke the unity of the faith), when it is truly keeping the unity of the faith which is based on the truth of scripture(1 Tim.1:3). We are to continue to speak the truth in love whether people listen or do not listen (Ezekial 2:5-7).
Thank you Dr. MacArthur for all the time and work that you have put into this very important issue over the years. The clarity in this list of distinctives that you have provided today will be of great help many!
Many blessings sir.
Hi Jodie,
I think there are better people here who will answer your points. Or maybe not. I take issue with your statement:
“It should be obvious that the call to repentance is bad news (even if it yields beautiful results) and is therefore not part of the gospel message.”
Repentance is part of the Gospel message, because of the bad news of sin. Without repentance, the sinner has obviously not understood the magnitude and severity of his/her sin.
“Yet, crucially, the New Testament call to repentance never becomes negotiable and is universally proclaimed to all men.”
Agreed… but…
“It calls men to forsake the sin(s) that God is already chastising them for, or that He will begin to chastise them for. Acts of repentance should be understood as the substance of Christian growth.”
I think you have muddied the waters between the indwelling, remnant sins that the regenerate has (and will have godly sorrow over) and the unconfessed, unrepented sins or the unregenerate (who is still under the wrath of God).
I believe the problem with the FG is the redefinition of terms. Proof-texting is not the way to define terms, or you will (inevitably) tie yourself up in knots.
Again, the first sermon Jesus preached commanded, in order:
a. Repent
b. Believe
Mark 1:15.
This one verse, unless I’m missing something, appears to destroy a key pillar of the FG argument (i.e., repentance not required).
Hi Jenson,
You observed,
Repentance is part of the Gospel message, because of the bad news of sin. Without repentance, the sinner has obviously not understood the magnitude and severity of his/her sin.
Let me draw an analogy. Let’s say the hotel you were staying in was burning down. I fireman yells into your door “Fire! Wet down a blanket and crawl to the exits!”
Sin is like the fire itself and the fireman’s words are like the call to repent. They are a warning that something terrible is happening and to take action. It was courageous of the fireman to come to the door and give us the bed news and directions how to deal with the bad news, but none of that makes it good news. Good news would be if the fireman came to the window and said, “We put out the fire. Come down the elevators because the management is putting you up across the street.”
We can thank God that he gives us the bad news of sin and repentance. Bad news isn’t morally bad it’s morally good. It is a merciful message because God is telling us so we’re not acting blindly. He’s giving us reliable information to guide our actions. Sometime reliable information is negative even if it is good that we find out the negative information.
You also say;
I think you have muddied the waters between the indwelling, remnant sins that the regenerate has (and will have godly sorrow over) and the unconfessed, unrepented sins or the unregenerate (who is still under the wrath of God).
Luther believed that the Christian life was one of repentance, and it’s possible he did muddy the waters a bit. I think there is a distinction between simply unconfessed sin that God is convicting the Christian about and sin that the Christian is holding onto that he knows is questionable. I think repentance is clearly needed in the second case, but not always in the first, because if we listen to the Spirit’s nudging we will confess it and be cleansed and we can maintain our fellowship with God.
I think you make a good point that some of this wanders into semantical differences but would agree with MacArthur that there are also significant doctrinal differences.
God bless.
Jodie
BTW I’m not at all saying that you shouldn’t teach the problem of sin. Here in Chicago a lot of people don’t think they are sinners, so you have to teach clearly the whole reason why eternal life is needed– because humanity is under a condemnation it deserves due to sin. So teaching on sin is needed for most people I deal with because the good news doesn’t make sense in a vacuum. If someone was thinking they couldn’t be saved because of how much of a sinner they were, obviously I would be focused on Christ as a sufficient Savior.
Jodie said: It should be obvious that the call to repentance is bad news (even if it yields beautiful results) and is therefore not part of the gospel message.
I agree that the call to repentance is definately bad news, but only to those who are unregenerate because they have no desire and no ability to do so. To every fallen human being who hates God, the call to repent out of respect for such a divine being is surely to be repulsive.
BUT, to the Christian who has been regenerated by God Himself, hand-picked in eternity past to be saved from the death penalty of sin, the call to repentance should be percieved as an amazingly merciful and gracious opportunity to worship and glorify God through obedience to His Word, because that is what brings pleasure to our Father in heaven. True repentance out of true faith for us is obviously the best news we could recieve, because that means that God has not utterly crushed us as we so deserve. Repentance is a means to loving God more tomorrow than I love Him today. Repentance means that the Holy Spirit is indeed present within me to convict me of those areas of which I need repentance! This is GRACE! Obviously, repentance can be painful when we have given ourselves over to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, or the pride of life, but for the Christian, we have a new nature that thrives on obedience.
Jodie, if you are going to use the house fire analogy, would you then exclude every “negative” piece of information from the gospel? Is your gospel void of God’s wrath, sin, AND repentance?
jsb,
Maybe I’m missing your point, but the issue about repentance for me is that it is not needed for eternal life but is a central message of Christ the church needs to preach/proclaim. I actually think its watered down by locking it together with life we receive without cost.
Repentance is costly and severe; it takes a whole change in direction.
So jsb, repentance is required because the Lord proclaims it, not because its tied into the gift.
Can you at all see what I’m saying? I know it’s very different.
Blessings,
Jodie
I’m not at all saying that you shouldn’t teach the problem of sin. Here in Chicago a lot of people don’t think they are sinners, so you have to teach clearly the whole reason why eternal life is needed– because humanity is under a condemnation it deserves due to sin. So teaching on sin is needed for most people I deal with because the good news doesn’t make sense in a vacuum. If someone was thinking they couldn’t be saved because of how much of a sinner they were, obviously I would be focused on Christ as a sufficient Savior.
Teaching sin is fine in evangelism, but calling things that arent good news as if they were good news is not ideal. I see the Bible as always being rational. I’d say sin is the contxt needed to make sense of the gospel not the gospel itself.
Blessings.
Obviously we would agree that teaching on the subject of sin is essential, but my question to you is: does sin and God’s wrath have their place in the gospel presentation or is that “bad news” better left for later discussion after conversion?
Sorry Jodie, we must have been writing at the same time, you already answered my previous post.
So, let me get this straight, when you present the gospel to somebody, you tell them the good news with no mention of sin. Is this right? You said that the context of sin is obviously important, because without it, the gospel wouldn’t make any sense. So when you evangilize then, do you go through a pre-gospel and then the gospel?
Jodie, I’m trying to see…
You seem to quote exclusively from John, and stress “believe.” Yet I see “Repent” from both Jesus (Mark) and Peter (Acts) as the first commands in their first sermons.
I’d also say that John stresses belief in Jesus as the Christ, which always has a Lordship meaning in the NT (cf. Luke 2:11)
Jodie,
Do you know what word or words in the Greek are translated “believe” in the passages you quoted from John? (this is just a question so that I may look them up in the grammers I have)
Thanks for your interaction on this topic, providentially I have been Reading the Gospel According to Jesus during this discussion on the blog.
Hayden
Hi Matt,
That’s a helpul clarifying question. The simple answer is I wouldn’t really call it pre-gospel or pre-evangelism because I think that betrays that all I care about is regeneration. Since the great commission isn’t about making believers it’s about making disciples, then the focus of reaching out to people is telling them the truth of what Jesus is all about. Tell people about the Sermon on the Mount. (And tell them there’s no way the can reach that level without God’s enabling power–which is the Gospel, that God enables) But even at a human level people want something that is for real and that is meaningful to do with theri life.
Or you can go out and focus on sharing the offer of eternla life but yes, make sure they get what you are saying by giving them enough context.
So I don’t care when you tell them the offer of eternal life, but whenever you share that do it accurately. To me it’s a matter of studying the Gospel of John so you can share it precisely and accurately.
I hope that clarifies a little how I see the offer of life fitting into evangelism.
Hi jsb,
You make a fair observation, although on the last Weekend Roundup I am still trying to engage people in a discussion of James. I think that is an amazing book.
Just to throw this out, maybe Mark and Acts are better books to see how Repentance should be understood than John. But I’d add Revelation as another book that talks a lot about repentance and could be added to that list. Maybe each book of the NT isn’t meant to be equallly informatiive about every theme of the Bible. Maybe each book contributes something unique to the whole. If there’s some truth to that than what does John contribute?
Both dispensationalists and Covenant folks see 70 AD as significant. Free Grace people see the Roman Jewish war as the wrath of God on sin. We see John the Baptist and Jesu Himself and Peter and Stephen as all being prophets who spoke of the need to repent yes becasuse the Kingdom of God was near, but ultimately the nation not only didn’t repent it crucified the Messiah. That was a big sin against God’s will.
So the terrible consequences finally came in the Roman War. If the nation would have truly repented like Ninevah had then that was would not have destroyed Jerusalem in my view. I don’t know what would have happened about the visible Kingdom being set up. I dont think we ae given that basically eschatological) information.
Look at what Jesus says about repenting in Luke:
1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Then he tells a parble about a “tree” getting cut down:
6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that[a] you can cut it down.’”
Jsb you also bring up that John stresses belief in Jesus as the Christ, which always has a Lordship meaning in the NT (cf. Luke 2:11)
I don’t think Free Grace theology is week on Lordship. I don’t like the no-lordship term. I think blending repentance and discipleship inot the free gift tends to blunt the impact of those messages that are meant to be majestic and somewhat intimidating. And there seems like if the free gift becomes more bracing, than inevitably discipleship becomes somewhat less bracing when mixed with the free gift.
That’s how I look at it, I know Piper and MacArthur are pretty intense though.
Sorry Jsb about all the typos in that last comment. I hope it is semi-decipherable…
Hi Hayden,
I’m glad you’re reading Gospel According to Jesus, because it’s an important issue to explore.
My husband is studying Greek and loves it, but I’m not up on Greek. I just compare different arguments and try to weigh them the best I can. I know that’s not ideal…
But I think it is pisteu. Does that sound right?
Bob Wilkin has an article about that word and how it relates to continuing to believe.
I think that weirdly there really is some common ground in our two ways of looking at the NT because we do both focus on a way of looking at the NT that refuses to de-emphasize the severe portions of the NT.
God bless…
Hi Jodie,
Luther believed that the Christian life was one of repentance, and it’s possible he did muddy the waters a bit.
If you read Luther in the historical context he lived in, you will understand why he said the things he said. Mind you, he did speak his mind rather too quickly. Perhaps he wasn’t expect people in the future to quote him!
I find the foundation of Free Grace/Non-Lordship Salvation very shaky. Your definition of most theological terms is different from the historic Protestant definitions. And the root will be regeneration. Perhaps you can clarify your position on that.
Jenson
Hi Jodie again,
I looked at Bob Wilkin’s article and the first thing that struck me was a redefinition of “saving faith”.
The historic Protestant (and I belive, Biblical) position is: Faith is a gift from God and it has an object, Jesus Christ. It is the “instrument” by which a sinner is justified. Faith cannot be lost because God put it there in the first place.
Sorry, there is probably a lot of loose ends but I am at work and can only rely on my memory to write this.
Jenson
Jodie,
I looked at the article you recommended and think the author was stretching some of his analaogies farther than the Greek language would allow. He seems to formulate his argument by analogy rather than Greek constructs. I would be careful by putting too much emphasis on this article. He also “takes on” one of the foremost Greek scholars in Dan Wallace (who I do not always agree with, but has written one of the finest grammars on the planet) with a dismissive attitude and does not really interact with the argument he quotes.
I am currently teaching through the book of Mark and do not see the sharp distinction between repentance and discipleship that you are trying to draw. Be careful when you formulate one argument (say from John) and the superimpose it upon the other Gospels. Keep studying and interacting though, the Lord will bless your interst in this topic.
Hi Jenson,
Well, I hear where your coming from, but in “our” defense, I’d challenge you to keep an open mind because there has been a slender tradition that has argued that in the English Puritan tradition the Scriptures have been fused too much with common sense and the need to make it all “fit together”. Man’s wisdom sometimes tilts toward common sense at the expense of letting the Scriptures truly speak for themselves, would you agree?. I think a holy God giving salvation without any strings runs against a lot of instinctual information.
When you get a chance, I’d recommend checking out the Pulpit conversation on the last Weekend Roundup. We discussed James at the bottom of the thread.. That’s the perfect place where this issue of how historic FG is came up. I just counted it, it’s like the last 13 comments.
About the definition of saving faith, I consider that to be part of what gives Calvinism the beauty of its logic, in the sense that it all fits together, and yet I don’t’ think it has a tremendous Scriptural support for the classic “order” of salvation.
Are you a Dispensationalist with Reformed soteriology, like MacArthur? Or are you more reformed in general?
Blessings.
Jodie
Hi Jodie,
“I’d challenge you to keep an open mind because there has been a slender tradition that has argued that in the English Puritan tradition the Scriptures have been fused too much with common sense and the need to make it all “fit together”.”
I wondered who ever thought that way, to begin with? Where did you get your info? The Bible “fits together”, period.
Concerning the discussion about James, I was part of that conversation till I realise that it was a futile exercise.
My concern is not whether the Calvinist got it right regarding “saving faith”, but it is whether the readers and hearers have “saving faith”. Concerning the order of salvation, Roms 8 would be sufficient for me.
We love those labels, don’t we? I am Calvinistic Baptist. I am definitely not Dispensationlist. I have spent far too much time in my youth in a Brethren assembly! What about you?
By the way, would you mind clarifying your position on regeneration. I asked this earlier…
Jenson
Jodie,
I spent some more time going over Bob Wilkin’s article and it was worse than I thought. The argumentation was not very good. I would reccomend you look some of what he is talking about up in some Greek gammars before relying too heavily on it!Have your husband help you, it will really sharpen his Greek skills.
Hayden
Hi Jenson,
Do you really think that “historic protestant” is the right label to use? Are Lutherans and other non-Westminster Calvinists not really protestant? It’s one thing to say your tradition is right, another to dismiss other strands as non-existent! I’m sure youdidn’t mean it as arrogantly as it sounded.
To clarify regeneration. I deny that regeneration logically happens before belief and justification.
I think the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, righteousness and judgment. The Word of God is used by God to break apart the deception of the devil concerning the Gospel. He shows us the truth of Christ, and because of that work we believe.
(Isn’t it irrational to think of belief as a choice or a human act that is chosen? No one chooses what they believe. Could you choose to change your opinion on anything? Name one if so?)
When we believe we receive eternal salvation: eternal life, justification, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, etc. We are a new creature and the only normal way to life is consistent with Christ in us, living holy joyful lives.
This seems more consistent with what Paul told the jailer: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, not be saved and you will believe…
Concerning James, Hodges view is a stretch to those who are used to reading James in a certain way, but actually it fits the context very well and show how deftly James moves from one idea to the next.
God bless.
Hayden,
I think it is a stretch to say that Wilkin is trying to formulate his argument by analogy! What he is doing is showing what would happen if you took Wallace’s logic into other parts of the NT. Isn’t that fair befor committing to a rule of interpretation?
Do you agree with Wallace on this statement?
“The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation.”
Here is an examples of what Wilkin is saying is the problem with this view:
“John had not baptized anyone in a long time, yet Herod still called him ho baptizōn. We still call him that today, even though he hasn’t baptized anyone for 2000 years! Using Wallace’s understanding, John was only the Baptist when he was in the water baptizing…”
You see another problem I don’t…
“I am currently teaching through the book of Mark and do not see the sharp distinction between repentance and discipleship that you are trying to draw.”
Not sure what you mean here. I don’t draw a sharp distinction between repentance and discipleship. One is a negative call, stop embracing man’s way, and the other is more positive, start following Christ. But they are very parallel.
You say,
“Be careful when you formulate one argument (say from John) and the superimpose it upon the other Gospels.”
I don’t do that, brother. I don’t see a wisp of a synoptic problem. To me it is a non-existent construct. The gospel writers are entirely in rapport.
Blessings.
Jodie,
The translation of the participle in the Greek language is determined by the context. What Wilkins is missing is that there are all sorts of “presents” in the Greek (i.e. Gnomic,historic, etc.). He is presenting them as if you translate one verb one way, by analogy, you must interpret others that way. We don’t even do that in English so why must it be done in the Greek.
The quote from Wallace:
“The present was the tense of choice most likely because the NT writers by and large saw continual belief as a necessary condition of salvation.”
is not a complete quote. I looked it up today, but left my book in my study at the church, but in the context of what he was talking about I believe his exegesis was correct.
I am just cautioning you, that is all! Make sure you look at Greek Grammars if someone is using the Greek. That was the only point I was trying to get across.
Hayden
PS What is the non-lordship salvation interpretation of Mark 8:27-38? I am just trying to understand the position.
Hayden,
It’s the classic example of a regenerate person being used by God and then becasue of sin being used by Satan. Peter was of God in the one instance and of the devil in the second, to use John-like language.
About your term for my theological team, I see obedience to Christ as mandatory for all humanity, especially for His people, so I’m not sure why my theology is no-lordship.
God bless.
Hi Jodie,
“Do you really think that “historic protestant” is the right label to use? Are Lutherans and other non-Westminster Calvinists not really protestant? It’s one thing to say your tradition is right, another to dismiss other strands as non-existent! I’m sure youdidn’t mean it as arrogantly as it sounded.”
I think you need to read my comment again. I NEVER said anything to (even) that effect.
You may realise that the Baptist Confession that I hold is different from the other Confessions, but the historic Protestant confessions are still good summaries of the Christian faith. Have you even read any of these confessions? My guess is no.
I noted that you said, “To clarify regeneration. I deny that regeneration logically happens before belief and justification.”
We are already on the wrong page. Regeneration is before belief and most definitely, justification. John 3 plus other texts are proofs of that. That’s why every thing else we talk about seems to fall apart. That is all I have to say.
Sincerely,
Jenson
Hi Jenson,
It is flat-out error to say that John 3 proves such an extra biblical add-on.
You seems to be able to dish out better than you can respond to.
I wish you the best, but your assumption that the majority opinion can be trusted is disproved in the Scriptures.
God Bless you.
Hi Jodie,
“It is flat-out error to say that John 3 proves such an extra biblical add-on.”
I said, and I will say again - John 3 PLUS other texts show that Regeneration is before belief and most definitely, justification.
“You seems to be able to dish out better than you can respond to.”
I didn’t realise I was responding to anything. Please don’t tell me you don’t do that as well.
“…your assumption that the majority opinion can be trusted is disproved in the Scriptures.”
And the Scriptures says what?
In any case, I think we ought to give 2000 years of NT history a listening ear, don’t you think?
Sincerely,
Jenson
Hi Jenson,
We certainly can agree on that. 2K years of Christian literature represents the Holy Spirit’s gifting of scholars. But we can both agree that can be taken too far. The FG argument is that there have been heavy biases that hve restrained the truth of the Gospel.
The basic bias is simply that man loves works religion and if he doesn’t get that he attaches distorting strings to the grace that saves eternaly. I’m not saying your team secretly wants works religion. I do think your understanding is a distortion.
What I meant by the Scriptures showing etc., is that in the whole narrative you see that usually the consensus is wrongly concieving God.
If you’d like to describe the evidence for regeneration preceeding logically belief, I’d like to see it, since I don’t agre with that.
God Bless!
Well thanks for that, Jodie. For all that you said:
1) You need to prove your thesis (about Regeneration)first, since I asked you first!
2) You will need to prove that you actually know what historic Christianity is all about. I have my doubts about your knowledge of historic Christianity.
But thanks for your input. It will provide me with lots of material for my blog. Perhaps I might get blogspotted by Phil Johnson again… or maybe not.
Sincerely,
Jenson
Fine, I’ll post my Biblical reasons for adopting my views on regeneration, and I’ll post a debate about where repentance fits in, which I think you may find interesting.
God bless.
Don’t forget, Jodie, about the second part:
2) You will need to prove that you actually know what historic Christianity is all about. I have my doubts about your knowledge of historic Christianity.
If you wish to critique the “opposite” view, you will need to tell us what you know about it first. If not, all I (and other readers) will be reading your own views (as you said it, “my views on regeneration.”)
Look forward in reading it!
Sincerely,
Jenson
Hey Jenson,
…finally: Regeneration
a) God sovereignly elects people to regeneration. Eph 1:4 On this topic, God also elects some to the kind of suffering and faithfulness that he will reward at the Judgment seat of Christ. Matthew 20:16 2 Peter 1:9-11 Matthew 19:28 John 21:18
b) All men are effectively deceived by the strategic Satan 2 Cor 4:4
c) No man seeks God on his own. Romans 3:11
d) All men are drawn to Christ. John 12:32
e) All men are convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment. Jn 16:8
f) Most men do not receive these inner witnesses. Matt 7:14 John 1:11 The Spirit may well cease to illuminate them to the light of the Gospel. Mat 12:31
g) The Spirit continues to illuminate the open-minded elect to the truth of Christ using the instrument of the word of God. 1 Peter 1:23
h) The word of God breaks apart the deception and reveals the truth of Christ as Provider of eternal life and Guarantor of future resurrection. John 11:25 John 6:40
i) When the truth has been fully revealed to the sinner, they do not decide to believe, they believe. This is not a decision. Romans 4:21 Psalm 62:1
j) At the moment of belief, eternal salvation happens: the person is justified and born again, meaning regeneration. Galatians 2:16 Jas 1:18
k) Regeneration is the gift of eternal life, but it is really the life of the second Person of the Trinity. It is perfect and holy and is never part of sin. 1 John 5:20 1 John 3:9 James 1:17
l) In practice, FG people expect to see a change of attitude and behavior in any new believer. All normal believers walk in love. Col 3:1 Eph 1:15
m) The question for a new believer (and an older believer, and even oneself) is whether one has believed the claim of Christ concerning His being the Life and the Resurrection. John 3:18
Hey, notice that people who are adamantly against the Lordship of Christ are not led by the Spirit toward Christ! See (f). The idea that FG assumes that people who reject the lordship of Christ get saved is therefore not exactly accurate, though I know this has probably been unintentional. They are saved apart from this question, but at a practical level the Spirit’s witness doesn’t get that far.
Hope this helps to add some context.
God bless.
Also, Jenson,
Basically you guess right that I’m not up on the creeds or the finer points that divide Reformed oriented Christians theologically and historically.
I know that at one point the Reformers were drowning the poor Anabaptists. But by the 1689 Confession the two became one, right? Wasn’t Spurgeon within this TULIP oriented line of descent?
Do you think MacArthur has downplayed his dispensationalism so much that he’s somewhat more in you theological camp at this point?
I’d appreciate you referring me to good sources on this topic.
If your question on historic Christianity is broader than this topic let me know…
God bless.
Jodie
Finally, I told you about a debate on regeneration you may find interesting. The resolution being debated is “Resolved; Repentance Isn’t a Condition of Eternal Life”. It’s an email debate so it’s not just a transcript of a debate done in person.
Wilkin “won” in spades, but I bet you can guess why by just looking at the resolution.
Blessings.
Jodie
The debate was between Dr. Bob Wilkin and Kerry Gilliard.
Jodie,
I looked at the link, nice try.
Firstly,
1) Bob Wilkin is a familiar name to us, who is Kerry Gilliard?
2) GES announced that Bob won, what do you expect?
If a professing “Christian” still lives like a worldling and have no sense of what true repentance is, I will find it hard to call him a “brother” or “sister”-in-Christ, regardless of what GES, Antonio, or you say.
Also, why do people like yourself like to link Anabaptists with Calvinistic Baptists? Do you realise that it is a mistake?
Jenson
Jenson,
I’m surprised by the change in your tone. I put that together, and it took some time, because you requested it. Did you expect it to be easily ripped into, and thus was a dissapointment?
You wrote:
If you wish to critique the “opposite” view, you will need to tell us what you know about it first. If not, all I (and other readers) will be reading your own views (as you said it, “my views on regeneration.”)
Look forward in reading it!
Sincerely,
Jenson
I admitted my lack of knowledge. If your branch of baptists didn’t originate with the anabaptists I was unaware of that.
May God richly bless every aspect of your life.
Jodie,
“I’m surprised by the change in your tone. I put that together, and it took some time, because you requested it. Did you expect it to be easily ripped into, and thus was a dissapointment?”
It is easy in writing to get the wrong impression. My ‘tone’ hasnt’t changed. I did look at your view of regeneration and it is what I expected.
Jenson
Wilkin won ?
That’s news to me. LOL