Monday, June 30, 2014
A Look at Lordship Salvation (VII)
The moment a man believes Jesus for salvation he has eternal life (Jo. 3:36; 1 Jo. 5:12). Scripture can't be any plainer on that point. At the moment of faith a man passes from death to life (Jo. 5:24). It happens that quickly. There is no waiting period, no trial period, no period of validation. A man is saved the instant he believes (Jo. 3:36). His works have nothing to do with his justification either before or after he believes (Ro. 3:20,24,28; 4:5; 5:1, etc.). He is justified by faith alone, not faith plus faithfulness.
Regrettably, in the minds of many evangelicals and fundamentalists, justification (or salvation) by faith has become a complicated issue. Instead of obtaining life and assurance at the moment of faith (Jo. 6:47; 2 Tim. 1:12), Lordship teachers are now saying men must wait an entire lifetime to see whether they really have what they so plainly trusted Christ for. Having ruled out faith as the basis for saving assurance, they now make a life of deep devotion, unquestionable piety, and an ever-increasing Christlikeness the foundation for assurance. To them, devotion, piety, and Christlikeness are not only a consequence of faith, but faith itself.
What Lordship proponents have done is to redefine faith as a disguised form of works. Faith is a commitment instead of a trust; it's consecration instead of a confidence; it's a perseverance instead of a persuasion. Hence, if during his lifetime a man falters in his profession and expresses a mediocre commitment, he is likely not saved and should fear for the destiny of his soul. Since faith is a radical commitment to serve--and he never radically served (however radical commitment is defined and expressed)--his faith was never genuine because his works were rarely characterized by gold, silver, and precious stones (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Ironically, many today who call themselves Lordship advocates were never saved under the very gospel they now say is the true gospel.
Scripturally speaking, obtaining eternal life isn't a difficult or illusive task. It's not like trying to catch a fistful of smoke. Rather, it's simply taking Christ at His word and, on the bare condition of a repentant faith (Acts 20:21), receiving His salvation. It's not something that evolves. It doesn't develop over time. It's an immediate possession. As far as Scripture is concerned, the instant a man takes Christ he has life (1 Jo. 5:11-13). To make commitment or submission the proof of eternal life undermines Jesus' promise that life commences at faith, not consecration. Lordshipism, however, implies that a believer must pass through a probationary period (a period of deep piety, radical commitment, and exceptional growth) to determine if he has eternal life. But this contradicts Christ's words that, if a man believes, he has eternal life at that moment (Jo. 6:47). Eternal life hinges on faith, not faithfulness. When a man trusts Christ for exactly what he was told to trust Him for, he has eternal life then and there. Works either before or after salvation are meaningless when it comes to the immediate justification of the believer.
Eternal life isn't something earned through commitment; it's received by faith. I think this is brought out nicely in Eph. 2:8-10, where Paul says we are saved "unto good works," not in connection with good works (like radical commitment, for instance). Making discipleship a lifelong validation of saving faith confuses faith and faithfulness and casts the assurance of salvation upon the unstable sands of human perseverance instead of the stable ground of Christ's promises. Moreover, it confuses service and salvation, and it misunderstands justification by faith alone, giving both "faith" and "alone" an entirely new sense.
Since eternal life comes at the moment of faith, when one initially believes, then to believe Christ is to have not only eternal life but the assurance of it. Basing assurance on commitment or submission or anything else is misguided Scripturally and disastrous spiritually. The thief on the cross had life immediately (Lk. 23:39-43). He didn't need a lifetime of radical commitment to validate His faith in Christ's promise to save. The moment he believed he had life (Lk. 23:42,43). The same is true with the woman in Luke 7:36-50. She came to Jesus and received life (Lk. 7:47-50). And she received it apart from works (Lk. 7:50) or even a promise to do them. Again, the same can be said about the woman at the well (Jo. 4:10,14).
In short, when do we know we have eternal life? At the time faith? Or at the end of a life of faithfulness? To the chagrin of Lordship advocates, it's not at the end of a life of faithfulness.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
A Look at Lordship Salvation (VI)
In this article I'll rehearse a few things I've said in earlier articles but will include some new comments as well. To this point I obviously haven't addressed the Scriptural argument for non lordship salvation, but I will. For now, however, I'm content to point out what I see as the shortcomings in the Lordship interpretation of the gospel and some of the consequences and implications of that rendering.
Consecration is everything in Lordship teaching because it establishes relationship and identity. Consequently, without consecration there is no faith; without submission there is no true belief. However, as we've noted earlier, Scripture never defines faith in terms of commitment or submission. Ever and always faith is faith and commitment is commitment. They aren't interchangeable terms. Scripturally, faith is a persuasion (2 Tim. 1:12), not a surrender; a confidence, not a commitment. In short, faith is a confident trust that Jesus will save all who believe Him. It's Jesus Who saves, not our commitment, whether good or bad, intense or lackluster.
Having confounded the sinner's justification and consecration, lordship men remain puzzled at the thought that anyone can receive Christ apart from full surrender to His Lordship, which they equate with saving faith. However, "If surrender is something I must do as part of believing, then it is a work, and grace has been diluted to the extent to which I actually do surrender." And that is precisely correct. As I've followed Lordship teaching, I believe it really does blur the line between justification and sanctification (or salvation and submission). In lordship justification becomes a complex of faith and faithfulness, of belief and behavior. As a result faith is redefined as consecration, surrender, commitment, submission, dedication, compliance, and yieldness. But Scripturally faith is simply the persuasion that what God has promised in the gospel is true and that He will make good on that promise to all who embrace it (2 Tim. 1:12). It's resting on Christ's work to do what only He can do, and that is to save us (Jo. 3:16; Eph. 2:8,9).
Unfortunately, lordship advocates dismiss the non lordship position as "easy believism," saying non lordship faith is merely a casual acceptance or acknowledgment of the facts of the gospel. But is this true?. How can anyone who believes what Jesus has done and promised conclude that that's merely a casual, sterile, barren, and halfhearted faith? Believing Christ's words is no a casual thing . . . not by a long shot. Believing is the divinely appointed condition for salvation met and honored. Faith moves from acknowledging the facts of the gospel to trusting its truth. Thus, when the gospel invites acceptance, faith trusts it because it's fully persuaded it's true and that it will accomplish what it promises. Faith takes God at His word. How is that a sterile faith?
Indeed, as I have pointed out several times already, there is a careful correlation between salvation and obedience. However, they aren't so conjoined that the absence of obedience means the absence of faith (Lk. 22:31-33). Salvation and consecration hold a similar relationship as a house to its foundation. While they are distinct, they are nevertheless closely connected. In 1 Cor. 3:9-15, Paul says all believers are given a foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ. On that foundation they must raise up a building (or a personal testimony of service). And because all men possess different degrees of commitment (and some, as Paul suggests, possess very little, given their disastrous answering at the judgment), they are rewarded differently. Although the works of the believer may suffer dearly, his foundation remains sure. If his commitment is lacking, he will lose accordingly. But he won't lose his soul. And Scripture never threatens him with hell for not living up to his high calling.
Again, as noted earlier, we can't ignore the fact that the foundation does not guarantee the quality of the structure raised upon it. Yet that's the very thing Lordship men imply. According to Paul, in this life believers may build a gold, silver, and precious stones mansion (testimony) or a wood, hay, and stubble shack (testimony). Both reflect their sense of Christ's Lordship over their lives. The former evidences a deep submission; the latter not so much. Yet both are saved! Yet in Lordship thought that can't be!
Consecration is everything in Lordship teaching because it establishes relationship and identity. Consequently, without consecration there is no faith; without submission there is no true belief. However, as we've noted earlier, Scripture never defines faith in terms of commitment or submission. Ever and always faith is faith and commitment is commitment. They aren't interchangeable terms. Scripturally, faith is a persuasion (2 Tim. 1:12), not a surrender; a confidence, not a commitment. In short, faith is a confident trust that Jesus will save all who believe Him. It's Jesus Who saves, not our commitment, whether good or bad, intense or lackluster.
Having confounded the sinner's justification and consecration, lordship men remain puzzled at the thought that anyone can receive Christ apart from full surrender to His Lordship, which they equate with saving faith. However, "If surrender is something I must do as part of believing, then it is a work, and grace has been diluted to the extent to which I actually do surrender." And that is precisely correct. As I've followed Lordship teaching, I believe it really does blur the line between justification and sanctification (or salvation and submission). In lordship justification becomes a complex of faith and faithfulness, of belief and behavior. As a result faith is redefined as consecration, surrender, commitment, submission, dedication, compliance, and yieldness. But Scripturally faith is simply the persuasion that what God has promised in the gospel is true and that He will make good on that promise to all who embrace it (2 Tim. 1:12). It's resting on Christ's work to do what only He can do, and that is to save us (Jo. 3:16; Eph. 2:8,9).
Unfortunately, lordship advocates dismiss the non lordship position as "easy believism," saying non lordship faith is merely a casual acceptance or acknowledgment of the facts of the gospel. But is this true?. How can anyone who believes what Jesus has done and promised conclude that that's merely a casual, sterile, barren, and halfhearted faith? Believing Christ's words is no a casual thing . . . not by a long shot. Believing is the divinely appointed condition for salvation met and honored. Faith moves from acknowledging the facts of the gospel to trusting its truth. Thus, when the gospel invites acceptance, faith trusts it because it's fully persuaded it's true and that it will accomplish what it promises. Faith takes God at His word. How is that a sterile faith?
Indeed, as I have pointed out several times already, there is a careful correlation between salvation and obedience. However, they aren't so conjoined that the absence of obedience means the absence of faith (Lk. 22:31-33). Salvation and consecration hold a similar relationship as a house to its foundation. While they are distinct, they are nevertheless closely connected. In 1 Cor. 3:9-15, Paul says all believers are given a foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ. On that foundation they must raise up a building (or a personal testimony of service). And because all men possess different degrees of commitment (and some, as Paul suggests, possess very little, given their disastrous answering at the judgment), they are rewarded differently. Although the works of the believer may suffer dearly, his foundation remains sure. If his commitment is lacking, he will lose accordingly. But he won't lose his soul. And Scripture never threatens him with hell for not living up to his high calling.
Again, as noted earlier, we can't ignore the fact that the foundation does not guarantee the quality of the structure raised upon it. Yet that's the very thing Lordship men imply. According to Paul, in this life believers may build a gold, silver, and precious stones mansion (testimony) or a wood, hay, and stubble shack (testimony). Both reflect their sense of Christ's Lordship over their lives. The former evidences a deep submission; the latter not so much. Yet both are saved! Yet in Lordship thought that can't be!
A Look at Lordship Salvation (V)
Contrary to Lordship claims, a repentant faith, and not a radical submission, is the condition for salvation (Acts 16:31; 20:21). While that doesn't minimize obedience, it does maximize the faith-alone principle. When Lordship men say saving faith is never alone, they are saying "real" faith includes something more than simple trust in Christ; it also includes a solemn commitment to follow Him. To falter here is to become a false professor. However, if Scripture says we are saved by faith alone (Ro. 3:28; Eph. 2:8), then it's alone. Works aren't involved (Titus 3:5). Nevertheless, Lordship men say salvation and service are so related that works are an integral part of saving faith. In other words, they are part of the very fabric of faith. Genuine faith, they claim, always produces good works. Always. Moreover, those good works are ever increasing and expanding. Always. Why? Because works are of the very nature of faith, just as heat is of the very nature of fire, and wet is of the very nature of water. Nevertheless, Scripturally speaking, faith is simply trust in Jesus. It's not a commitment to discipleship, but a confidence in Christ to save (2 Tim. 1:12). To abandon this is to abandon the sole condition upon which God receives men (Ro. 4:1-5,16).
But getting back to works. If good works (as reflective of obedience, commitment, submission, consecration, mastery, devotion etc.) are necessary for salvation, then what kind and how many are necessary? Does anyone know? If good works are the primary indicator of salvation, then how long may a believer remain "uncommitted" before he must consider himself lost? Moreover, what test or mechanism may he employ to determine if he's fully sold-out to Christ? These are important questions because Lordship teaching affects not only the terms of salvation but the very nature of assurance. Not surprisingly, Lordship teachers aren't very clear in their answers. Mainly they say that true believers will perform such consistent and sacrificial good works that the genuineness of their conversion won't be in doubt. (Obviously, they must live in a different world than I do.) The truth is the very standards they employ to determine the presence or absence of salvation remain murky at best.
Even though serious questions remain concerning Lordship teaching, that hasn't kept many from embracing it. In fact, the Lordship interpretation of the gospel continues to grow among God's people. Not surprisingly, closely connected with the Lordship gospel is the doctrine of perseverance. It's here that Calvinist and Arminian Lordship teachers part company. While both confess perseverance, they view it very differently. Arminians, for instance, persevere to keep saved. Calvinists, on the other hand, persevere to prove they're saved. Thus, while both hold perseverance, they hold it for very different reasons. Neither position, however, produces a healthy assurance in believers. Both traffic in the threat of damnation for an uneven Christian walk. Both view doubt as healthy, perhaps even as a badge of spirituality. But Scripture doesn't support them here because it routinely states that we can know if we're saved (Jo. 3:16; Ro. 8:38,39; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Jo. 5:9-13).
One reason Lordship keeps believers doubting and fearful is that it never defines what perseverance looks like or what qualifies as consistent (or authentic) perseverance. To make things worse, it can't tell believers how many lapses they may suffer (or for how long) before they must conclude themselves lost and false professors. The Lordship gospel is so full of uncertainties that one wonders how it survives. The truth is the Lordship perseverance is fatal spiritually because, again, there is no way for believers to measure objectively the quality, intensity, and consistency of their commitment. What may seem like total commitment may in reality be something far less. In fact, one man's submission may be another man's laziness. In short, there is no way for anyone to know for sure if he's entirely sold out to Christ. And, according to them, if you're not sold out, you're not saved.
If simple trust in Christ is not enough to save and to give an adequate knowledge and assurance of salvation, then the believer must look elsewhere, which is exactly what Lordship teaching directs him to do. It directs him to look away from Christ and to himself and his walk. A very dangerous counsel indeed. It takes away from Christ's Calvary and focuses attention on the believer's consecration. At heart, however, the gospel is not a call to radical submission but to a repentant faith. It's a call to trust Christ for salvation and to express that trust in radical submission. But the latter is impossible apart from the former; and the former must logically precede the latter. If it doesn't, then we end up asking a lost man to do what only a saved man can, that is, to present himself as a living sacrifice to Christ.
But getting back to works. If good works (as reflective of obedience, commitment, submission, consecration, mastery, devotion etc.) are necessary for salvation, then what kind and how many are necessary? Does anyone know? If good works are the primary indicator of salvation, then how long may a believer remain "uncommitted" before he must consider himself lost? Moreover, what test or mechanism may he employ to determine if he's fully sold-out to Christ? These are important questions because Lordship teaching affects not only the terms of salvation but the very nature of assurance. Not surprisingly, Lordship teachers aren't very clear in their answers. Mainly they say that true believers will perform such consistent and sacrificial good works that the genuineness of their conversion won't be in doubt. (Obviously, they must live in a different world than I do.) The truth is the very standards they employ to determine the presence or absence of salvation remain murky at best.
Even though serious questions remain concerning Lordship teaching, that hasn't kept many from embracing it. In fact, the Lordship interpretation of the gospel continues to grow among God's people. Not surprisingly, closely connected with the Lordship gospel is the doctrine of perseverance. It's here that Calvinist and Arminian Lordship teachers part company. While both confess perseverance, they view it very differently. Arminians, for instance, persevere to keep saved. Calvinists, on the other hand, persevere to prove they're saved. Thus, while both hold perseverance, they hold it for very different reasons. Neither position, however, produces a healthy assurance in believers. Both traffic in the threat of damnation for an uneven Christian walk. Both view doubt as healthy, perhaps even as a badge of spirituality. But Scripture doesn't support them here because it routinely states that we can know if we're saved (Jo. 3:16; Ro. 8:38,39; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Jo. 5:9-13).
One reason Lordship keeps believers doubting and fearful is that it never defines what perseverance looks like or what qualifies as consistent (or authentic) perseverance. To make things worse, it can't tell believers how many lapses they may suffer (or for how long) before they must conclude themselves lost and false professors. The Lordship gospel is so full of uncertainties that one wonders how it survives. The truth is the Lordship perseverance is fatal spiritually because, again, there is no way for believers to measure objectively the quality, intensity, and consistency of their commitment. What may seem like total commitment may in reality be something far less. In fact, one man's submission may be another man's laziness. In short, there is no way for anyone to know for sure if he's entirely sold out to Christ. And, according to them, if you're not sold out, you're not saved.
If simple trust in Christ is not enough to save and to give an adequate knowledge and assurance of salvation, then the believer must look elsewhere, which is exactly what Lordship teaching directs him to do. It directs him to look away from Christ and to himself and his walk. A very dangerous counsel indeed. It takes away from Christ's Calvary and focuses attention on the believer's consecration. At heart, however, the gospel is not a call to radical submission but to a repentant faith. It's a call to trust Christ for salvation and to express that trust in radical submission. But the latter is impossible apart from the former; and the former must logically precede the latter. If it doesn't, then we end up asking a lost man to do what only a saved man can, that is, to present himself as a living sacrifice to Christ.
Monday, June 16, 2014
A Look at Lordship Salvation (IV)
Soon after I was saved, I began reading the Bible in earnest and marveled at the freeness of salvation. Over and over again that truth was reaffirmed (Ro. 3:24; 5:15,16,18; 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:12; Rev. 21:6; 22:17). It amazed me. There it was. No strings attached. No fine print. Just the stunning truth that Jesus loved me a gave Himself for me (Gal. 2:20). I saw, too, that even when I sinned badly and repeatedly and at length, I was His. His salvation and security were free. The only thing I brought to the salvation table was my sin and a depraved and unregenerate heart. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not advocating loose living. Heavens no! Scripture warns against it. However, a free salvation is the only effective antidote against loose living. God will deal with carnal and disobedient believers (1 Cor. 5:1-11; 11:28-; 1 Tim. 1:19). Personal consecration is vital to Christian maturity. Nevertheless, while submission and consecration are both natural and vital, they aren't inevitable. Many Christians, even after years of knowing Christ as Saviour, never reach maturity in this life. I've learned (rather painfully at times) that not every believer lives at the level he should, including myself. Moreover, some live very badly. While this is regrettable, it's, nevertheless, true. And Scripture gives examples of believers who've lived degrading lives.
In our desire, however, to grow healthy Christians, we must not change the terms of the gospel. It's freeness is not the problem. But the world, the flesh, and the devil are. Making the gospel "hard to believe" is a solution worse than the disease. When men become cold and indifferent in their orthopraxy, it's not due to a free-faith gospel (or to "easy believism") but to the three culprits I just mentioned--the world, the flesh, and the devil (or the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life [1 Jo. 2:16]). Those are the suspects! When we add commitment or consecration as necessary for salvation, we degrade the gospel. We must not confound forensic justification (which is by faith alone) with practical sanctification (which is by faith and works). But I fear Lordship adherents have done just that. They've created a hybrid form of faith, making it an expression of consecration and not a reception of truth, making it synonymous with commitment and not simply a confidence and trust in the gospel. In lordship thought faith becomes a doing, not a receiving.
Scripturally, we are justified by faith alone (Ro. 3:24,24; 5:1, for instance). Yes, faith alone. Nothing more, nothing else, and nothing less. Unfortunately, the lordship men have given us a newfangled-type of "faith alone." In their version faith is redefined in terms of works--that is, in terms of commitment, consecration, dedication, surrender, Lordship, etc.). Thus they say, "We are saved by faith alone, but a faith that saves is never alone." What? It's alone but it's never alone? Why the double-talk? Why deny in the second sentence what's affirmed in the first? The predicted end of such gibberish is that faith becomes a masked form of works. When faith equals obedience, as Lordship people make it, it becomes indistinguishable from works and no longer is simply "a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life."
I understand the lordship interpretation of the gospel is popular among many conservative and fundamentalist Christians, but this is lamentable, not laudable. It's a departure from Scripture and engenders confusion. While lordship advocates offer lip-service to faith alone, they really offer a mongrelized gospel of faith and works. By equating saving faith with consecration, they hope to eradicate the cancer of "easy believism" and thus insure both genuine conversions and a lively spiritual tone among believers. But changing the terms of the gospel from faith alone to faith plus consecration isn't the answer to spiritual mediocrity. Changing the gospel is never a means to establishing it! Its strength lies in its simplicity (2 Cor. 11:3; 2 Tim. 3:15), not in its redefinition. Stiffening saving requirements by adding a promise of consecration to its terms only diminishes its power and undermines its freeness.
The truth is lordship churches aren't themselves flagships of spirituality or havens of piety where carnality--if it exists at all--is short-lived and absolute commitment reigns. Actually, they suffer the same spiritual deficiencies that non lordship churches do. Changing the terms of the gospel hasn't helped them. How could it? If God gave a salvation-by-faith gospel, then to alter it in any way only weakens, if not destroys, it. We can't improve on the divine plan of a free salvation and a costly sanctification.
In our desire, however, to grow healthy Christians, we must not change the terms of the gospel. It's freeness is not the problem. But the world, the flesh, and the devil are. Making the gospel "hard to believe" is a solution worse than the disease. When men become cold and indifferent in their orthopraxy, it's not due to a free-faith gospel (or to "easy believism") but to the three culprits I just mentioned--the world, the flesh, and the devil (or the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life [1 Jo. 2:16]). Those are the suspects! When we add commitment or consecration as necessary for salvation, we degrade the gospel. We must not confound forensic justification (which is by faith alone) with practical sanctification (which is by faith and works). But I fear Lordship adherents have done just that. They've created a hybrid form of faith, making it an expression of consecration and not a reception of truth, making it synonymous with commitment and not simply a confidence and trust in the gospel. In lordship thought faith becomes a doing, not a receiving.
Scripturally, we are justified by faith alone (Ro. 3:24,24; 5:1, for instance). Yes, faith alone. Nothing more, nothing else, and nothing less. Unfortunately, the lordship men have given us a newfangled-type of "faith alone." In their version faith is redefined in terms of works--that is, in terms of commitment, consecration, dedication, surrender, Lordship, etc.). Thus they say, "We are saved by faith alone, but a faith that saves is never alone." What? It's alone but it's never alone? Why the double-talk? Why deny in the second sentence what's affirmed in the first? The predicted end of such gibberish is that faith becomes a masked form of works. When faith equals obedience, as Lordship people make it, it becomes indistinguishable from works and no longer is simply "a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life."
I understand the lordship interpretation of the gospel is popular among many conservative and fundamentalist Christians, but this is lamentable, not laudable. It's a departure from Scripture and engenders confusion. While lordship advocates offer lip-service to faith alone, they really offer a mongrelized gospel of faith and works. By equating saving faith with consecration, they hope to eradicate the cancer of "easy believism" and thus insure both genuine conversions and a lively spiritual tone among believers. But changing the terms of the gospel from faith alone to faith plus consecration isn't the answer to spiritual mediocrity. Changing the gospel is never a means to establishing it! Its strength lies in its simplicity (2 Cor. 11:3; 2 Tim. 3:15), not in its redefinition. Stiffening saving requirements by adding a promise of consecration to its terms only diminishes its power and undermines its freeness.
The truth is lordship churches aren't themselves flagships of spirituality or havens of piety where carnality--if it exists at all--is short-lived and absolute commitment reigns. Actually, they suffer the same spiritual deficiencies that non lordship churches do. Changing the terms of the gospel hasn't helped them. How could it? If God gave a salvation-by-faith gospel, then to alter it in any way only weakens, if not destroys, it. We can't improve on the divine plan of a free salvation and a costly sanctification.
A Look at Lordship Salvation (III)
Although my discipleship is imperfect, I maintain that, what's at stake when I sin and fail to follow on with the Lord in full obedience, is not my salvation but my sanctification. And Scripture confirms this (Ro. 12:1,2, for example). The reason Lordship men miss the mark on yieldedness is that they confound discipleship passages with salvation passages. And the results are predictable: Salvation becomes a message of radical submission that no believer can ever know with any confidence that he's achieved it.
Those who promote Lordship (that is, total surrender as both an expression of genuine faith and as a requirement for salvation) say that prolonged failure in the Christian life proves that salvation was never there. But is this so? As I pointed out at the close of Article II, Scripture provides telling examples of believers in protracted carnality who were saved (Lot and Solomon, for instance, in the OT; and the Corinthians in the NT). Yes, carnality is a problem. But changing the terms of the gospel won't eradicate it. Making the gospel harder, stiffer, and more threatening isn't the answer. Paul addressed the protracted carnality of the Corinthians not with threats of damnation but with a reminder of the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Just because a believer won't go to hell for drawn-out disobedience doesn't mean he won't pay a price for it. He will, but not at the expense of his soul (1 Cor. 5:1-8).
It's not my desire, of course, to give comfort to disobedient believers. Perish the thought! However, what is needed isn't a message of try harder and do more but a message of rewards in jeopardy. As noted, that was Paul's solution for carnal Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:1-5; cf. 1 Cor. 3:9-16), a message that warned them about the high costs and consequences of inferior service. Paul never preached the "You might not be saved" card as a solution to carnality. He never said, for instance, "Okay, you Corinthians, you've had two years now to get things right, to surrender to the mastery of Christ, and to get on with a holy walk; and you haven't. Apparently, you must be lost because prolonged disobedience and salvation are mutually exclusive."
If we compare (as Scripture does) salvation to a house, salvation would be the foundation and works the superstructure. While the two aren't the same, they are, nevertheless, intimately connected. Not surprisingly, 1 Cor. 3: 10-15 undermines the Lordship claim by showing that the foundation (salvation) doesn't guarantee the quality of the structure built upon it, a fact Lordship followers sometimes miss. If believers must inevitably produce a strong Christlikeness, Paul knew nothing of it. According to Scripture every believer is placed upon the foundation of Christ at the moment of faith in order to erect a structure upon it. That building is the believer's testimony, and it's the result of various materials (or works) he puts into it. Every believer works. No believer is without works. To say a believer doesn't produce works after he's saved is not true. Every believer produces works. The question is, What kind of works are they? Lordship men say they will largely be excellent--gold, silver, and precious stones because, as they see it, a true believer must necessarily raise up a testimony more indicative of a mansion than a shack, more like gold, silver, and precious stones than wood, hay, and stubble. Yet Scripture nowhere supports this.
Some Lordship proponents charge that non Lordship men preach a divided Christ. I was surprised to hear that. They say we divide Christ's Saviourship from His Lordship and thus divide His person when we refuse to make submission (Lordship) a necessary condition of belief (Saviourship). To be sure, Christ isn't a divided Saviour. He is One Lord and Saviour. When we receive Him, we receive Him as both Lord and Saviour. However, when we first come to Christ, we often experience (or relate to) these two truths differently. I recall my own salvation experience. After hearing the gospel for the very first time, I responded to an invitation to receive Christ as Saviour. The preacher took me into his office, and we knelt on the floor. Then he opened his Bible and explained clearly what Christ had done for me, what He offers me, and how I could trust Him and be saved. After about thirty minutes of explanation, I received Christ as my Saviour. But if someone had asked me later that day if I had forsaken all to follow Him, if I truly hated my mom and dad, I would've said no. I didn't forsake anything. Rather, I received something, the free gift of salvation (Jo. 1:12; 2 Cor. 6:1,2; Col. 2:6)!!!
Later on, I came to see the necessity of Christ's Lordship and its importance in my walk with Him. To grow as I should required a happy submission to His rule. After being saved, I've found that submitting to Christ's Lordship is a process. It's not a one-time seamless act. In fact, I find myself repeatedly (with various levels of intensity and passion) surrendering to His mastery everyday. But, again, before I could do that, I had to be saved. Lordship involves believers, not unbelievers. Practically speaking, I had to know Christ as Saviour before I could know Him as Lord, the former being prior to the latter as a practical matter. After all, Christ doesn't call the unbeliever to submit to His Lordship; He calls them to repent and believe (Mk. 1:15; Acts 20:21) which makes Lordship possible.
Once saved, I had both the duty and privilege of consecrating my life to Him. Since being saved, I have repeatedly presented myself as a living sacrifice (Ro. 12;1,3). I wince when I say that, but it's true. While I love Him dearly, I'm not always submitted fully. Again, the day I received Christ, I didn't promise Him anything, yet I received everything! Quite frankly, I don't think He would've cared a hoot about my promises. After all, what good were they? I was lost. I was dead in sin. I was in no position to promise or pledge Him anything, much less follow through on such things. Besides, to barter my obedience for His salvation would've been blasphemous. Jesus isn't looking to barter with men about their souls. He isn't interested in sinners promising total obedience in exchange for His salvation. Barter salvation is baloney . . . and pagan. Again, while I never promised Jesus anything that day, He promised me something . . . eternal life . . . on the sole condition of faith.
Those who promote Lordship (that is, total surrender as both an expression of genuine faith and as a requirement for salvation) say that prolonged failure in the Christian life proves that salvation was never there. But is this so? As I pointed out at the close of Article II, Scripture provides telling examples of believers in protracted carnality who were saved (Lot and Solomon, for instance, in the OT; and the Corinthians in the NT). Yes, carnality is a problem. But changing the terms of the gospel won't eradicate it. Making the gospel harder, stiffer, and more threatening isn't the answer. Paul addressed the protracted carnality of the Corinthians not with threats of damnation but with a reminder of the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:10-15). Just because a believer won't go to hell for drawn-out disobedience doesn't mean he won't pay a price for it. He will, but not at the expense of his soul (1 Cor. 5:1-8).
It's not my desire, of course, to give comfort to disobedient believers. Perish the thought! However, what is needed isn't a message of try harder and do more but a message of rewards in jeopardy. As noted, that was Paul's solution for carnal Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:1-5; cf. 1 Cor. 3:9-16), a message that warned them about the high costs and consequences of inferior service. Paul never preached the "You might not be saved" card as a solution to carnality. He never said, for instance, "Okay, you Corinthians, you've had two years now to get things right, to surrender to the mastery of Christ, and to get on with a holy walk; and you haven't. Apparently, you must be lost because prolonged disobedience and salvation are mutually exclusive."
If we compare (as Scripture does) salvation to a house, salvation would be the foundation and works the superstructure. While the two aren't the same, they are, nevertheless, intimately connected. Not surprisingly, 1 Cor. 3: 10-15 undermines the Lordship claim by showing that the foundation (salvation) doesn't guarantee the quality of the structure built upon it, a fact Lordship followers sometimes miss. If believers must inevitably produce a strong Christlikeness, Paul knew nothing of it. According to Scripture every believer is placed upon the foundation of Christ at the moment of faith in order to erect a structure upon it. That building is the believer's testimony, and it's the result of various materials (or works) he puts into it. Every believer works. No believer is without works. To say a believer doesn't produce works after he's saved is not true. Every believer produces works. The question is, What kind of works are they? Lordship men say they will largely be excellent--gold, silver, and precious stones because, as they see it, a true believer must necessarily raise up a testimony more indicative of a mansion than a shack, more like gold, silver, and precious stones than wood, hay, and stubble. Yet Scripture nowhere supports this.
Some Lordship proponents charge that non Lordship men preach a divided Christ. I was surprised to hear that. They say we divide Christ's Saviourship from His Lordship and thus divide His person when we refuse to make submission (Lordship) a necessary condition of belief (Saviourship). To be sure, Christ isn't a divided Saviour. He is One Lord and Saviour. When we receive Him, we receive Him as both Lord and Saviour. However, when we first come to Christ, we often experience (or relate to) these two truths differently. I recall my own salvation experience. After hearing the gospel for the very first time, I responded to an invitation to receive Christ as Saviour. The preacher took me into his office, and we knelt on the floor. Then he opened his Bible and explained clearly what Christ had done for me, what He offers me, and how I could trust Him and be saved. After about thirty minutes of explanation, I received Christ as my Saviour. But if someone had asked me later that day if I had forsaken all to follow Him, if I truly hated my mom and dad, I would've said no. I didn't forsake anything. Rather, I received something, the free gift of salvation (Jo. 1:12; 2 Cor. 6:1,2; Col. 2:6)!!!
Later on, I came to see the necessity of Christ's Lordship and its importance in my walk with Him. To grow as I should required a happy submission to His rule. After being saved, I've found that submitting to Christ's Lordship is a process. It's not a one-time seamless act. In fact, I find myself repeatedly (with various levels of intensity and passion) surrendering to His mastery everyday. But, again, before I could do that, I had to be saved. Lordship involves believers, not unbelievers. Practically speaking, I had to know Christ as Saviour before I could know Him as Lord, the former being prior to the latter as a practical matter. After all, Christ doesn't call the unbeliever to submit to His Lordship; He calls them to repent and believe (Mk. 1:15; Acts 20:21) which makes Lordship possible.
Once saved, I had both the duty and privilege of consecrating my life to Him. Since being saved, I have repeatedly presented myself as a living sacrifice (Ro. 12;1,3). I wince when I say that, but it's true. While I love Him dearly, I'm not always submitted fully. Again, the day I received Christ, I didn't promise Him anything, yet I received everything! Quite frankly, I don't think He would've cared a hoot about my promises. After all, what good were they? I was lost. I was dead in sin. I was in no position to promise or pledge Him anything, much less follow through on such things. Besides, to barter my obedience for His salvation would've been blasphemous. Jesus isn't looking to barter with men about their souls. He isn't interested in sinners promising total obedience in exchange for His salvation. Barter salvation is baloney . . . and pagan. Again, while I never promised Jesus anything that day, He promised me something . . . eternal life . . . on the sole condition of faith.
A Look at Lordship Salvation (II)
As mentioned in Article I, I often fall prey to the evils within me, especially in the areas of thought, imagination, anger, and conscience. Sin is always a troubling thing, even if I'd like to call it something else for a better self assessment. I know sin displeases the Lord, yet I sin anyway; and, what's worse, I'm not always quick to repent. Sometimes I savor my sins for their gratification. Is that wrong? Yes, dwelling on sin is always wrong and dangerous, and it ought to grieve us when we do. But the vexing question is this: Does it mean I'm lost if I do? Is straying from Christ's mastery in thought and deed a litmus test for salvation?
That depends.
If you embrace the lordship gospel--that is, the belief that a truly saved man will of necessity (and that's the key phrase, "of necessity") evidence his faith in a progressive and unquestioned obedience to the lordship of Christ--then, yes, repeated sin, whether in flesh or spirit, signals bad things. It may signal, for instance, that you're a false professor, a counterfeit Christian. If you're not following Christ harder, purer, and better every day (allowing of course for minor and occasional setbacks), then you have every reason to doubt your salvation, which is exactly where many lordship advocates end up . . . on the shoals of human doubt.
However, if you've truly received Christ (Jo. 1:12; 2 Cor. 6:1,2; Col. 2:6; Ja. 1:21), then you are saved on the sole condition of a repentant faith in Him--apart from any promises of consecration, dedication, or submission. Striving toward full consecration is the natural and normal thing for a believer, but it's not an inevitable thing. It's not a given a believer will reach a large measure of maturity in this life. The Christian life is a race. Some run it well and some don't (1 Cor. 9:24-27; Heb. 12:2). The Christian life is a war. Some fight it well and some don't (Eph. 6:12-19; 2 Tim. 2:1-8). Again, maturity is expected but not assured. What about besetting sins? Yes, believers have besetting sins, sins that are deep rooted and difficult to conquer. For Lordship followers these sins are terrifying and can only increase the prospects that they aren't saved because if they routinely fall prey to these sins, especially for any length of time, they must conclude themselves as lost. Sadly, Lordship salvation is so constructed that it will only increase the spiritual agony of its adherents.
Indeed, besetting sins are a problem--not for salvation, however, but for sanctification and transformation, or the believer's growth in grace, obedience, godliness, and Christlikeness. Every believer has sins and habits to overcome, with some sins being quite vicious and nasty. Consequently, it's not surprising his obedience is often sketchy and poorly expressed. Let's be honest. Lordship is a struggle for every believer. It doesn't come easy and it's often hit and miss. It's not always onward and upward, moving from one victory to the next. Again, Lordship is a natural thing, not an inevitable thing. Some believers may go weeks, months, and even years without a conscious, determined effort to submit to the Lordship of Christ in their lives and to follow Him at all costs. And testimonies abound to this effect.
Oftentimes I think of Lot, a sterling example of both a failed believer and a failed follower. As far as I know, he neither served God in any committed way during his lifetime nor repented either for offering his daughters to homosexuals or for impregnating his two daughters, at least there is no evidence he repented. Solomon is another who comes to mind as a failed believer and a failed follower, one who delved into the deepest carnality and religious apostasy imaginable. He never persevered. Yet was he lost? We don't think so. And we know for sure Lot was saved (Jude 7-9). It's not with glee that I cite these two men as proof of failed Lordship. But their testimony is there, and it contradicts the Lordship message.
A Look at Lordship Salvation (I)
I'm biased. Very biased. And I admit it. My bias puts me at odds with much of the current religious climate. You see, I'm biased towards salvation by grace, salvation by God's unmerited favor, and not by any religious rituals or personal promises.
I don't know if I've ever been fully submitted to Christ's Lordship. I desire that. But I have no way of knowing if I am or ever have been. And I don't think any Lordship folks know if they are either. Given the old man within, I'm sure I've deceived myself more than once into believing I was more committed than I was. (The flesh does have a way of flattering itself.) Really, what believer can honestly say he's one-hundred percent sold out to Christ, that every facet of his life is under Christ's lordship?
To me, salvation by surrender is a very troubling gospel, perhaps even a form of salvation by works. Instead of blatantly saying faith plus works are necessary for salvation, the Lordship gospel says a faith that works is necessary for salvation. Catch the subtle difference? Lordship advocates have a very peculiar notion of saving faith because it distorts the Biblical teaching. They define faith in terms of works, something Scripture never does. In lordship theory works and faith are so intimately and inextricably tied together that works become the heart of saving faith. Consequently, if Christ isn't Lord of all; He isn't Lord at all. Thus any believer who isn't fully consecrated to Christ (allowing of course for short-lived slip ups here and there) isn't saved. He's deceived. He's living a lie because submission and salvation are synonymous.
To me, salvation by surrender is a very troubling gospel, perhaps even a form of salvation by works. Instead of blatantly saying faith plus works are necessary for salvation, the Lordship gospel says a faith that works is necessary for salvation. Catch the subtle difference? Lordship advocates have a very peculiar notion of saving faith because it distorts the Biblical teaching. They define faith in terms of works, something Scripture never does. In lordship theory works and faith are so intimately and inextricably tied together that works become the heart of saving faith. Consequently, if Christ isn't Lord of all; He isn't Lord at all. Thus any believer who isn't fully consecrated to Christ (allowing of course for short-lived slip ups here and there) isn't saved. He's deceived. He's living a lie because submission and salvation are synonymous.
Don't misread me. I'm a lordship advocate, but I'm not a lordship salvation advocate. I'm for believers surrendering fully, sacrificially, and intentionally. That's Scriptural enough. Nevertheless, questions about obedience, sacrifice, commitment, surrender, consecration, mastery, and dedication are settled after salvation, not before. To require them before is to require something Scripture doesn't. Scripture knows nothing of promising to serve Christ as a prerequisite to salvation. The truth is it's only after one receives salvation that he can practice sanctification, and submission is part of sanctification. The new life must precede the Christ-life. Demanding an unbeliever to hate his mother, father, sister, brother, wife and kids before inviting him to receive salvation is spiritual confusion. It inverts the Biblical plan that salvation precedes sanctification and that only believers (as enabled by the Holy Spirit) can present themselves a living sacrifice to the Lord (Ro. 12:1,2).
Again, I'm leery of the Lordship gospel. Why? Because, although I desire total commitment, there are things that surface in my life from time to time that truly shock me. And it forces me to ask myself how long they were there before I knew it. Were they there when I thought I was solid out? If so, was I truly surrendered? And if I failed the requirement of full surrender for salvation, did I fail of salvation itself? Again, I can't say I've ever known full surrender, though I desire it. Personally, I think it's rather haughty for believers to strut their submission, to say they're fully surrendered when they've never experienced the kinds of circumstances and situations in life that would prove it. I dare say John MacArthur, a leading lordship salvation advocate, sees as much unfaithfuless in his people as any non lordship pastor does. Regardless, salvation isn't measured by faithfulness; it's measured by faith . . . and faith alone in Christ alone. Yes, faith should affect our faithfulness. But it's spiritually disastrous to make the fruits of faith the conditions of it.
Like many believers I desire to follow the Lord and to know the power of His resurrection in my daily fray with sin and temptation (Php. 3:10). But, sadly, I often follow haltingly. Within me lurks no good thing (Ro. 7:18). If we're honest, we'll acknowledge the passions, desires, attitudes, thoughts, feelings, and impulses within us that run contrary to Christ's lordship and hinder full commitment (Ro. 7). So what's the remedy? In short, dying to self (1 Cor. 15:31) and walking in the Spirit (Ro. 8:1,4; Gal. 5:16,25), allowing the Lord to live His life once again through us (Gal. 2:20). Unfortunately, dying to self isn't easy. By dying to self I mean not only reckoning ourselves to be dead with Christ positionally (Ro. 6:11-13) but presenting ourselves a living sacrifice daily (Ro. 12:1,2), slaying every contrary thought and habit and appropriating the victory of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4).
But all this takes time. Much time. And tons of patience. Unfortunately, lordship salvation doesn't provide for that time.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)