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!
Observations, Opinions, and Comments
ReplyDeleteConcerning Reformed (Calvinistic) Soteriology
FIRST MUSINGS
As it now stands, Reformed soteriology is a system of thought at variance with both Scripture and good sense. Indeed, many questions surround the Calvinistic (Reformed) system of theology and its peculiar claims concerning the work of Christ, the will of man, and the sovereignty of God. It has a long and tenacious history of playing up certain portions of Scripture while playing down others. In this regard it's as balanced as a one-legged soccer player.
Over the past twenty-five to thirty years, Calvinism has become a flash point among believers because, in its more naked expressions, it presents a dark view of God and His governance of the universe, even implicating the God of Heaven in the sins of men and angels. According to its tenets God has ordained "whatsoever comes to pass," thus enshrining the downfall of men by an eternal, unconditional, unchangeable, and efficacious decree. It's a bit unclear how this decree works. Some adherents to this of semi-Manichaean, Augustinian philosophy are rather brutal in their descriptions; others less so.
Perhaps wisely, many Calvinists today downplay God's directly decreeing man's fall, though frequently hinting at it in their writings and sermons, being careful not to upset the dovecote. Instead, they explain it in terms least likely to arouse suspicion, often saying God decreed it but in such a way He didn't decree it. Or some may say He simply removed His grace from Adam and so he fell, which engenders the question, Why would do such a thing? After all, if He had not removed His grace, man wouldn't have fallen. Yet Calvinists find no divine culpability in this, even though the decree to fall is the eternal root of man's sin and the driving cause of it.
Fortunately, most believers reject any divine necessity ensuring man's fall. They rightly note it would not only implicate God in sin but, even worse, make Him the author of it! Such a notion of reneging grace doesn't pass the smell test. Nevertheless, Calvinists are adamant here and indicate it was the only way to secure Adam's fall and thus, consequently, to magnify God's selective (sovereign) grace in saving some and to glorify His inviolable justice in damning most. This is quite a cliquey scheme. Regrettably, it has left the body of Christ with troubling questions about the character of God and the nature of His love and purposes.