ARTICLES

home

about carson

about maccabee

articles

free stories

contact me

Introduction

During the latter part of the last century a debate came to the forefront within evangelical Christianity (and primarily within dispensational circles) concerning what constitutes saving faith.  It raised the question of whether it is possible to be saved and enjoy a future eternity in heaven by merely trusting Jesus Christ as Savior, or whether it is also necessary to commit to Him as Lord.  The latter position has been commonly referred to as Lordship salvation.  The proponents of this view regret the use of this new term for they see it as “the historic position of Christian orthodoxy,”[1] but the term has stuck and is used by those on both sides of the debate.

Though many voices have been heard in the debate, those most noted due to their published works on the subject are John F. MacArthur, Jr. on the lordship side, and Charles C. Ryrie and Zane C. Hodges on the side that this paper will refer to as the no-lordship position.  Both sides have extensively quoted the other in their written works and, while showing some attempt at a charitable attitude toward the other, have tended to use rather inflammatory rhetoric in stating their cases.  MacArthur accuses his opponents in the debate of obscuring the issues “by semantic distractions, distorted interpretations of lordship teaching, mangled logic, and emotion-laden rhetoric.”[2]  Likewise, a reviewer of MacArthur’s works makes similar charges against MacArthur for the use of terms such as antinomianism, decisionism, and easy believism in his writings.[3]  Hodges uses emotive language in categorizing MacArthur’s doctrine as similar to “official Roman Catholic dogma”[4] and “Puritanism.”[5]  Interestingly, MacArthur has written extensively against the Roman Catholic dogma that he is accused of being associated with,[6] and he would probably feel honored to be yoked with the Puritans, despite the negative implication the word often carries for those whose only understanding of Puritanism is from the secular press. 

Much of the writing has been done in a reactionary fashion and as such has tended to focus on possible extremes in the opposing position, not always stating a balanced view of said position.  While trying to avoid this imbalance as well as the emotions of the debate, this paper will attempt to explain the positions and arguments held by each side and determine which one stands most faithful to what the Bible defines as saving faith.  It must be noted in the discussion that much of the debate is not so much what is the faith that saves as it is how one knows that he has been saved with the kind of faith that he has.  This may seem to be a semantic twist but the nuance is important.  Only God saves a person.  To be sure, as promised by God, salvation is on the basis of a person’s faith, but the faith does not do the saving.  Salvation is a work of God, both in a legal and practical sense.  So the heart of the question is how one must approach God such that God saves him, and how one can know that he has been saved by God.  With eternity in view, the stakes are high, and error in how this question is answered must be avoided at all costs.

The Lordship Position

As John MacArthur states his position in Faith Works, he begins with points on which both sides agree.  He states concisely:

·                    Christ’s death purchased eternal salvation.

·                    The saved are justified through faith in Christ alone.

·                    Sinners cannot earn divine favor.

·                    God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation.

·                    Eternal life is a gift.

·                    Believers are saved before their faith produces any righteous works.

·                    Christians sin, sometimes horribly.[7]

These points are fundamental to all evangelical teaching.  According to MacArthur, there is no point of contention here, though as will be seen later, some on the other side of the debate interpret MacArthur’s position as not holding to all the above points, namely that of being justified through faith alone.

Added to these points, and what distinguishes lordship salvation, are the following points:

·        Repentance, the turning from sin, is implicit to saving faith.

·        Every aspect of salvation, even the faith that procures it, is a gift from God.  Therefore, this faith, being a work of God, will endure.

·        The object of faith is Christ Himself, not just a creed or promise.  Therefore, all true believers follow Christ.

·        Real faith results in a changed life, inwardly and outwardly.

·        Eternal life involves more than just a ticket to heaven.  It includes all that pertains to life and godliness.

·        Jesus is Lord, and true faith in Him involves surrender to His authority.

·        Obedience is evidence of the reality of one’s faith.

·        Genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will never turn away from the faith.[8]

Essentially, what sets the lordship position apart from the no-lordship view can be summed up in the word change.  The sinner understands his lost and sinful condition and his helplessness to do anything about it.  However, his heart desire is to be saved from what he is, a sinner who deserves hell.  Believing in the power of Christ to make him acceptable to God, he relinquishes authority over his own life to Christ.  Not only does the new believer then gain a new legal status in the mind of God, he receives a new life that is different from the old one in both inward motivation and outward activity.  Though the new believer is not removed from the world of temptation nor ridded of the flesh and may possibly at times fall, at the core of his being he is changed.  The change has come about for two reasons.  First, he desired the change, so he came to Christ.  Secondly, God changed him.  The end result is that he is a beloved citizen of the kingdom over which God rules.

Arguments will be presented in defense of the lordship position later in this paper.  For now, let it be noted that MacArthur is by no means standing alone when he declares that anyone who has truly put his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation will have by necessity entered into a life of obedience to His lordship, a life that will continue due to the divine work performed in it.  A.W. Tozer writes:

It is altogether doubtful whether any man can be saved who comes to Christ for His help but with no intention to obey Him.  Christ’s saviourhood is forever united to His lordship.[9]

In surveying the apostle Paul’s writings, Tozer adds, “To Paul there could be no division of offices.  Christ must be Lord or He will not be Saviour.”[10]

The late Southern Baptist educator Findley B. Edge seems to agree that surrendering to the authority of Christ is implicit to the salvation experience.  He writes:

Yet, in spite of the difficulty, if there does not grow out of the conversion experience a deep basic commitment of one’s life to follow the teachings of Jesus wherever they might lead, then it would be well for the individual to re-examine his experience.  It has been stated that, basically, the conversion experience involves a commitment to a new way of life.  If there is no compelling desire both to know and to follow this new way, there is reason to question the genuineness of the experience.[11]

Millard J. Erickson joins his voice with those who contend that true faith will be evidenced by the life lived:

. . . the genuineness of the faith that leads to justification becomes apparent in the results that issue from it.  If there are no good works, there has been neither real faith nor justification.[12]

Finally, Wayne Grudem plainly states that repentance for sin and surrendering to Jesus as Lord are essential components to the salvation experience:

Therefore, it is clearly contrary to the New Testament evidence to speak about the possibility of having true saving faith without having any repentance for sin.  It is also contrary to the New Testament to speak about the possibility of someone accepting Christ “as Savior” but not “as Lord,” if that means simply depending on him for salvation but not committing oneself to forsake sin and to be obedient to Christ from that point on.[13]

Having stated the lordship position, it is now necessary to examine the beliefs of those who oppose it and the rebuttal they offer.

The No-Lordship Position

As one examines the works of the opponents of the lordship position, one finds some divergence of expression.  While both Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges write in opposition to the doctrine presented by MacArthur, Ryrie at times seems unwilling to take as radical a position as Hodges.  In the paragraphs that follow it should be noted that there might not be complete agreement between Ryrie and Hodges on every point.  It is also observed that one other well-known voice, Charles Swindoll, eases into the fray in a more “pastorly” manner with his book The Grace Awakening, teaching very much the same doctrine as Ryrie and Hodges without really raising the issue or mentioning the word lordship.  

The foremost argument presented against lordship salvation is that any requirement of repentance for sin and surrender to the authority of Christ would be a work, which would contradict the biblical truth that salvation is totally by grace.  Ryrie contends that “If surrender is something I must do as a part of believing, then it is a work and grace has been diluted to the extent to which I actually surrender.”[14]

In his roundabout way of entering the debate Charles Swindoll leaves his usual gentle manner to vehemently voice his agreement:

A theology that rests its salvation on one ounce of human performance is not good news, it is bad information.  It is heresy.  It is antithetical to the true message that lit the spark to the Reformation: Sola fide – faith alone.[15]

At the core of the no-lordship position is its understanding of faith.  Hodges goes to great pains to demonstrate that faith is the simple act of trust.  In consideration of the very word faith he writes:

Let it be clearly stated here that English words like to “believe,” or “faith” function as fully adequate equivalents to their Greek counterparts.  There is not some hidden residue of meaning in the Greek words that is not conveyed by their normal English renderings.  Although some have affirmed that there is, this claim betrays an inadequate or misguided view of biblical linguistics.

It follows that a Greek reader who met the words “he who believes in Me has everlasting life,” would understand the word “believe” exactly as we do.  The reader most certainly would not understand the word to imply submission, surrender, repentance, or anything else of this sort.  For those readers, as for us, “to believe” meant “to believe.”[16]

While basically agreeing in their definition of faith, Ryrie and Hodges seem to some extent to diverge in what that faith embraces.  Hodges proposes that a simple belief that salvation is provided by believing in someone named Jesus, though one may actually be ignorant of His deity and the facts of the cross and resurrection.  He sums up such a position in stating:

In the final analysis, salvation is the result of believing in Jesus to provide it.  Salvation is not the result of assenting to a detailed creed.  Salvation does not even require an understanding of how it was provided for or made possible.  All it requires is that the sinner understand the sufficiency of the name of Jesus to guarantee the eternal well-being of every believer.  Thank God, salvation is so wonderfully simple![17]

Ryrie, on the other hand, seems to insist that there are a few relevant facts that are necessary to what one believes.  He writes:

Facts are essential.  In describing the Gospel he preached, Paul said it was “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  These historical and doctrinal facts are “of first importance,” for without them there is no Gospel.

. . . When a person gives credence to the historical facts that Christ died and rose from the dead and the doctrinal fact that this was for his sins, he is trusting his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths.[18]

Ryrie draws a distinct line between the facts about Christ that must be believed for salvation and those that may be deemed superfluous to the saving relationship:

You can also believe Christ about a multitude of other things, but these are not involved in salvation.  You can believe He is Israel’s Messiah, and He is.  You can believe He was born without a human father being involved in the act of conception, and that is true.  You can believe that what He taught while on earth was good, noble, and true, and it was.  You can believe He will return to earth, and He will.  You can believe He is the Judge of all, and He is.  You can believe He is a Prophet, and He is.  You can believe he is a Priest.  You can even believe that His priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, and it is.  You can believe He is able to run your life, and He is surely able to do that, and He wants to.  But these are not issues of salvation.  That issue is whether or not you believe that His death paid for all your sin and that by believing in Him you have forgiveness and eternal life.[19]

At times there appears to be an effort in the no-lordship camp to find the lowest common denominator to procure a place in heaven.  Ryrie attempts to insert a glimmer of acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship inherent to faith necessary for salvation, but it seems superficial at best.  The main issue is to find what it takes to get to heaven.  He writes:

The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him.  The issue about which we trust Him is His ability to forgive our sins and take us to heaven.  And because He is the Lord God, there is an element in bowing before Him and acknowledging Him as a most superior Person when one trusts Him for salvation.[20]

Both Ryrie and Hodges believe that the faith defined above not only procures eternity in heaven but also the divine work of regeneration upon the believer.  However, at times it is difficult to understand what they mean by regeneration.  Hodges states that “a single, one-time appropriation of God’s gift results in a miraculous inward transformation that can never be reversed” then immediately follows by saying, “Since this is true, we miss the point to insist that true saving faith must necessarily continue.”[21]  One is left to wonder what was transformed if one would cease believing.  Nevertheless, Hodges insists that “the Bible predicates salvation on an act of faith, not on the continuity of faith.”[22]  Ryrie, though not as vehement in his assertion, agrees with Hodges that a believer may cease to believe and yet his eternal salvation will remain intact.[23]  One is once again left to wonder what they believe occurs at regeneration.  Does regeneration involve a genuine change in a person’s heart so that his thinking and beliefs take a different direction?  Dallas Willard muses over this question as he writes:

In this way what is only one theory of the “atonement” is made out to be the whole of the essential message of Jesus.  To continue with theological language for a moment, justification has taken the place of regeneration, or new life.  Being let off the divine hook replaces possession of divine life “from above.”[24]

One key agreement among no-lordship proponents is that repentance for sin is not necessary for salvation.  Hodges capitalizes on the numerous times people in the Bible were told simply to believe (as in Acts 16:31) without any mention of repentance.  He especially labors over the Gospel of John which does not employ the word “repentance” yet which is the only Gospel that makes a specific claim to have been written with evangelistic intent.  Faith, he contends, is all that is necessary.  He writes:

There can be no compromise on this point if we wish to preserve and to proclaim the biblical truth of sola fide.  To make repentance a condition of eternal salvation is nothing less than a regression toward Roman Catholic dogma.[25]

When addressing the challenge of the scriptures that do call for repentance, he seeks a harmonization by explaining it this way:

Simply put, we may say this: the call to faith represents the call to eternal salvation.  The call to repentance is the call to enter into harmonious relations with God.[26]

Ryrie agrees with Hodges that repentance for sin, while possibly present, is not implicit to the salvation experience.  He asserts that “the only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ.”[27]

Finally, it must be mentioned that advocates of the no-lordship position draw a sharp distinction between salvation and discipleship.  After a brief discussion on Jesus words concerning being His disciple, Hodges remarks that “it should be clear that they have nothing to do with the terms on which we receive eternal life.”[28]  Later he claims that “no one can understand the New Testament who does not see the obvious difference between the gift of life and being a pupil of Jesus Christ.”[29]  “Indeed,” he says, “It is our responsibility to make the issues clear: Salvation is absolutely free; discipleship most certainly is not.”[30] 

While not every detail or argument of the no-lordship view can be covered in a paper of this nature the above provides an overview.  In sum, the no-lordship position holds that faith in Christ alone, with no repentance of sin, is necessary for salvation.  One may completely lose his faith later on, but that will not affect whether he was ever saved or will continue to be saved.  Discipleship is not implied in the call to salvation.  Submission to Christ’s authority is in no way germane to the salvation transaction.

Why Lordship Salvation Is the Correct View

Even though they express a viewpoint that is quite contrary to the doctrine of lordship salvation, it is quite obvious that men such as Ryrie, Hodges, Swindoll, and a host of others who have taken time to enter into the discussion are willingly submitting to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  Otherwise, they would not be students and teachers of the Word and be seeking to bring people to Christ.  It is indeed interesting that what they teach is contrary to their own experience.  However, since experience is not the standard for truth, one must turn once again to the Scriptures.  In surveying what the Bible teaches in regard to the question at hand, certain key points come forth as discussed below.

1.  The Focus of Salvation.

In enumerating various erroneous views of God, Elmer Towns lists a “Virtual Atheism which holds to principles inconsistent with belief in God.”[31]  One can well imagine a person that claims belief in God, but his ideas about God or about belief are so misconstrued that it is apparent that he does not believe at all, and if he does, it is not in the God revealed in the Bible.

  Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”  Then the verse continues with an explanation of how their heart is revealed: “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.”  We are reminded of the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 15:19 that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.”  Just a short while earlier Jesus had confronted the Pharisees of whose hearts he had been speaking and quoted the prophet Isaiah saying, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Matthew 15:8)  In other words, outwardly they say one thing, but in their hearts they are the fools that say, “There is no God.”  Such is the virtual atheist, such is the unbeliever.  What counts above all else is what is going on in the heart, for as Paul wrote in Romans 10:10, “It is with your heart that you believe and are justified.”

The question must be asked concerning every person that professes salvation in Jesus Christ: What has actually transpired in his heart?  Has he entered into a relationship with God, or does he, in actual fact, want nothing to do with God?  Does he want heaven but not God?  It is indeed puzzling that so many claim to want to go to heaven where God’s will is always done (Matthew 6:10) but have no interest and are often adamantly opposed to doing God’s will now.

The whole concern of the no-lordship writings seems to be how to get to heaven, but practically nothing is said about knowing God.  What is salvation about if it is not about entering into relationship with God?  Willard points out:

. . . the only description of eternal life found in the words we have from Jesus is “This is eternal life, that they [his disciples] may know you, the only real God, and Jesus the anointed, whom you have sent” (John 17:3).  This may sound to us like “mere head knowledge.”  But the biblical “know” always refers to an intimate, personal, interactive relationship.[32]

Again, Willard raises the question of where the real heart concern is:

There is an entire loss of any Christological concern in the preoccupation with my own salvation or that of society.  “Gospels of Sin Management” presume a Christ with no serious work other than redeeming humankind.  On the right, they foster “vampire Christians,” who only want a little blood for their sins but nothing more to do with Jesus until heaven, when they have to associate with him.  On the left, they foster the Phariseeism of a more or less brutal social self-righteousness.[33]

When a person professes belief in Christ, what in actual fact has his heart embraced?  Has he taken hold of Christ, or has he merely claimed salvation?  As Tozer says, we are not only save from, but to.  Says Tozer of much of current Christianity, “Particularly we have not understood that we are saved to know God.”[34]  Heaven is the glorious byproduct of knowing God, but it is not the primary concern in salvation.  It was the relationship with God that was lost at the Fall, and to be sure, heaven was lost with it.  But to make attaining heaven and avoiding hell the focus of salvation is to miss the main point of what salvation is about. 

The prerequisite to even a desire for salvation is a desire to know God.  That is what makes the Gospel good news.  The barrier has been removed from between the sinner and God.  Reconciliation is possible because everything that prevented man from knowing God was “nailed to the cross.” (Colossians 2:14)  Man-centered theologies have made God only incidental to man’s future happiness, whereas biblical theology is God-centered.  One must never lose sight of the fact, as already stated, that eternal life is to know God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. (John 17:3)

2.  The Definition of Faith.

The advocates of the no-lordship position have gone to great pains to discuss the simplicity of faith, demonstrating that there is no hidden nuance of meaning in Greek word employed or in its etymology.  One is quite capable of understanding what biblical faith is by taking it at its everyday English meaning.  On this point there is no disagreement, and the Bible fully supports this.  However, a question may be ask as to whether the no-lordship proponents have truly understood the simple meaning of faith.

Henry Thiessen makes a keen and pertinent observation when he states simply that “a man’s life is governed by what he believes.”[35]  In everyday life, one can always tell what a person believes by what he does.  For instance, a person will drive slower on a sharp curve because he believes at an accelerated speed he may run off the road.  A person who cannot swim stays out of deep water because he believes he could drown.  On the other hand, as has been seen in the past, a person under the influence of a drug such as LSD may jump off a tall building because, for the moment, he believes he can fly.  A person always lives by what he believes.  This is inherent to the basic definition of belief, or its synonym – faith.

A quick perusal of Hebrews 11, the chapter that lists numerous historical examples of people with faith, shows agreement on this observation.  Because of his faith, Abel presented his sacrifice to God on God’s terms, different from that of his brother Cain. (v. 4)  Enoch was translated into heaven because he walked with God. (v. 5, see also Genesis 5:24)  Noah built an ark. (v.7)  Abraham left his home for a country he had never seen. (v. 8)  He had a son in his old age and offered him in sacrifice to God. (v. 11, 17)  Isaac blessed his sons. (v. 20)  Jacob blessed his sons. (v. 21)  Joseph gave instructions about his bones. (v. 22)  Moses’ parents hid him. (v. 23)  Moses chose to be mistreated with the people of God rather than enjoy the wealth of Egypt. (v. 24-25)  In every case, and even for the unnamed ones who faced persecution and poverty, faith was noted by what it did. 

Faith that does nothing is no faith at all.  A person always lives by what he truly believes.  To admit the saving authority of Christ and not submit to His authority defies the definition of faith.  Not to admit such authority of Christ is to make any pretense of trusting Him for salvation a logical absurdity, since He could not possibly do it.  Ryrie, while attempting to narrow down the meaning of repentance (which will be discussed in the next section) actually makes the case that the authority of Christ had to be recognized.  In discussing what the word repent means in Acts 2:38, Ryrie writes:

Now the inescapable conclusion: Jesus is both Lord and God, and Christ and Messiah (verse 36).  A Jewish audience had the greatest difficulty acknowledging these two claims for Jesus.  To assert that the man Jesus was God and also Israel’s Messiah and to ask the people to believe that was an almost insurmountable obstacle.

. . . Whatever you thought about Him before or whoever you thought He was, change your minds and now believe that He is God and your Messiah who died and rose from the dead.  That repentance saves.[36]

The question must then be asked:  What does the belief that Ryrie says the people in the Acts account had to come to look like?  If we learn anything from Hebrews 11, one would have to say that believing in the authority of Christ would mean living under the authority of Christ.  Trusting (a word often preferred in the no-lordship camp) in Christ would mean following where He leads, otherwise there is obviously no trust at all.  Not to follow Him would be a clear demonstration that the “believer” thinks he had better retain control of his own life because Jesus may lead him in the wrong direction.  Trust, belief, faith, or whatever other synonymous word one might choose, implies obedience.

MacArthur points out the clear teaching of Scripture in the relation of faith and obedience in a survey of John 3:

Verse 36 goes even further, equating disobedience with unbelief: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”  Thus the test of true faith is this: does it produce obedience?  If not, it is not saving faith.  Disobedience is unbelief.  Real faith obeys.[37]

No-lordship teachers categorically reject this need for obedience.  One such teacher makes particular note that he believes obedience to be a radical requirement even beyond traditional lordship teaching:

[MacArthur] has taken the Lordship account of faith a significant step further.  Traditionally, Lordship advocates have extended faith to include commitment, but no obedience, which for them is faith’s sure fruit.[38]

One might ask what practical difference there is between commitment and obedience, unless of course, one is speaking of commitment to one who is inferior or weaker, as with a parent’s commitment to a child.  In this case even the Gospel would cease to exist for Christ would have no authority to provide salvation.  Yet in speaking of one who is higher, as Christ is to humanity, is it logical to say one is committed to someone and then refuse obedience?  The only reason one would not obey would be that one is convinced the higher authority does not know what is best, in which case there is no trust.

Obedience grows out of faith, otherwise there is no faith.  Such has been the testimony of the biblical narrative.  Benjamin Warfield clearly demonstrates this in an examination of the lives of the patriarchs:

The entire patriarchal narrative is set forth with the design and effect of exhibiting the life of the servants of God as a life of faith, and it is just by the fact of their implicit self-commitment to God that throughout the narrative the servants of God are differentiated from others.  This does not mean, of course, that with them faith took the place of obedience: an entire self-commitment to God which did not show itself in obedience to Him would be self-contradictory, and the testing of faith by obedience is therefore a marked feature of the patriarchal narrative.[39]

3.  The Need for Repentance.

The no-lordship position rejects the idea of any call for repentance from sin as necessary for salvation, considering it a work that has been added to faith.  Ryrie states that “the lordship/discipleship/mastery teaching apparently makes repentance and faith two distinct and necessary requirements for salvation,”[40] but this seems to be a misreading of what the lordship advocates are saying, at least the ones noted in this paper.

Defined by Towns, “Repentance means to change one’s mind about sin in such a way as to eventually effect a change in action.”[41]  It is agreed that there can be a change of mind about sin without a turning to Christ, and therefore without salvation.  However, faith implies repentance.  To quote Town once again: “Repentance is necessary to salvation, but repentance doesn’t save one.”[42]  The no-lordship teachers point out the times in Scripture that people are told simply to believe without any mention of repentance.  To this MacArthur replies:

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.”[43]

Repentance is a necessary ingredient to faith, not something separate.  “How can those who are mortal enemies of God (Romans 5:10) sincerely believe in His Son without repentance?”[44]  John Calvin, in an extensive discussion on repentance says:

“Can true repentance stand apart from faith?  Not at all.  But even though they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished.  As faith is not without hope, yet faith and hope are different things, so repentance and faith, although they are held together by a permanent bond, require to be joined rather than confused.[45]

Ralph Shallis, noted teacher among the evangelical community in French-speaking Europe, not being directly involved in the lordship debate (since the debate seems to be primarily an American one), concurs with this “permanent bond” between faith and repentance, seeing this in no way as contradicting the doctrine of sola fide.  Shallis writes that “one who genuinely believes in Christ cannot help but to repent and obey Him; the faith turns his life upside down and transforms him.  But all this action springs from faith alone.”[46]  Repentance and faith are not the same thing, but there is no faith without an accompanying repentance.

4.  The Divine Work of Regeneration.

MacArthur accurately states, “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 in regeneration?”[47]  The no-lordship position seems to assume that God does nothing in the believer at all, for if a person can cease to believe in Christ, lead a life of sin, and still be saved, as Hodge and Ryrie indicate, then whatever change that could have occurred must have been fully the work of the believer.  In fairness, it must be noted that Ryrie insists that a Christian will “produce fruit,”[48] but further statements seem to negate much of this insistence as a principle in his theology.

Both sides agree that salvation is a work of God, not based on man’s works.  The question at hand though is how much of a work does God really do.  Is there only a change in the mind of God giving the believer a new status before Him, or does God also do a genuine work in the life of the believer?

Besides the obvious teaching of Scripture concerning being born again (John 3:3) and Paul’s statement that every true believer is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) among many similar texts, great Bible teachers from generations past have taken to heart the change that God brings in His children.  Thomas Boston (who lived from 1676 to 1732) wrote that “regeneration is a real thorough change, whereby the man is made a new creature.”[49]  The famous British preacher Spurgeon proclaimed:

The change is radical; it gives us new natures, makes us love what we hated and hate what we loved, sets us on a new road; makes our habits different, our thoughts different, makes us different in private and different in public.  So that being in Christ it is fulfilled: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.”[50]

The question is: does God really do a work in the believer?  The testimony of Scripture is a resounding “Yes!”  It matters little what one may claim to believe or what flowery words a preacher may speak for comfort at the funeral of a person who had no interest in God, the Bible says that God if a person is a true believer, God changes him.

Some have tried to hold up the carnal Corinthian believers as an example that a person may still look like the world, but they are reading more than what is there.  Paul rebuked the Corinthians for the divisions that had come among them due to religious pride.  To be sure, they had some things to work through.  But in 1 Corinthians 6 he writes to them:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the spirit of God.  (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, italics mine)

Despite their lacks, the Corinthians were changed people.  Some have made special note of the depth of sin of the man in 1 Corinthians 5:1, but Paul never calls this man a believer.  In fact, verse 11 may indicate that he was among those who simply call themselves believers.  Paul’s rebuke to the church was for accepting this man among them, not for engaging in the same sin. 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 clearly acknowledges that there were outwardly discernible evidences in the Corinthians of God’s work of grace in them, in their speaking, knowledge, spiritual gifts and strength.

Scripture plainly indicates that every true child of God is noted by the different kind of life he lives.  Hodge cites 1 John 5:1 – “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” – as evidence that no accompanying or resulting work is necessary.[51]  However, he seems to utterly ignore the rest of 1 John which speaks vehemently against the antinomian heresy.  1 John 2:4 plainly says, “The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”  Either that is true or it is not.  One should not claim to interpret the Scriptures in a historical/literal manner and pass over what it plainly states.  A person who knows God does what He commands.  1 John 2:9 says, “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.”  Is this not plainly stating that a believer’s inward attitude toward his brother will be different?  1 John 4:8 reiterates this same thought: “Whoever does not love does not know God.”  1 John 3:6 says that “no one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.”  Continuous habitual sin does not only show that a person is weak, it shows that he does not know God.  That is what the Bible plainly says, though Hodges may say differently.

As regards the ones who Ryrie and Hodges claim may actually cease to believe and begin denying Christ yet retain their salvation, 1 John 2:22-23 makes clear what their true condition really is:

Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.  Such a man is the antichrist – he denies that Father and the Son.  No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

John wrote of these former “believers” in 1 John 2:19 saying, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.  For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”  It was not a question of their losing their salvation.  It was that they had never been saved.  These are the same as those of whom Jesus spoke in Matthew 7:23, those who Jesus predicted would come calling Him “Lord” and claiming all manner of works, to whom He will say, “I never knew you.”  They were never His, and therefore their lives were marked by evildoing. 

John states that he wrote his first epistle so that true believers would “know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)  It is wrong to take one verse out of the context of the rest of the book and ignore the rest of the book that is written to speak to the evidences of the life God provides.  Salvation is a work of God both for and in the believer.  If God does not do the work the Scriptures claim He does in a believer’s life, why should it be assumed that He will provide the eternal life He has promised?  Is He able to speak a universe in existence, provide the perfect plan that was hidden in ages past, and prepare an unimaginable eternity for His children, yet find those “lumps of clay” do difficult to change step-by-step into the image of Christ?  Clearly the testimony of Scripture is that God does all things well, and salvation is the work of God, not man.

Conclusion

The lordship debate has revealed very flawed understandings of what the very purpose of salvation is.  Salvation is not just about getting to heaven, it is about reconciling man to God and restoring him to His image.  However, in this age of what Tozer calls the “utilitarian Christ,”[52] many so-called believers have sought a benefit with no interest in the Benefactor.  When Romans 3:11 says, “No one seeks God,” it means, in the words of one writer, “No one seeks God as God.”[53] (italics mine)  Many people want God to be little more than a “Santa Claus” who brings gifts, but they have no real interest in Him as God.  But God’s whole work in redemption and reconciliation has been to bring man back to relationship with Himself as who He is. 

In His love and desire for intimacy with humanity, God has done historically and continues to do presently everything necessary to bring people into a living relationship with Himself.  He takes people from darkness, sin, and death, and brings them to light, righteousness, and life.  None of His work is merely token or philosophical.  It is genuine and practical.  He takes any who come to Him out of a desire to know Him as He really is, reveals His salvation to them by His Spirit through His Word, and transforms them into beings that can live in joyful communion with Him.

Jesus is Lord because that is what He is.  He is Lord to those who know Him because they know Him as He is, not for something He is not.  Because they know Him, they follow Him.  Jesus tells the whole story in His own words:

But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.” (John 10:26-28)

It does not get much plainer than that.  A person who does not believe (present tense) does not belong to Christ.  Anyone who belongs to Christ follows Him.  These are the ones to whom Jesus gives eternal life.

A “dog that returns to its vomit” (see 1 Peter 2:22) does so because he is still a dog.  He has not been changed.  This is the difference between one who has experienced the transforming grace of God and one who has not.  Many seem to view God’s grace as God’s merely winking at the sinner’s sin as He waves him through the pearly gates, but the Bible reveals God’s grace in the pouring out of Himself to undeserving sinners to redeem, reconcile, and restore to a living relationship with Himself.  Salvation is about knowing God, and only by God’s transforming power can this be a possibility for a sinner.  Anyone who is only interested in heaven, but not in God, has not experienced this power.  Anyone who has been touched by this power will not only enjoy life with God in eternity, but cherishes his relationship with Him now.

Bibliography

Butcher, J. Kevin. “A Critique of The Gospel According to Jesus,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 2:1 (Spring 1989). 

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. 

Edge, Findley B. Teaching for Results. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1956. 

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002. 

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. 

Hodges, Zane C.  Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. 

________. “How to Lead People to Christ: Part 1 – The Content of Our Message,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 13:25 (Autumn 2000). 

________. “How to Lead People to Christ: Part 2 – Our Invitation to Respond,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 14:26 (Spring 2001). 

Holloway, Paul. “A Return to Rome: Lordship Salvation’s Doctrine of Faith,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 4:2 (Autumn 1991). 

MacArthur, John F., Jr. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,”  The Master’s Seminary Journal 6/1 (Spring 1995): 7-37. 

________. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993. 

________. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. 

Nelson, Wesley W. Captivated by Christ. Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1974. 

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989. 

Shallis, Ralph. Le Miracle de l’Esprit: Les Sept Opérations Initiales du Saint-Esprit (The miracle of the Spirit: the seven initial operations of the Holy Spirit). Fontenay-sous-Bois, France: Editions Telos, 1977. 

Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Spurgeon’s Sermons, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Swindoll, Charles R. The Grace Awakening. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990. 

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973. 

Torrey, R.A. and Dixon, A.C. ed. The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, vol. 3, “The Nature of Regeneration,” by Thomas Boston. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. 

Towns, Elmer L.  Theology for Today. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002. 

Tozer, A.W. That Incredible Christian. Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc., 1964. 

________. The Root of the Righteous. Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc. 1955. 

Warfield, Benjamin B. Biblical Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003. 

Willard, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. San Francisco: Harper, 1998.

© 2007 David C. Carson. All rights reserved.