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.
No comments:
Post a Comment