The Author of my Faith
Puritan Board Freshman
Can someone give me a precise clear understanding regarding the debate on Lordship Salvation?
Is it a view that all Calvinists hold to?
Is it a view that all Calvinists hold to?
Last edited:
Lordship Salvation
- Thread starter The Author of my Faith
- Start date
- Status
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What do you mean by Lordship salvation?
Lordship salvation, as I understand it, came about in opposition to 'easy believism' common in certain circles. It says that you must make Christ the Lord of your life before you can claim to be a Christian. The teaching was primary in the Keswick circles in which I circulated for several years. This group also held to the idea that the will does not need to be regenerate, and election, predestination and the other Calvinistic doctrines had no part in this teaching.
Lordship salvation, as I understand it, came about in opposition to 'easy believism' common in certain circles. It says that you must make Christ the Lord of your life before you can claim to be a Christian. The teaching was primary in the Keswick circles in which I circulated for several years. This group also held to the idea that the will does not need to be regenerate, and election, predestination and the other Calvinistic doctrines had no part in this teaching.
christianyouth
Puritan Board Senior
So the 2HC says that repentance is "namely, a sincere turning to God and all good, and earnest turning away from the devil and all evil" and the Westminster Confession says that repentance involves grieving and hating sin, and turning from it.
And that is essentially what 'Lordship salvation' is, the notion that coming to Christ involves a turning from sin. The non-Lordship position would say that turning from sin is a work, and works have no place in the Christian message.
And not all Calvinists believe in Lordship Salvation. John Robbins attacks Lordship Salvation in this article Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.. But most members of this board are going to subscribe to Lordship Salvation because it's taught in the Reformed confessions.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
This "debate" ended (I believe) almost a decade ago.
Essentially, some proponents of "free grace" (namely Zane Hodges and then Charles Ryrie) wrote some "widely read" books articulating a view that had long been maintained in many evangelical/dispensational churches, namely, that there is a distinction between having Christ as one's Savior and having Him as one's Lord. According to them, someone can have Christ as his savior, but not have Him as his Lord. Thus, one can "profess Christ" and yet live as a total pagan, apostasize and become a God-hating atheist, and yet still go to heaven.
In response, John MacArthur, wrote a great book advocating what became known as "Lordship Salvation." In MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus," he articulates a much more orthodox view, namely that to have Christ as one's savior IS to have Him as one's Lord. (I encourage people to get the book. It is CLASSIC John MacArthur.)
The debate went back and forth and all parties involved got bored and moved on. There are still plenty of churches advocating cheap grace, er, "totally free grace," but thankfully the "big name" pastors and thelogians who are the most influential with the new generation of conservative pastors-in-training are much more sound on this point.
Essentially, some proponents of "free grace" (namely Zane Hodges and then Charles Ryrie) wrote some "widely read" books articulating a view that had long been maintained in many evangelical/dispensational churches, namely, that there is a distinction between having Christ as one's Savior and having Him as one's Lord. According to them, someone can have Christ as his savior, but not have Him as his Lord. Thus, one can "profess Christ" and yet live as a total pagan, apostasize and become a God-hating atheist, and yet still go to heaven.
In response, John MacArthur, wrote a great book advocating what became known as "Lordship Salvation." In MacArthur's book, "The Gospel According to Jesus," he articulates a much more orthodox view, namely that to have Christ as one's savior IS to have Him as one's Lord. (I encourage people to get the book. It is CLASSIC John MacArthur.)
The debate went back and forth and all parties involved got bored and moved on. There are still plenty of churches advocating cheap grace, er, "totally free grace," but thankfully the "big name" pastors and thelogians who are the most influential with the new generation of conservative pastors-in-training are much more sound on this point.
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
Todd and Rev. Buchanan give very nice responses in the first two posts of this thread: Lordship Salvation. It was a debate which wouldn't have really developed within the Reformed world; but the underlying thrust of the struggle is certainly one that should affirmed: Christ is not savior of any to whom is not also Lord.
awretchsavedbygrace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think the doctrine that the proponents of " Free Grace" don't have a clue about is regeneration. Once you are regenerated( your heart of stone is removed and you are given a heart of flesh) you will change (2 Cor 5:17).
The Lordship Salvation position says that faith and repentance are involved in a person's conversion.
The non-Lordship Salvation position says that if repentance were involved in conversion, then faith would not be the sole instrument that receives justification. They would say that both faith and repentance would be the instruments that receive justification if repentance were involved in conversion.
The non-Lordship Salvation position says that if repentance were involved in conversion, then faith would not be the sole instrument that receives justification. They would say that both faith and repentance would be the instruments that receive justification if repentance were involved in conversion.
The Author of my Faith
Puritan Board Freshman
I do not know what I mean by lordship salvation that is why I am asking the question what is the deal with Lordship Salvation
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I do not know what I mean by lordship salvation that is why I am asking the question what is the deal with Lordship Salvation
I totally agree that Christ must be Lord in order for a person to be a believer when comparing it to the easy believism gospe.
I mentioned this because within the Keswick camp, which preaches Lordship salvation strongly, faith and repentance are considered an act of the will rather than a work of the Spirit of God. Even now, after being away from it for 20 years, my hair still stands on end when I hear that phrase.
Again, I don't know how you can be regenerate unless Christ is your Lord.
baron
Puritan Board Graduate
The best book I have read on the subject is Christ the Lord. The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Michael Horton is the editor. This book clearly sent me on my way becoming reformed or as reformed as a baptist can be. I always keep this book at hand. But now I really enjoy anything by Michael Horton.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
I agree that Horton was very good articulating the Lordship salvation debate in this book. As I recall, he took MacArthur to task for overstating a few things in his first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) and demolished the non-Lordship view of Zane Hodges and Ryrie as simply unbiblical.
The public debate may have subsided, but the issues and differences still exist. The non-lordship view is alive and well in the Grace Evangelical Society and the "free-grace movement."
See also: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/03/response_to_the_free_grace_mov.php - A Reformed Response to the Free Grace Movement.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Just in the interest of accuracy, there is quite a difference between the positions of Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges. Hodges and his protoge Wilkin, along with Charles Stanley, are far removed from orthodoxy. Ryrie never stated that he believed a Christian could apostatize. Ryrie also affirmed that all Christians will bear fruit. I think that if MacArthur had not made certain overzealous statements, Ryrie would not have pushed back as strongly as he did. He does, however, have a Keswick view of salvation that causes him to double-talk some areas. I would say Ryrie is wrong, but not heretical in the sense that Hodges, Wilkin, and Stanley are.
Even MacArthur notes this difference in a chart in the back of The Gospel According to the Apostles.
I have to ditto Gomarus and baron above. "Christ the Lord" comes at the issue from a classical protestant perspective, and thereby avoids any discolorations of the debate as seen through dispensationalist eyes (this includes MacArthur himself). The issue involves not just the positions of the two sides, but ones understanding of the categories and language. MacArthur's dispensationalist categories sometimes get in the way of his otherwise correct arguments.
The book is out of print, but you can buy one used online. This has been one of the most helpful books I have ever read.
The book is out of print, but you can buy one used online. This has been one of the most helpful books I have ever read.
Joseph Scibbe
Puritan Board Junior
Honestly, the issue is very much alive today as demonstrated in American "Christianity". The idea that a simple prayer saves you and then you are good to live how ever you wish appart from being conformed to Christ is so predominant today. That is why men like Paul Washer have their messages labeld as "Shocking Youth Message" for simply proclaiming the truth.
What is Charles Stanley's position? Why is he not orthodox on this?
-----Added 6/11/2009 at 06:59:11 EST-----
John MacArthurs book the Gospel According to Jesus 20th Anniversary edition is the best edition to read as it clarifies things not clarified in the first edition. This came out last year. Together with the Gospel according to the Apostles, this gives good teaching on the Perserverance of the Saints.
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Luke 6:46 makes it clear. Romans 6- 8 even more.
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
Stanley wrote a book entitled Eternal Security. In it, he makes some startling statements.
“God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.” (74)
“Salvation or justification or adoption – whatever you wish to call it – stands independently of faith. Consequently, God does not require a constant attitude of faith in order to be saved – only an act of faith.” (80)
[In the context, Stanley is arguing that permanence is not included in the essence of faith. Note also the extreme confusion regarding ordo salutis.]
Spinningplates2
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother, it may help to know and understand what Lordship Salvation is NOT. What does Lordship Salvation argue against?
The people who reject Lordship Salvation say that if I went to a youth group meeting and scared some young teen into confessing that "Christ is King and I have sinned, please King Jesus forgive my sins," Then even if that child NEVER confessed Christ one more night of their life, even if that person sinned and cursed God everyday of their life; the people who reject Lordship Salvation whould fight you to the death to make you agree that their everlasting salvation was never in question because of that one time confession. That is it in a nutshell. That is why I am against it. Don't even get me started on why they don't understand the four types of soils.
Brings back memories of Dr Bob Jones Jr standing in front of us preacher boys in the concert center after hearing some men debating it in the aisle and pounding on the pulpit saying "that we need to stop talking about this Lordship Salvation teaching as it is not the Gospel."
The Author of my Faith
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree with you. But what about someone who has confessed Christ, and has shown evidence yet for years struggles with a serious besetting sin? They admit that it is wrong and share it with others yet at times they run out and do it and then repent, struggle, do it etc. Is this person then truly saved or deceived? The church has many who are going through this? I think of the scripture in Galatians "brothers if anyone is caught in a transgression you who are spiritual restore".
I do not believe in eternal security in the sense that someone can confess Christ and can live anyway they want. I do believe in the Perseverance of the Saints that by God's Grace we are kept even when we do sin it is not the sin of falling away but we will come to repentance. I am reading a book by Jeremiah Burroughs "Spots of the Godly and of the Wicked" Deals with the sins of the saints as opposed to the sins of the unsaved.
I now understand the debate regarding Lordship Salvation and I guess I am on the side of those who believe this.
Thank you all for your insight!
Rangerus
Puritan Board Junior
Bakers NT Commentary has some excellent things to say on Justification and Sanctification from Galatians 2:15-16.
Grimmson
Puritan Board Sophomore
On the issue of Lordship salvation I think we need to consider the titles Savior and Lord. These are two district systematic titles by their nature. Jesus as we all would hopefully confess being reformed is Lord of all, regardless if one confess Christ Jesus as being Lord or not. It is this Lordship that gives us the right to go throughout the world proclaiming the Gospel. Despite the two titles are separate they are interwoven together for our salvation in such a way that the believer cannot help to also confess Jesus as Lord as well as Savior.
It is true the belief in the Gospel is simple, but it comes with the requirement of repentance. Repentance I think is many times confused with doing good or being sorrow of the mind regarding sin. Herman Witsius quoting Clemens Alexandrinus in Book 3 Capter 12, section CXXXII of Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, “ ‘metanoia” (repentance) is a slow kind of knowledge that comes after something is done.’” I will not go into the etymology of the word, but definition shows repentance comes from the mind or the intellect, where by you hold to the opposite view of what you held to before; despite of it was good or evil. Now in the Christian sense of the word after we have come into agreement with how God see us and have that changing in our minds that should then affect our hearts and be grievous towards our own sins because of the high cost of Christ Jesus on the cross for our sins. In turn this should spur us to total commit on our part to the Lord as our savior. Integrating God’s love for us and satisfying the justice demanded by the Father. Therefore we should head Jesus word’s in Luke 14:27 and be totally committed to our Lord who has bought us as our Savior.
Lordship salvation should not be in dispute, unless you’re a hyper-Calvinist. For acceptance of Lordship is a component of true Christian repentance. It is true that this repentance over time is gradual by some in accordance to the sanctification God give to us believers, but fruit of this process must be seen and one day we will be giving account to our Lord concerning all of which God has given us. God will save who he wills, but we can see based upon the fruits as God’s ordained means who is of the universal church. We want to take apart these means, which unravel the beautiful tapestry which God has revealed to us concerning his will. By doing so we fall into to error of many on one side or the other, of course I let you figure out who they are. Or the call for everyman everywhere to repent is so connected to the Gospel we cannot help ourselves to repent if we truly say we love God. And those of a liberal form of easy beliefism where cost is the not counted, it is no wonder we see cheap or poor Christians if any, because the Gospel they preach is not one that commands turning away of sin for lifetime. As a result turning people away from the true Gospel, because of an acceptance of a false, burn out of fundamental moralism, fueled antinomian, confusion, reconization of past false promises from the church, or some other reason they one may pen.
Purforck is right, “Christ is not savior of any to whom is not also Lord.” This issue has in my option direct affect on the Gospel we preach and how we read our bibles. It is a problem that in relation we should nip in the bud and do so quickly and biblically. Many times we let emotion get in the way of these dissuasions like with the issue of sacraments and that must stop now. The question we must ask ourselves is “what is the plain reading of the scripture?” Address it and label heresy as it is heresy. Which in turn means that the church needs to organize, shape up, and do what we are called to do because souls are on the line.
To God be the Glory and Honor Forever
It is true the belief in the Gospel is simple, but it comes with the requirement of repentance. Repentance I think is many times confused with doing good or being sorrow of the mind regarding sin. Herman Witsius quoting Clemens Alexandrinus in Book 3 Capter 12, section CXXXII of Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, “ ‘metanoia” (repentance) is a slow kind of knowledge that comes after something is done.’” I will not go into the etymology of the word, but definition shows repentance comes from the mind or the intellect, where by you hold to the opposite view of what you held to before; despite of it was good or evil. Now in the Christian sense of the word after we have come into agreement with how God see us and have that changing in our minds that should then affect our hearts and be grievous towards our own sins because of the high cost of Christ Jesus on the cross for our sins. In turn this should spur us to total commit on our part to the Lord as our savior. Integrating God’s love for us and satisfying the justice demanded by the Father. Therefore we should head Jesus word’s in Luke 14:27 and be totally committed to our Lord who has bought us as our Savior.
Lordship salvation should not be in dispute, unless you’re a hyper-Calvinist. For acceptance of Lordship is a component of true Christian repentance. It is true that this repentance over time is gradual by some in accordance to the sanctification God give to us believers, but fruit of this process must be seen and one day we will be giving account to our Lord concerning all of which God has given us. God will save who he wills, but we can see based upon the fruits as God’s ordained means who is of the universal church. We want to take apart these means, which unravel the beautiful tapestry which God has revealed to us concerning his will. By doing so we fall into to error of many on one side or the other, of course I let you figure out who they are. Or the call for everyman everywhere to repent is so connected to the Gospel we cannot help ourselves to repent if we truly say we love God. And those of a liberal form of easy beliefism where cost is the not counted, it is no wonder we see cheap or poor Christians if any, because the Gospel they preach is not one that commands turning away of sin for lifetime. As a result turning people away from the true Gospel, because of an acceptance of a false, burn out of fundamental moralism, fueled antinomian, confusion, reconization of past false promises from the church, or some other reason they one may pen.
Purforck is right, “Christ is not savior of any to whom is not also Lord.” This issue has in my option direct affect on the Gospel we preach and how we read our bibles. It is a problem that in relation we should nip in the bud and do so quickly and biblically. Many times we let emotion get in the way of these dissuasions like with the issue of sacraments and that must stop now. The question we must ask ourselves is “what is the plain reading of the scripture?” Address it and label heresy as it is heresy. Which in turn means that the church needs to organize, shape up, and do what we are called to do because souls are on the line.
To God be the Glory and Honor Forever
Last edited:
The interesting thing is that the flesh will pervert any approach to God. On the one hand, it is the height of impiety to imply that those Whom God has redeemed to Himself will continue in Sin or that the work of the Holy Spirit wrought by Christ's intercession would have no effect upon the life of a believer.
On the other hand, the very notion that something has to be called Lordship Salvation points to a poverty of Arminianism and the very term is often co-opted in a typically Arminian way. Let me explain.
The orthodox concept, explained above, is that those who are elect are brought to Christ, regenerated by the Word, and repent of their sins and trust in Christ. Because they are Christ's, sanctification is certain in their union with the death and resurrection with Christ. No man, understanding the Gospel, could continue in a state where He despises the Lord such that he is willing to consider the stench of His sin lightly.
Nevertheless, the Arminian approach to the above is not to ground a specific work of salvation in God but in the decision of the person. Hence, the notion that somebody accepts Christ as Savior and not Lord is borne out of decision. Somehow, in this crass schema, God is supposed to add that simple "coming forward" as adding to the righteousness of Christ on the Cross. Those that continue with an Arminian schema and insist that you have to accept Christ as Lord for salvation are simply asserting a person is adding even more "fervor" or strength of faith or obedience to the work of Christ as the grounds for salvation.
In other words, Lordship salvation mixed with an Arminian apprehension of the salvation simply adds more works to the Gospel and is no more Gospel than the former.
This is not to say that MacArthur or others fall prey to the error but only to note that you can't simply assume that a person talking about Lordship Salvation is really talking about the Gospel. Roman Catholics, after all, have always had a form of Lordship Salvation and have never bought into "Easy Believism".
On the other hand, the very notion that something has to be called Lordship Salvation points to a poverty of Arminianism and the very term is often co-opted in a typically Arminian way. Let me explain.
The orthodox concept, explained above, is that those who are elect are brought to Christ, regenerated by the Word, and repent of their sins and trust in Christ. Because they are Christ's, sanctification is certain in their union with the death and resurrection with Christ. No man, understanding the Gospel, could continue in a state where He despises the Lord such that he is willing to consider the stench of His sin lightly.
Nevertheless, the Arminian approach to the above is not to ground a specific work of salvation in God but in the decision of the person. Hence, the notion that somebody accepts Christ as Savior and not Lord is borne out of decision. Somehow, in this crass schema, God is supposed to add that simple "coming forward" as adding to the righteousness of Christ on the Cross. Those that continue with an Arminian schema and insist that you have to accept Christ as Lord for salvation are simply asserting a person is adding even more "fervor" or strength of faith or obedience to the work of Christ as the grounds for salvation.
In other words, Lordship salvation mixed with an Arminian apprehension of the salvation simply adds more works to the Gospel and is no more Gospel than the former.
This is not to say that MacArthur or others fall prey to the error but only to note that you can't simply assume that a person talking about Lordship Salvation is really talking about the Gospel. Roman Catholics, after all, have always had a form of Lordship Salvation and have never bought into "Easy Believism".
JBaldwin
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thank you for that very clear explanation. I've been trying to come up with a way to say basically the same thing but was having trouble putting my thoughts into words.
I cringe at the phrase "Lordship Salvation". This is not because I deny the Lordship of Christ. On the contrary, it is because for years, while wrapped up in an Arminian view of the Lordship of Christ, I was consumed with trying to make sure Christ really was my Lord in order to achieve "true" salvation. The fact is when you have that view of the lordship of Christ, Christ is not your Lord, you are, because you are always trying to achieve a higher sense of righteousness. That is a slap in the face to Christ Who already fulfilled righteousness.
What a relief it is to know that bowing the knee to Christ can only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart. What a relief to know that the price has been paid, that Christ Who IS Lord of all and Lord of me has accomplished what I could never do. His righteousness is what I need.
- Status
