“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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.)

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

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?