09 October 2006

A Brief Interlude about History and Terminology

How I Got Drawn into the Lordship Debate-part 4
by Phil Johnson

n the previous installment I mentioned a statement by Charles Ryrie from his 1969 book Balancing the Christian Life. Referring to the opposing positions in the lordship debate, he said, "One of them is a false gospel and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)."

Let's face this squarely: Ryrie insists that if we demand the unconditional surrender of sinners to Christ's lordship, we are corrupting the gospel with human works. Of course, if that were true, then Ryrie would be correct to anathematize lordship salvation.

My reply would be that surrender to Christ's authority is no more a "work" than faith itself. In fact, it's a necessary element of faith. Faith, defined well by the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is "is a saving grace [i.e., a gift of God], whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel" (question 86). The stiff-necked attitude of those who want to claim Jesus' grace and compassion as Savior while refusing his rightful authority as Lord is the very essence of unbelief.

Let me say a word about the terminology I'm using. The earliest use of the expression "lordship salvation" I can find comes from Dr. A. Ray Stanford, founder and president of Florida Bible College. Stanford was a harsh and outspoken critic of the view he labeled "lordship salvation." This whole debate seems to have been a pet topic of Stanford's. He waged a years-long quest to eliminate the message of Jesus' lordship from the gospel, beginning (I believe) sometime in the mid-1960s, and continuing until 1975, when Stanford resigned from the college after it came to light that he had been unfaithful to his wife.

"I'm going where nobody has ever heard of me," he told a friend. "If anybody ever finds me, I'll leave again" (AP news report, 9 February 1975) And he did, leaving his wife and family and the school and disappearing from public view for years. The Hollywood, FL school, which at the time billed itself as the largest Bible college in the world, experienced two decades of decline and finally closed its doors in 1996.

(In a surrealistic footnote to the affair, the FBC alumni association sponsored a 90th birthday celebration to honor Ray Stanford a couple of weeks ago).

I ministered in Florida for three years in the late 1970s, and even then, the impact of Ray Stanford's aggressive teaching against "lordship salvation" could be felt across the state.

Stanford wrote a book called Handbook of Personal Evangelism, in which he included a whole chapter titled "Lordship Salvation." (If that book was not the source of the expression "lordship salvation" it is certainly where the expression was first popularized.) In a section titled "Reasons for Not Teaching 'Lordship Salvation,'" he made these remarks: "[The message of Lordship salvation] contradicts scripture . . .. [it] cannot save . . .. [it] is accursed of God . . .. [and] The person who preaches such a message is also accursed of God."

So there's no mincing of words from the opponents of lordship salvation.

People sometimes complained that John MacArthur sounded too strident in The Gospel According to Jesus. But you will find nothing in any of MacArthur's books to match the language Ryrie, Stanford, and Hodges had already employed to anathematize lordship salvation.

Ray Stanford and others who have borrowed his terminology employ the expression "lordship salvation" as a pejorative term. MacArthur reluctantly accepted the label others had pinned on his view, just so it would be very clear whose criticism he was answering. In the first chapter of The Gospel According to Jesus, MacArthur wrote this: "I don't like the term 'lordship salvation.' It was coined by those who want to eliminate the idea of submission to Christ from the call to saving faith, and it implies that Jesus' lordship is a false addition to the gospel . . .. I use the term in this volume only for the sake of argument."

I normally employ the term "no-lordship salvation" to describe the view represented by those who have published the most outspoken criticisms of MacArthur's view—particularly the views of Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society. And because I know some causal PyroManiacs readers are sympathetic to those views, I want to explain why I use the term "no-lordship salvation." Because frankly, I understand that proponents of the no-lordship view don't like that expression any more than we like the term "lordship salvation."

One writer in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society took John MacArthur to task for employing this expression in his book Faith Works. This reviewer wrote, "I was personally deeply offended by this." He says, "MacArthur selects a cumbersome, misleading, and pejorative label for us." "We call our position the Free Grace position. We call their position just what they call it: Lordship Salvation."

First of all, if that reviewer means to leave his readers with the impression that advocates of "lordship salvation" chose that expression to describe their own view, then he is either ignorant of the history of the debate, or he is deliberately being deceitful.

Second, I deny that "no-lordship salvation" has anything to do with "free grace." "Free grace" is a term Calvinists have traditionally employed to describe their position—because the expression "free grace" stresses the absolute unconditionality of God's electing grace.

I believe in free grace. In fact, I believe God's saving grace is truly free. Everyone who believes in unconditional election by definition believes in free grace. In other words, the view we commonly label Calvinism is the real "free grace" position. And I have never met a true Calvinist who believed any sinner saved by God's grace ever could or would persist in willfully and deliberately in rejecting Christ's lordship. That's what the Calvinistic principle known as the perseverance of the saints is all about.

As Calvinists, we believe God sovereignly draws and regenerates and transforms those whom He redeems, so that the person who is saved is made a new creation. His character changes. He is, in biblical terms, born again. "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). That one verse alone is sufficient to annihilate the whole system of no-lordship salvation.

In any case, I refuse to dignify the no-lordship position by referring to it as "free grace" theology, because as far as I am concerned their notion of "free grace" is a false claim and a twisted doctrine that seriously confuses the meaning of the words free and grace.

Remember also that I don't like the expression "lordship salvation" any more than the folks over at the Grace Evangelical Society like the expression "no-lordship salvation." But we need some sort of shorthand to clarify what we're talking about. And since they chose the term first, let's stick with their terminology. If it's fair for them to describe our position as "lordship salvation," it's certainly reasonable to call their view "no-lordship salvation."

Now let me give you a couple of simple definitions:
  • "Lordship salvation" is the belief that some degree of submission to Jesus' lordship is inherent in saving faith.
  • "No-lordship salvation" teaches that saving faith involves no element of surrender to or recognition of Jesus' lordship.
There's much more to the lordship debate than that, of course. Those on the lordship side of the debate affirm the perseverance of the saints—the doctrine that those who are truly in the faith will remain in the faith, and that despite the inevitable failures and stumblings we all experience as Christians, those who are true Christians will neither totally nor finally fall away from the faith but are kept by the power of God unto salvation.

No-lordship doctrine, on the other hand, denies the perseverance of the saints. In Zane Hodges' words, a Christian "may cease to name the name of Christ, and may even cease to confess Christianity" (p.111). But according to the no-lordship view, a single moment of assent to the facts of the gospel is enough to guarantee your eternal salvation, even if you later become an atheist.

Even Charles Ryrie, who aims for a more moderate statement of the no-lordship position, claims that a true believer may eventually turn away—even cease believing entirely (p. 142)—yet enjoy full assurance of eternal life.

Those, gentle readers, are serious and important issues, with monumental ramifications. If the lordship perspective is the correct one, then many backslidden and carnal people really need to have the gospel proclaimed to them, rather than salving their consciences with the false assurance that their eternal destiny is heaven, no matter how far they fall from grace.

Phil's signature


28 comments:

Lou Martuneac said...

I would offer this definition for consideration:

“Lordship Salvation is a position on salvation in which 'saving faith' is defined as reliance upon Jesus Christ. An indispensable component that must be met to fully define the faith that saves is a wholehearted commitment to deny self, take up the cross, and follow Christ in submissive obedience.”

LM

Taliesin said...

Phil,

According to an article Dr. S. Lewis Johnson wrote for Christianity Today ("How Faith Works" following the publication of The Gospel According to Jesus) the debate goes back at least to a debate between Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott in Eternity Magazine, September 1959. It's an interesting article on this issue.

Likewise, this has been interesting, and I'm looking forward to more about your involvement.

Unknown said...

For clarification sake...

Hi Phil, I've avoided the term lordship salvation for years but since I've noticed that MacArthur himself uses it I started using it again. How do you like the term, Purist, to indicate the English and American Puritan influence?

The reason I'm profoundly offended by the no-lordship term is because you leave out the "salvation" part of it. We adamently think lordship is required, but not to recieve the gift of eternal life, since that is without cost.

The term "lordship salvation" seems like white gloves polemics, while no lordship advocates seems like brass knuckle polemics.

Since Free Grace is what we are known as, maybe you should adopt it belatedly.

Lou Martuneac said...

Taliesin:

"...the debate goes back at least to a debate between Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott in Eternity Magazine, September 1959."

This is correct. I cite this in my book on the Lordship controversy titled, In Defense of the Gospel.

LM

*I couldn't get the title of my book in italics, why?

James Scott Bell said...

Is all this anathematizing talk truly necessary?

For Calvinists, the number of the elect will not be affected by the "no lordship" camp.

Nor should Ryrie be using such loaded language. If his view is correct, all that's happening is that those who believe are being called to something "more" by the Lordship position, which calling does not affect their belief. So no one's being lost under Lordship teaching.

This isn't a Galatians moment. Ryrie is way off to claim that the Judaizing demand for observance of part of the Law of Moses is in any way like a call to repentance.

Taliesin said...

Lou,

To get italics you have to use the html tag < i > (without the spaces) < /i >. For bold replace the "i" with "b". The simple letter between the "less than" and "greater than" symbols starts the special format. The letter preceeded by the "/" ends the special format.

Eddie

Andrew Lindsey said...

Nice use of the lake of fire graphic.

Bhedr said...

Well if anything Phil. I have learned more through this series. I really am not fully aware of the full history of all this. I am going to back down for a while as I am one of those casual readers.

I would like to say that I see some points and generally believe in the perserverance of the saints but also believe in the sin unto death that is kept there so that saints heads won't swell and think that they are beyond falling into a miserable state and being removed from this earth to face the Judgment seat of Christ with embarrasment. We are all to take heed of this.

Now as to the question of one becoming an atheist...I believe this said person who falls will be miserable and know in his heart the truth. I do sympathise with aspects of what Jodie(a most excellent mind for God) sees, but I do split hairs in some areas. Is it possible for us to become to cemented in this because of the positions we take and shoulders we rub?

Again. I see the sin unto death clearly taught in scripture.

Go ahead and laugh, but I think Elvis was a prime example of this.

Bhedr said...

Ok I know...I just totally discredited myself...but oh well, I never had a real strong level of credibility anyway. still learning though.

Unknown said...

thanks bhedr...

Elvis-story-that-is-on-topic:

Elvis was doing a show once, in a real city, not Vegas, and a whole row of girls in knee socks at one point stood up together and held up a home-made banner that said, ELVIS YOU ARE THE KING!

He immediately said into the microphone, "No, that's not right. Jesus Christ is the King."

...they sat down quickly.

So.

There ya go.

Unknown said...

Title: "A Brief Interlude about History and Terminology"

...and Elvis was both historical and terminal.

donsands said...

Like Dylan said, "You gotta serve somebody,
Now it may be the devil, or it may be the Lord,
But you're gonna have to serve somebody".

"Do not be unbelieving, but believing.
And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" John 20: 27-28

Gordon said...

Phil, I have really appreciated these posts. As a non-Calvinist who has been involved in this debate for a number of years, I have seen the extremes to which both sides of the argument are capable of going.

You said, "My reply would be that surrender to Christ's authority is no more a "work" than faith itself. In fact, it's a necessary element of faith. "

I would say that presents a very balanced view to this issue.

Jim Crigler said...

InTheLight pointed out what he/she/it believes points to a change in Dr Mac's view of justification.

Here's the key to resolving the conflict: "Imputation" is not a legal declaration, it is an accounting declaration. The sin of the elect was transferred to Christ, who fully took the wrath for all of it. With God's wrath for sin of the elect spent, Christ's righteousness was transferred to us in accounting terms. The rapprochement in the conflict you perceive is understanding this. So the acquital is is the actual and legal result of this accounting transaction, justification, is based on the payment for sin (redemption) that (hold your hats) God paid to Himself, at once satisfying His own justice and applying mercy.

(This is a little imprecise due to the descriptive nature of the language, of course. The double transfer was simultaneous, not serialized, so that there was never a nanosecond when the books didn't balance.)

Correction from the theologically trained is welcome.

striving... said...

So here is what I think. A very wise man once told me that excepting Christ in my life was not a one time thing. It was a life long process. Once you let Christ in your heart with total faith and you let him WORK in you, he changes you. He lets you see what a horrible creature you are and you are suppose to be open to changing those evil and sinful ways. Not the whole, if it feels good do it, repent and repeat. You see something sinful, repent, try not to repeat. Over and Over again. There is a vs. in the bible as well that talks about the washing away of the old man, and getting the new man. They way I take that is that you do change after you except Christ, and if it is not God changing you, then why didn't you change it before. Did you like being a horrible, disrespectful, ugly, person. I know I did not. And if it weren't for God in my life, I would still be that way. I think I am a much better person now then I was 8 years ago, and I cannot wait to see what happens next. I really liked this post. It has answered a few questions that I have been trying to fiqure out. Patiently waiting your next part.

Stephen Dunning said...

It is, it seems to me, to be a fundamental error to try to divide Christ. He is Lord, so when a person believe in him, they trust in the Lord. You cannot have a part of Christ - you turn to the Christ who is: Saviour, Lord, Head of the Church, Lion and Lamb, &c.

Furthermore, Faith is a response in obedience to the Lord who commanded "Repent and believe the good news".

Part of the problem is the removal of repentance from the gospel (Mk 1:15, Ac 17:30).

danny2 said...

this is great phil.

thanks for taking your time.

danny2 said...

h k flynn,

just reading your first comment and i'm a bit confused...

We adamently think lordship is required, but not to recieve the gift of eternal life, since that is without cost.

Required for what? if not for salvation, just for a better life? it seems to me that this whole debate is that you don't think it is required.

a good idea? yes. required? i don't sense that from your camp.

Lou Martuneac said...

Taliesan:

Trying it again here...

In Defense of the Gospel

Tim said...

c.stephen said:

I don't think a cavalier form of repentance without an intention to start obeying Christ is really repentance at all.

I'm a bit new to this debate, but it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. Is it a caricature of the "free grace" position to say that only half of Jesus' admonition "repent and believe the gospel" is relevant to salvation?

To "repent" is to turn away from sin. But toward what? How can one turn away from sin without submitting oneself to Christ?

Bhedr said...

Yeah Elvis died miserable thats for sure.

Now I will say that Elvis gave Nashville and Hollywood a skewed idea of christianity and made it primtime and misleading and seemingly cool to confess Christ and live in abhorrant sin...so while I see the possibility of Elvis being saved....he has given place to a false gospel for others. Both Elvis and Johnny Cash wanted to sing gospel songs....well we could go on about Bob Dylan as well. He is not living for God anymore and is actually a practicing Jew.

Bhedr said...

>Now I will say that Elvis gave Nashville and Hollywood a skewed idea of christianity and made it primtime and misleading and seemingly cool to confess Christ and live in abhorrant sin...<

Oh and come to think of it that may have been what has led the Christian Rock and CCM establishment to think the same thing.

Yeah, that Dylan song is Lordship isn't it?

Anybody got any Carmen videos to watch?

Unknown said...

danny2,

Anything Christ commands universally is required. Maybe that's why Paul speaks of terror of facing the Judgement seat of Christ. Which isn't exactly the attitude of the modern church.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord...

Bryan Riley said...

I remember I was first introduced to this debate when I was at church camp in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. The teacher was decrying lordship salvation, a new term to me, but what he was saying made absolutely no sense to me. I was probably about 14 at the time, but I knew that Jesus as Lord was definitely a part of salvation.

From my point of view it is as simple as Romans 10:9-13. Those verses talk about believing and proclaiming Jesus as Lord. And, everywhere in the Word where it talks about salvation talks of believing in Christ. To believe in Him means accepting Him as He is. Plainly, He is Lord.

As you write, it isn't adding any work to salvation. The faith that He is Lord comes from God. Ephesians 2:8-10 spells that out.

Amazing there is debate at all.

danny2 said...

h k flynn,

i appreciate the verse, but i fail to see how you quoting that verse answers my question:

am i understanding you to say that the acknowledgement of Christ's Lordship is required but not necessary?

care to explain the difference?

Unknown said...

danny,

Obedience is required and necessary, just not for the sake of receiving the gift.

Unbelievers are required to obey God. He is the Creator of all things. He owns them. The Judge rose from the dead in order to prove his triumph as the Lord of life. The fact that one day an unbeliever finds out (through the ministry of the Spirit and the word of God) that the Lord offers him a gift, doesn't mean that his obedience is suddenly "due" and those terms "have to be" engrafted into the giving of the gift. It can't be suddenly due because it is always due.

Needless to say, God has the legitimate authority to give gifts any way and on any terms He wants.

So...back to your question. It's required... or they're going to get it.

In this life and in eternity. (but either at the judgment seat of Christ or the great white throne judgment.)

Jodie

4given said...

All I can think to say is thank you and amen.

To God be ALL the glory.

Larry said...

How does "lordship salvation" -- the term itself -- imply that the Lordship of Jesus "is a false addition to the gospel"?

Does the term "baptismal regeneration" -- the term itself -- imply that baptism is a false addition to regeneration?

Does the term "monergistic regeneration" -- the term itself -- imply that monergism is a false addition to regeneration?

No. In reverse order: monergistic regeneration is a regeneration that is described at least partly by monergism in some integral way. The phrase itself leaves open the issue whether this is correct. It also leaves open to elaboration (or refutation) any exact way that monergism is involved in regeneration.

Baptismal regeneration is a regeneration that is described at least partly by baptism in some integral way. The phrase itself leaves open the issue whether this is correct. It also leaves open to elaboration (or refutation) any particular exact way that baptism is involved in regeneration.

Lordship salvation is a salvation that is described at least partly by the Lordship of Christ in some integral way. The phrase itself leaves open the issue whether this is correct. It also leaves open to elaboration (or refutation) any particular way that the Lordship of Christ is involved in salvation.