Clarifying the Lordship Debate (Part 2)
October 10th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
As we noted yesterday, 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. (We emphasize this again just to make the point.)
Instead, the lordship controversy is a disagreement over the nature of true faith. Those who have true faith will love Christ (Rom. 8:28 ; 1 Cor. 16:22 ; 1 John 4:19). They will therefore want to do His bidding. 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.
Lordship salvation does not teach true Christians are perfect or sinless. Wholehearted commitment to Christ does not mean that we never disobey or that we live perfect lives. The vestiges of our sinful flesh make it inevitable that we will often do what we do not want to do (Rom. 7:15). But commitment to Christ does mean that obedience rather than disobedience will be our distinguishing trait. God will deal with the sin in our lives and we will respond to His loving chastisement by becoming more holy (Heb. 12:5–11). Those with true faith will fail—and in some cases, frequently—but a genuine believer will, as a pattern of life, confess his sin and come to the Father for forgiveness (1 John 1:9).
There is no question that Christians sin. They disobey. They fail. We all fall far short of perfection in this life (Phil. 3:12–5). “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). Even the most mature and godly Christians “see in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12). Our minds need constant renewing (Rom. 12:2). But that doesn’t invalidate the truth that salvation in some real sense makes us practically righteous. The same epistle that describes the Christian’s hatred of and battle with sin (Rom. 7:8–24) first says that believers are free from sin and slaves of righteousness (6:18). The same apostle who wrote, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves” (1 John 1:8) later wrote, “No one who abides in Him sins” (3:6). In one place he says, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” ( 1:10 ), and in another, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in Him” (3:9).
There’s a true paradox—not an inconsistency—in those truths. All Christians sin (1 John 1:8), but all Christians also obey: “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3). Sin and carnality are still present with all believers (Rom. 7:21), but they cannot be the hallmark of one’s character (Rom. 6:22).
Scripture clearly and repeatedly confirms the lordship viewpoint on this matter: “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God” (3 John 11). That speaks of direction, not perfection. But it clearly makes behavior a test of faith’s reality.
The sinner’s role in salvation is not the main issue in the lordship controversy. The heart of the debate deals with how much God does in redeeming the elect.
What happens at regeneration? Is the believing sinner really born again (John 3:3, 7 ; 1 Peter 1:3 , 23)? Is our old self really dead, “crucified … that we should no longer be slaves to sin” (Rom. 6:6)? Are believers really “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4)? Is it true that “if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17)? Can we really say, “Having been freed from sin, [we are] slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18 )?
Lordship salvation says yes.
This, after all, is the whole point of redemption: “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29). Does that conforming work of God—sanctification—begin in this lifetime? Again, lordship salvation says yes.
Scripture agrees. “We all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18). Though “it has not appeared as yet what we shall be,” it is nevertheless certain that “when He appears, we shall be like Him.… And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure” (1 John 3:2–3).
There’s more: “Whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30). Notice God’s part in salvation begins with election and ends in glory. In between, every aspect of the redemptive process is God’s work, not the sinner’s. God will neither terminate the process nor omit any aspect of it.
Titus 3:5 is clear: Salvation—all of it—is “not on the basis of deeds which we have done.” It is God’s work, done “according to His mercy.” It is not merely a declaratory transaction, legally securing a place in heaven but leaving the sinner captive to his sin. It involves a transformation of the disposition, the very nature, through “the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” as well.
The question is not whether we’re saved by grace, but how grace operates in salvation. No-lordship advocates love to portray themselves as champions of grace. But they characterize grace in an anemic way that misses the whole point. God’s grace is a spiritual dynamic that works in the lives of the redeemed, “instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12). True grace is more than just a giant freebie, opening the door to heaven in the sweet by and by, but leaving us to wallow in sin in the bitter here and now. Grace is God presently at work in our lives. By grace “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). By grace He “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:14).
That ongoing work of grace in the Christian’s life is as much a certainty as justification, glorification, or any other aspect of God’s redeeming work. “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). Salvation is wholly God’s work, and He finishes what He starts. His grace is sufficient. And potent. It cannot be defective in any regard. “Grace” that does not affect one’s behavior is not the grace of God.
Repentance is not incidental to the gospel. What is the gospel, after all, but a call to repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30)? In other words, it demands that sinners make a change—stop going one way and turn around to go the other (1 Thess. 1:9). Paul’s evangelistic invitations always demanded repentance: “God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30). Here’s how Paul described His own ministry and message: “I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:19–20, emphasis added). Repentance is what leads to life (Acts 11:18) and to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:25). Thus salvation is impossible apart from repentance.
Advocates of the no-lordship position frequently suggest that preaching repentance adds something to the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.
But faith presupposes repentance. How can those who are mortal enemies of God (Rom. 5:10) sincerely believe in His Son without repenting? How can anyone truly comprehend the truth of salvation from sin and its consequences, unless that person also genuinely understands and hates what sin is? The whole sense of faith is that we trust Christ to liberate us from the power and penalty of sin. Therefore sinners cannot come to sincere faith apart from a complete change of heart, a turnaround of the mind and affections and will. That is repentance. It is not a supplement to the gospel invitation; it is precisely what the gospel demands. Our Lord Himself described His primary mission as that of calling sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13).
We often speak of the salvation experience as “conversion.” That is biblical terminology (Matt. 18:3; John 12:40; Acts 15:3). Conversion and repentance are closely related terms. Conversion occurs when a sinner turns to God in repentant faith. It is a complete turnaround, an absolute change of moral and volitional direction. Such a radical reversal is the response the gospel calls for, whether the plea to sinners is phrased as “believe,” “repent,” or “be converted.” Each entails the others.
If someone is walking away from you and you say, “Come here,” it is not necessary to say “ turn around and come.” The U-turn is implied in the direction “come.” In like manner, when our Lord says, “Come to Me” (Matt. 11:28), the about-face of repentance is understood. Nowhere does Scripture issue an evangelistic appeal that does not at least imply the necessity of repentance. Our Lord offers nothing to impenitent sinners ( Matt. 9:13 ; Mark 2:17 ; Luke 5:32).
Again, repentance is not a human work. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). It is God who grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). Repentance is not pre-salvation self-improvement. It is not a question of atoning for sin or making restitution before turning to Christ in faith. It is an inward turning from sin to Christ. Though it is not itself a “work” the sinner performs, genuine repentance will certainly produce good works as its inevitable fruit (Matt. 3:8).
Thank you Dr. MacArthur for this statement…”Again, repentance is not a human work. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). It is God who grants repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). Repentance is not pre-salvation self-improvement. It is not a question of atoning for sin or making restitution before turning to Christ in faith. It is an inward turning from sin to Christ. Though it is not itself a “work” the sinner performs, genuine repentance will certainly produce good works as its inevitable fruit (Matt. 3:8).”
One can only hope that your statement here will clear things up.
In Christ,
Mark
Dr. MacArthur:
On Monday, September 25, 2006 I received a private e-mail from your personal assistant Nathan Busenitz. He advised me that you men were aware of my book, which addresses the Lordship Salvation debate and is being debated on the SharperIron blog site. Nathan also informed me that your ministry was contemplating a reply to my book, In Defense of the Gospel. Finally Nathan said a series of posts here on Pulpit Magazine addressing the Lordship issue would begin soon. He invited me to read and comment on the posts.
I have been reading each day’s posts with interest. I find that, for the most part, your posts continue the themes that have dominated your side of the debate since the release of The Gospel According to Jesus in 1988. In addition to defending Lordship theology, you also take on the errors of the so-called Easy Believism and Mental Assent Theories. You will find in my book statements (edited for this format) such as,
I too am troubled by the “meaningless presentation of a gospel that seems to ignore the person of Christ, the sinfulness of man and the pending judgment of God.”
“I do not agree with the weak position, which suggests repentance is merely mental acknowledgement, without a corresponding change of mind. Biblical repentance will produce a change of life evidenced by a new behavior as one yields to the working of God’s Spirit. Without a preceding changing of the mind, however, there will be no genuine change of life.”
“Furthermore, I do not excuse or dismiss the loose living of professing believers. The suggestion, which insists a person can depart from the faith, totally deny Christ, persist in sin, and yet still be counted among those who are truly saved is a dismissal of many clear Scriptures that teach otherwise.”
My book does not minimize or reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. Jesus is Lord and Savior throughout all eternity. We all agree that Jesus is the Savior; the only hope mankind has for eternal salvation from sin, death and Hell (Acts 4:12).
The student of logic will spend some time studying fallacies. One of the logical fallacies people use in an attempt to prove their point is sometimes called the “false dilemma.” This fallacy occurs “when the two alternatives are presented, not all the possibilities have been explored.” This fallacy presents itself in the current debate. Men such as yourself who advocate the “Lordship Salvation” position see only the mental assent or “Easy-Believism” position as an alternative. Likewise men such as Zane Hodges who hold to the mental assent position decry all others as advocates of lordship salvation. There is a balanced, biblical position on the issue of salvation and I made a concerted effort to strike that balance in my book. My book, however, is primarily concerned with your interpretation of the Lordship gospel.
Lordship Salvation, as you present it, demands from a lost man a promise of what he will do, or become, to receive the gift of eternal life. Once man offers anything in addition to the finished work of Christ for salvation that message becomes false through the addition. A gospel that calls for man to do or offer anything in addition to what Christ has done is wrong!
Dr. MacArthur- I know you mean well, you believe you are being true to the Scriptures and defending truth. Changing the terms of the gospel, however, to include upfront demands for commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation, will not make the problems of Easy-Believism and the loose living of professing believers go away.
My book fully defines and biblically answers the doctrinal and practical problems with Lordship Salvation. My book includes chapters such as: What is Saving Faith? What is Biblical Repentance? Salvation & Discipleship: Is There a Biblical Difference? Can There Be A Christian Who Is Carnal? There are chapters on the Rich Young Ruler, Romans Chapter Ten, and Acts 16:31
I wrote In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation to alert Christians, across the broad spectrum of evangelical Christianity, about this false interpretation of the gospel, commonly referred to as Lordship Salvation.
There are many areas where one must balance soul liberty and Christian charity and agree to respect different views. The gospel, however, is not an area in which you and I can agree to disagree. In my opinion, the doctrine of Lordship Salvation and the Lordship advocates must be vigorously debated, and biblically resisted.
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Great article! Every point you made is solidly backed with clear passages of Scripture. One does not have to ’spin’ Scripture to make these points. These are clear passages and there are many of them throughout the N.T.
Dr. MacArthur:
The final paragraph from your October 9th post, which reappears in today’s post reads,
“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.”
To better understand how the word “believe” from Romans 10:9 cannot support the Lordship gospel of surrender in “exchange” for salvation, an initial look at John 3:36 is necessary.
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” (John 3:36).
The active word in this verse is believe. If a man will believe on the Son (of God), he will have eternal life. You cite this verse in a footnote on p. 33 of The Gospel According to Jesus. You cite the verse as follows: “But obedience to Jesus’ commands is clearly enjoined by texts such as John 3:36 (‘He who does not obey the Son shall not see life. . . .’”
You chose John 3:36 to support the Lordship gospel by citing the second usage of the word “believeth” (from the KJV) as “obey,” but you do not cite the first half of John 3:36, which is the key to the context. The first usage of the word “believeth” in John 3:36 is identical to the word “believe” in the Romans 10:9 passage.
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” (Romans 10:9).
While the word “believeth not,” (apeithon) is a different word than the first usage of the word “believeth,” and can mean “obey” in some cases, the context of John 3:36(a) demands unbelief, not disobedience. The correct meaning of “believeth not,” is to refuse or withhold belief. Or, we could say that disobedience in itself is unbelief. Taking the whole context into consideration, the second part of the verse cannot be referring to a person’s actions, but rather to his unbelief.
In reference to John 3:36, Spiros T. Zodhiates defines Apeitheia thus: “from the negative a (1), without, and peitho (3982), to persuade. Not to believe, to disbelieve implying disobedience; also to disobey as through unbelief.” (The Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible, p. 1,691.)
Obey is a legitimate translation of believe, but to render it thus in this verse does not clearly convey what sort of obedience is required. Refusing to believe in Christ is, in essence, disobedience. Following is an excerpt from appendix B found in my book,
“The Bible teaches that true saving faith is, in itself an act of obedience to Jesus Christ. This theme is like a thread running through the fabric of Paul’s letter to the Romans…. In chapter ten, Paul reiterates six times that men receive justification by faith (Rom. 10:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). He then equates faith with calling on the Lord (Romans 10:12, 13)…. No point could be more clear. When a disobedient sinner truly trusts Christ to save him, that act of faith is itself obedience to God!
Rather than make demands on the lost that Scripture does not make, let us preach the Gospel as it is, dealing squarely with the issues of sin, repentance, and faith. The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him at that point. Convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit, they will understand that their obedience to sin places them under the judgment of God. They will trust Christ alone for salvation, calling on Him. That is obedience to the Gospel! Those who have so trusted Christ can be trained as disciples of the Lord Jesus. They will follow Him in baptism, the first step of obedience to Christ in the Christian life. They will surrender their wills fully to Christ and follow Him. They will be willing to take up a cross, enduring humiliation, suffering, and possible death for the One who literally bore a cross to save them from sin.”
LM
Hello Lou.
It would be of great interest to me and I’m sure others if you would cross examine some of the clear distinctives that have been presented here.
The statement above that you made: “Lordship Salvation, as you present it, demands from a lost man a promise of what he will do, or become, to receive the gift of eternal life. Once man offers anything in addition to the finished work of Christ for salvation that message becomes false through the addition. A gospel that calls for man to do or offer anything in addition to what Christ has done is wrong!”, comepletely misses the very point that has been made, both in yesterdays article and todays.
In order for me to see that you “have” the middle ground of truth on the subject, please provide clear, exegetical, points.
Paul:
You will find in my book of nearly 300 pages how I expose and address the errors in Lordship Salvation. In so doing I stake out what I believe is the middle ground between the Lordship and Mental Assent positions.
My book is well researched, well documented, systematically organized and clearly presented.
You can read more on my blog site and link to the book on Amazon from there. Amazon’s Search Inside feature will allow you to read portions of my book on line.
LM
Mr. Martuneac,
With all due respect, you appear to be quite contradictory.
You state that “A gospel that calls for man to do or offer anything in addition to what Christ has done is wrong!”
And “The lost who respond to Christ in true faith will obey Him at that point.”
According to statements as presented, these two statements cannot both be true. The first statement makes the claim that a man cannot do or offer anything, while the second claims that a man must respond. If you say that it is not a “do” or an “offer” it is still a “thing” and violates the first statement.
If man is not required to “do” anything in addition to the work of Christ, there cannot be such a thing as “true faith”, because logically there cannot be a false one. If there is a “true faith” required, then there must be a false faith. If there is a false faith, then at least the minimum that a man must “do” in addition to the work of Christ is possess “true faith”.
Now, if you argue that true faith is a gift of God (which I agree), and therefore does not constitute a work of man, can you argue that the hostile and unrepentant man can possess this true faith? Is the mark of “true faith” hostility and rebellion towards God? If the mark of “true faith” is described as, in your words, “They will surrender their wills fully to Christ and follow Him. They will be willing to take up a cross, enduring humiliation, suffering, and possible death for the One who literally bore a cross to save them from sin.”
So, “surrender” is a mark of “true faith”. Therefore to possess “true faith” is to “surrender” your will to Christ. There you have Lordship Salvation, unless you plan on arguing that false faith can save a person from eternal separation from God.
Jim (All):
Salvation is obtained through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. Man is saved by faith, plus nothing!
Faith plus commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation goes beyond the biblical definition of the faith that saves. The faith that saves, however, is more than simple acknowledgment. One of my contributors wrote,
“Saving faith goes beyond understanding one’s sinfulness, his deserved judgment in hell, and his only hope being in Christ. It goes beyond agreement with all this. . . . Understanding and agreement would simply be acknowledgment. However, saving faith goes beyond acknowledgment to dependence on Christ for salvation from sin and hell. . . . When one chooses to cast his dependence on Christ for salvation from sin and hell, he goes beyond acknowledgment to an act of the will. Acknowledging Christ is not salvation; depending on Christ is.”
One of the most serious errors of Lordship Salvation is conditioning the reception of salvation on what should be the results of salvation. The problem with Lordship’s theology of faith is, “Confusing saving faith with that which faith ought to produce.”
LM
PS: I believe you may be advocating the position which believes regeneration must precede faith. Is that a correct assumption?
Hey, everybody, keep this conversation going! With all of the excerpts from his own book that Lou keeps on sharing here and over at SI, I won’t have to shell out $15.99 for his book. I basically have it completely read.
Lou,
Did you even read this article? Try re-reading the bold portions again. All you are doing is knocking down a straw man of your own creation, and if your book is written on the premise that we believe in faith plus works, you’re lying to your readers. Just ask anyone who goes to Grace Community Church: “are you saved by faith plus works?” I promise you, the answer will be a resounding “NO”. PLEASE stop falsely accusing the “lorship camp” of faith plus works = salvation when we actually believe that faith = salvation plus works!!
Lou,
I know you said you addressed this in your book but regardless of what is in your book or blog site this statement is just wrong.
“Lordship Salvation, as you present it, demands from a lost man a promise of what he will do, or become, to receive the gift of eternal life…”
To say this is what Dr. MacArthur or anyone else in the “Lordship” camp is teaching is seriously missing the point. It’s not demanding anything of a lost sinner but simply stating what will be the results of recieving the gift of eternal life. And if the results are not evident there is no reason to believe saving faith is there either.
these statements also seem a bit confusing:
“Faith plus commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation goes beyond the biblical definition of the faith that saves.”
commitment is not added to faith but as you yourself also seem to be saying, it is the natural outcome of faith, as seen by the many examples of this used in scripture; Abraham, David, Rahab, Noah etc…
One of the most serious errors of Lordship Salvation is conditioning the reception of salvation on what should be the results of salvation. The problem with Lordship’s theology of faith is, “Confusing saving faith with that which faith ought to produce.”
Again, no error’s here. The reception of salvation is seen by the results of salvation. As for “saving faith” there is no confusion…saving faith is evident by that which it produces.
john
I think one of the biggest issues in this latest series of posts must be whether regeneration precedes faith or is immediately subsequent to faith. If regeneration precedes faith, complete surrender and commitment to Christ is not only possible, but expected for salvation. When one is born again, made a new creation by the work of God, he will necessarily follow the Lord in humble submission (however imperfectly). If, however, faith precedes regeneration, then complete surrender cannot be required to be saved, because a man still dead in trespasses and sins cannot fully submit himself to Christ’s lordship.
I believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, Lou, that you believe regeneration immediately follows faith and justification, and results in sanctification. To me, your argument against lordship salvation is that their proponents have confused what is required for justification (trust) with the necessary acts of sanctification (surrender) that will inevitably follow our justification. I sympathize.
For myself, I struggle with this issue. I believe that a man who is dead in sin cannot believe without his eyes and ears opened, without being drawn of the Father. But does this mean he is born again and granted life before he can trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life? Right now, I don’t see the biblical basis for regeneration preceding faith, but honestly, I am open to being persuaded with sound reason and Scripture.
As I understand it, one brought to come to Jesus must fully trust in Him as Lord and Christ, as Ruler and anointed Deliverer, the only way to the Father, and the one who has saved us from sin’s penalty through His own death and resurrection. That trust, a gift from God, will result in surrender: the moment the trust is present, justification occurs and surrender begins. The issue is this: what must God do to a person to give that faith? Draw them? Definitely. Open eyes and ears? Without a doubt. Regenerate them? I look forward to your answers.
well said Matt. There seems to be a lot of word twisting to try and make the Lordship position say what they want to believe it says.
faith = salvation plus works!! says it all.
john
Mr. Martuneac,
Thank you for your response.
You have divided a line between as you say “Faith plus commitment and surrender in “exchange” for salvation” and “The faith that saves, however, is more than simple acknowledgment”. Yet, you said “Man is saved by faith, plus nothing!”
You are describing faith as more than simple acknowledgment, but not commitment and surrender. Then you quote, “When one chooses to cast his dependence on Christ for salvation from sin and hell, he goes beyond acknowledgment to an act of the will.”
Now you have described it as an act. I am merely pointing out what I see as an inconsistancy with your position. If man is saved by faith and nothing else, but you describe faith as an act of will, is that not an act of man? Could I not then boast about my act of will since it was my act to begin with?
I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that faith saves, but rather that grace saves and that faith is the thing with which grace is applied. No faith means no grace. This also works in reverse: no grace means no faith.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (Eph 2:8)
If it is by God’s grace that I am saved, then I don’t get to choose. It’s grace; unearned, undeserved grace that God has chosen me, not that I chose Him. Thus the faith that comes with the grace is a gift also. Can I receive the gift in a state of rebellion against God? If I hate God why would I want His gift? Ultimately, regeneration or conviction or repentance, call it what you will, must take place for a person to even be able to call Jesus ‘Lord’.
“Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:15
“because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Romans 10:9-10
One more quick comment . . . people in the free-grace camp are far too quick to dismiss the fact that Jesus died not only for our justification, but our sanctification. As He Himself prayed, ‘And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth’ (Jn. 17:19). Christ set Himself apart exclusively to the Father’s will, ultimately leading to death, so that we would be set apart with Him. He was surrendered so that we would be/could be surrendered. He was devoted so that we would be/could be devoted. Without His death for sin, granting us life and reconciliation to God, sanctification would be impossible. Jesus died not only because we did sin, but also so that we would’t.
Paradox is defined in American Heritage as “An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.”
Thank you, Dr. MacArthur, for the many Scriptures you have chosen to support your views. Since, this debate is about the way of Salvation, man’s opinion is of very limited value. Man wasn’t born with this knowledge. His instincts are faulty in the extreme. But despite referring to these texts, you seem to be disappointed them. They fail to clearly lay out the fundamentals of your salvation theology. The reason I say you seem to be aware of that fact, is your unabashed appeal to paradox. The Free Grace approach to the way of salvation is explicitly stated in the scriptures. That can’t be said of your own more theoretical model. In order to demonstrate that your paradox is reasonably biblically based, instead of an attempt at fudging divergent categories, we should see a clear place in the scriptures where it explicitly states that it exists, even if it is not named as paradox. Let’s look at your “paradox” more closely.
You write:
The same apostle who wrote, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves” (1 John 1:8) later wrote, “No one who abides in Him sins” (3:6). In one place he says, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” ( 1:10 ), and in another, “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in Him” (3:9) . There’s a true paradox—not an inconsistency—in those truths. All Christians sin (1 John 1:8), but all Christians also obey: “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3).
But how strange if this were a true biblical paradox that John didn’t pull the contradictory elements together and explicitly teach his readers that his “contrasts” were intentional. In fact, in order to show your “paradox” you had to compare a verse from the first chapter with that of the third chapter. Then for emphasis you repeated the pattern. By doing so you are practically admitting that the paradox is a theoretical construct of the interpreters and not truly Scriptural.
There is nothing paradoxical when one aligns both verse from the first chapter:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1:8
If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.1:10
Likewise there is zero paradox when the two from the third chapter are compared:
Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 3:6
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 3:9
So clearly John the Apostle isn’t teaching a paradox.
But you see paradox between the two sets. (not among them) More realistically, you see a seeming contradiction between the first chapter of 1 John and the third.
Hodges cuts against the current of opinion when he understands 1 John as a highly organized book. In fact, Hodges calls it the most carefully organized of all the NT, saying, “no book of the New Testament—not even Romans—has been structured with more care than the Epistle of First John. (p33, the Epistles of John ).
Logically, then in this view, the first chapter is where John would introduce his subject, laying any groundwork necessary. This is where we see John affirming that there will be sin in the lives of all Christian. Moving into the center of he book, the third chapter has John insisting on the absolute purity of Christ in us. Hodges writes, “As a total person, we do sin, and can never claim to be free of it, but our “inward self” that is regenerated does not sin”
John is affirming his readers amidst the apostacy that Paul has prophesied of in his warning to the Ephesians elders by reminding them not to identify with the flesh but with Christ in them. The Apostle Paul writes, “I myself serve the law of God.” In Gal 2:20 says, “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” and in Phillippians 4:13, Paul says “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” And finally the Apostle John, in harmony with Paul, writes, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. ”
“The regenerate person can express himself only through righteousness and can never express himself through sin, because he cannot sin.” writes Hodges.
So the Free Grace view doesn’t see the inconsistencies that liberals see or the paradox that the heirs of the Puritans see, instead we that in the Word of God there is peaceful consistency and agreement. And where there is paradox, like in the costly but rewarding elements of discipleship, it is aligned in a way that explicitly portrays the paradox:
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Mike,
I haven’t been following your discussion but it’s not accurate to say that FG sees the crucifixian as only grounding justification not sanctification. The cross and resurrection are the basis for all good news, and since we are given eternal life for the sake of knowing the Father and the Son (per John 17) the priority is on sanctification.
God bless.
Jodie,
Hodges writes, “As a total person, we do sin, and can never claim to be free of it, but our “inward self” that is regenerated does not sin”
The regenerate person can express himself only through righteousness and can never express himself through sin, because he cannot sin.” writes Hodges.
John in his first epistle takes great pain in confronting the Docetic/Gnostic dualistic heresy. In light of that, how can Hodge make the spin that the body is evil and the spirit is perfectly pure and sinless?
Jodie,
Webster has this as one of it’s definitions for paradox: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. This seems to be a better description of a biblical paradox, but then, it’s just a matter of picking the one that fits what you want to say.
You said of Dr. MacArthur; “The reason I say you seem to be aware of that fact, is your unabashed appeal to paradox.”
Dr MacArthur is hardly appealing unabashedly to a paradox. Paradoxes are just one more way to show what scripture is teaching. And as you yourself said, he uses many scriptures to support what he is teaching. Thank you, Dr. MacArthur, for the many Scriptures you have chosen to support your views. Pardoxes are included, but the basis of his teaching are the scriptures.
There are paradoxes throughout the bible: the poor are rich; if you want to live you have to die; you are a slave, yet you are free; a leader must be a servant; the wise are foolish, the foolish are wise. Jesus said of John the Baptist that there was none greater. By the worlds standards John was anything but great, that’s a paradox too.
in order to show your “paradox” you had to compare a verse from the first chapter with that of the third chapter.
It is is not wrong to compare scripture with scripture. Paul, in showing how all have sinned in Roman chapter 3 pulls verses from several Psalms and from Isaiah and makes his point.
Speaking of inconsistencies:
John is affirming his readers amidst the apostacy that Paul has prophesied of in his warning to the Ephesians elders by reminding them not to identify with the flesh but with Christ in them. The Apostle Paul writes, “I myself serve the law of God.”
You seem to be using this verse from Romans 7 to show how John is agreeing with Paul about apostasy, yet Paul in this chapter is not talking about apostasy but the battle we go through as Christians between the inner man and the flesh. If he’s saying not to identify with the flesh you have to explain why the rest of the verse says with “his flesh he serves the law of sin”.
I do, however, agree that the Apostle John, in harmony with Paul, writes, “Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. John recognizes the same paradox Paul does in Romans 7, because he also says in another place: If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves
john
Mike:
Earlier you asked about the regeneration before faith issue.
Does regeneration precede faith? Must a lost man be regenerated so he can believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, or does the Bible say man must believe and thereby be regenerated? Is it “Look unto Me, and be ye saved” (Is. 45:22) or “Be ye saved, and look unto Me?
John MacArthur uses the following statement to prepare the way for the demands of his Lordship gospel: “Thus conversion is not simply a sinner’s decision for Christ; it is first the sovereign work of God in transforming the individual.” (The Gospel According to Jesus: [Revised & Expanded Edition], p. 114.)
Dr. MacArthur: Are you suggesting a sinner must be transformed through regeneration into a child of God before he can respond in faith to the gospel?
John Piper wrote, “The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore conversion involves a miracle of new birth. Thus new birth precedes and enables faith and repentance…. And so when we hear the gospel we will never respond positively unless God performs the miracle of regeneration. Repentance and faith are our work. But we will not repent and believe unless God does his work to overcome our hard and rebellious hearts. This divine work is called regeneration…. New birth comes first and enables the repentance and faith of conversion.” (Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, pp. 65-66.)
Many Reformed men would say regeneration must precede faith. In reference to regeneration and faith, one man told me he believes, “There is a theological order, not a chronological order.” Another man has said he believes regeneration can take place in early childhood and faith will express itself years later.
The position of regeneration before faith comes from Calvinism’s Total Inability. Many Calvinists correctly view man’s total depravity, but some carry it beyond its biblical bounds. They see man’s depravity as entirely negating his ability to respond to the gospel. This position is an extreme form of Calvinism.
This position will not allow for man to have any role or even participate in his own conversion. This is why many Reformed men often say, “even faith is a gift from God.” This means the lost man cannot respond to the gospel until he is first regenerated and made spiritually alive. Only after being regenerated can he respond in faith to the gospel.
As for the chronology issue: There is no chronological sequence in salvation. The moment a man believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he is regenerated. Regeneration, justification, conversion and adoption all task take place in the same instant.
Pastor George Zeller wrote, “If regeneration precedes faith, then this would make faith unnecessary since the person would already be saved. If a person is regenerated, then he is born of God and a member of God’s family. If you are a member of God’s family then you are already saved so what need is there for faith?”
You can read more on this subject in my book.
LM
(By the way, my book is only $10.37 on Amazon, a 35% savings from the $15.99 cited by Andrew in an earlier post. Now, I am just having some fun here guys.)
Lou,
I say this respectfully, if this is the type of argument that is put up against reformed soteriology in your book, then there is alot of the same kind of surface refutation available free on the web. If you are really interested there are very well written debates such as “The Potters Freedom” by James White which was written in response to Norman Geisler’s book “Chosen But Free”. I’m guessing that Giesler’s soteriology is much the same as yours, since you both feel that “The position of regeneration before faith comes from Calvinism’s Total Inability. Many Calvinists correctly view man’s total depravity, but some carry it beyond its biblical bounds. They see man’s depravity as entirely negating his ability to respond to the gospel. This position is an extreme form of Calvinism.”
This however is not an extreme form of Calvinism but is reformed soteriology of the infralapsarian variety.
It has been interesting reading this thread. I am amazed that Mr. Martuneac, who has written a 300 page book, critiquing reformed theology and lordship salvation seems to be unsure that reformed theology asserts that regeneration precedes faith and that faith is a gift of God. For Mr. Lou M. to state that “Many Reformed men would say regeneration must precede faith” is like saying many touchdowns in football count six points.
Hodges is not say that, Paul.
Let me explain my understanding. Before conversion, a person has a spirit. But when the person becomes regenerate, or born again, he receives eternal life. We know from the last verses in 1 John that Jesus is eternal life. So when the miracle of new birth, the miracle of the new creation, is really the person of Christ in us.
Obviously then, the miracle of new birth is a perfect gift, without any imperfection. The miracle of new birth, Christ in us, doesn’t originate any sin, none, zippo.
There is still sin in our lives as a whole but it is not an expression of the new creation. Christ is truly in us and we are truly in Him, and when that reality is exprewssing itself we can do “all things”.
The people in Ephesus , to whom John may well have been writing (that destination is commonly agreed upon), lived in a culture swirling with idol worship. Idol worship was the cash cow there. So John concludes his letter by warning them to abide in God and keep from idols:
20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
While I know you see thises things very differently, still, Hodges is absolutely not saying “that the body is evil and the spirit is perfectly pure and sinless”
Blessings
Hi John,
I’m glad we agree about the main point.
I simply don’t think John was teaching a paradox. The part of our life that sins is real and yet not the real us. The real us is Christ in us.
Jodie
Hi Jodie,
Thanks for responding. I am glad to hear that Hodges does not mean that, however your quote from him says:
“The regenerate person can express himself only through righteousness and can never express himself through sin, because he cannot sin.” writes Hodges.
His meaning and your understanding of his meaning is still a little cloudy to me. When you refer to the new birth and Christ in us and that He does not originate any sin, is that the exact same thing as being sealed and indwelt with the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ), and that no sin comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ? No one would say that the Holy Spirit is causing me to sin obviously. So, I think that Hodges means more than that.
Hi Paul,
I don’t think either being filled with (or being sealed and indwelt with the Holy Spirit) is precisely the same thing, but the reality that it is the Holy Spirit who fills us when we are abiding in Christ Himself is a parallel truth.
In fact, I see Jesus teaching that all three members of the Trinity are part of the abiding experience.
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
The more we obey Him the more we get to know Him intimately.
I think many of the concepts in Upper Room are repeated in 1 John.
Blessings.
Jodie
At the very beginning of this article I read:
“As we noted yesterday, 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. (We emphasize this again just to make the point.)”
If the controversy is not whether you get to heaven by faith alone or by faith plus works, then what is the controversy? In the very next paragraph John implies that there is such a thing as faith that does not obey (ie. does not work) and a faith that obeys (i.e. it does work). If you have to have both faith and works, then it really does not matter whether the works are the cause of salvation, or the result of salvation, meritorious, or non-meritorious. Without the works you go to hell. This is why Calvinists and Arminians are really saying the same thing when it comes to assurance of eternal life. That is why we in the Free Grace camp reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. . . they both wind up at the same destination. . . if you have faith and you don’t have the works, then you go to hell. That is why we in the Free Grace movement believe the Lordship/Perseverance view of faith that results inevitably in works is unclear at best, and a false Gospel at worst.
Maybe there are some folks who argue against “Lordship Theology” for reasons other than the fact it seems to imply works of obedience must be added to faith in some form to get to heaven. Those who believe explicitly in faith plus works, i.e. Catholics will have little issue with Lordship Theology. . . as they really agree, as far as the role of works for assurance, is concerned.
If, as you say, the controversy is other than faith alone versus faith + works then you must be referring to a controversy with someone outside the Free Grace camp.
Don Reiher,
Host of GES Webboard