Lordship vs. Free Grace Salvation

[Jac3510]

I've recently come a full 180 degrees in one area of my theology. There was a time when, based on Romans 10:9 (among other verses), I believed that a commitment to the Lordship of Christ was necessary to salvation. In other words, it wasn't mere belief in the promise of Christ, but it was rather one's commitment to Christ as Lord (which flowed from his or her belief) that resulted in salvation. This is the position held by John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Stott, and almost every other major Reformed Theologian. In short, it has been labeled Lordship Salvation.

Against this, we have men such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges arguing for what has been called Free Grace Salvation. The most simplistic way to state the belief is this: "Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, and as such it is not predicated on any commitment to obedience nor sustained faith of any kind."

This is a position I hold to the utmost firmness. It, of course, has massive ramifications throughout the whole of theology. It has led to a complete and total rejection of Calvinism, especially in regards to Limited Atonement and the Final Peseverance of the Saints. It leads to a strong divide between salvation and discipleship, forces a belief in eternal security (which I already held), and changes heavily the reading of such texts as Mark 8 and 1 Corinthians 9, as well as entire books such as 1 John and James.

Because of this, I also believe that it is possible for a person to be saved, but yet fall away from that faith and completely and totally apostatize, even until death. This does not result in the loss of salvation, but it does result in strong rebukes in the hereafter as well as extreme chastisement in this life. This is not only possible, but many Christians are in fact in danger of it.

This is one of the central areas of debate, because if one commits to Lordship Salvation (and thus Peseverance), then it is impossible for the Christian to permanently fall away and live in a lifestyle of sin. As such, passages that seem to warn against this very thing must be reinterpreted to talk about hypothetical scenarios or that they are directed at non-believers. Regardless, the point stands that the warning of a very real danger is ignored.

I write all this as a brief introduction to the issue. Specifically, I am curious as to who here believes that a commitment to the Lordship of Christ is necessary to salvation. We can move into the details later on, as I'm sure we will. In the meantime, I just wanted to give you a very, very brief background on the ideas as well as some of the ramifications.

Thoughts, then?

God bless

[puritan lad]

I've recently come a full 180 degrees in one area of my theology. There was a time when, based on Romans 10:9 (among other verses), I believed that a commitment to the Lordship of Christ was necessary to salvation. In other words, it wasn't mere belief in the promise of Christ, but it was rather one's commitment to Christ as Lord (which flowed from his or her belief) that resulted in salvation. This is the position held by John McArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Stott, and almost every other major Reformed Theologian. In short, it has been labeled Lordship Salvation.

Against this, we have men such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges arguing for what has been called Free Grace Salvation. The most simplistic way to state the belief is this: "Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, and as such it is not predicated on any commitment to obedience nor sustained faith of any kind."

This is a position I hold to the utmost firmness. It, of course, has massive ramifications throughout the whole of theology. It has led to a complete and total rejection of Calvinism, especially in regards to Limited Atonement and the Final Peseverance of the Saints. It leads to a strong divide between salvation and discipleship, forces a belief in eternal security (which I already held), and changes heavily the reading of such texts as Mark 8 and 1 Corinthians 9, as well as entire books such as 1 John and James.

Because of this, I also believe that it is possible for a person to be saved, but yet fall away from that faith and completely and totally apostatize, even until death. This does not result in the loss of salvation, but it does result in strong rebukes in the hereafter as well as extreme chastisement in this life. This is not only possible, but many Christians are in fact in danger of it.

This is one of the central areas of debate, because if one commits to Lordship Salvation (and thus Peseverance), then it is impossible for the Christian to permanently fall away and live in a lifestyle of sin. As such, passages that seem to warn against this very thing must be reinterpreted to talk about hypothetical scenarios or that they are directed at non-believers. Regardless, the point stands that the warning of a very real danger is ignored.

I write all this as a brief introduction to the issue. Specifically, I am curious as to who here believes that a commitment to the Lordship of Christ is necessary to salvation. We can move into the details later on, as I'm sure we will. In the meantime, I just wanted to give you a very, very brief background on the ideas as well as some of the ramifications.

Thoughts, then?

God bless

This is a dangerous belief. God's Grace is Free, but it isn't "cheap". God's grace gives us freedom from sin, not freedom to sin. While our attempts at Godly living cannot produce salvation, our salvation does produce Godly living. The Bible is adamant on this issue.

1 John 2:3-4
"Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

Yes. God's Moral Laws from the Old Testament apply to today.

When God gave the law, he made it very clear that it was never to be added to or taken from (Deut. 4:2). Many churches today push toward antinomianism (anti-law), suggesting that Jesus replaced or changed the law, something that He said He would never do (Psalm 89:34, Matthew 5:17-18). Others suggest that God gave the law only to the Jews, and that Paul's writing were the only ones that the Gentiles need to concern themselves with. Such a view is totally unscriptural. God's law was for both Jew and Gentile (Leviticus 18:26, Leviticus 24:22). As Greg Bahnsen writes, "what was sinful in Israel was not tolerated just over the state line". This is why God condemned Sodom and Gomorrah for their "lawless deeds" (2 Peter 2:8). Jesus warned against lawless Christianity (Matthew 7:21-23). That which Jesus taught His disciples is to be observed by all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

Paul quotes the Old Testament over 90 times, mostly to support his own teachings. He uses the law on several occasions to define sin (see Romans 7:7). As John writes "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4)

But aren't we justified by faith, not law? Yes. But this was also true of the Old Testament saints (Habakkuk 2:4), yet they obeyed the law. True faith does not make the law void, but rather establishes it (Romans 3:31).

What about grace? Aren't we under grace and not under the law (Romans 6:14)? True. But many Christians take this out of its context, ignoring the first part of the verse as well as verse 15. Paul was teaching freedom from sin as defined by God's law. He never said that the law had been revoked or made invalid. What he said was...

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

We must be careful to put the law in it's proper place. God's law cannot save (in fact, it does just the opposite - Romans 3:20). We are saved by God's grace, not by law. However, this was also true in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:8). Keeping God's commandments is the result, not the cause of salvation (1 John 2:3-4). Those who claim to know God yet disobey His commandments are emphatically called “liars”.

Psalm 89:34
"My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips."

Psalm 119:160
"The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever."

Romans 15:4
"For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope."

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

There are verses, particularly in Hebrews, which seem to contradict the above verses. But these were dealing with Judaists in the church who were commanding obedience to ceremonial laws such as circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc. These were fulfilled in Christ. But God's moral law never changes. Without God's moral law, there would be no sin, and thus no need for the Savior. In that case, the Gospel would be expendable. So Christians should be the last people to deny the necessity of the law's validity.

At the end of His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives a strong warning against lawless Christianity.

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'”

Jesus is both your savior and your Lord, or He is neither.

[Fisherman]

Great reply Lad! Jac, you'll be alright. This is good information and the way Lad posted it, it's easy to understand. In the Bible (God's "human operating manual" and love letter to us.), God said what He means and means what He said. Try not to read more into it than what it says/implies.

[Jac3510]

Fisher, I know I'll be alright . I've heard every single one of his arguments before, and more. We'll get into some specifics in the next few weeks. I have a series of discussions planned that will do a much better job of showing the error in Reformed teaching over and against Free Grace.

Lad, if your name has any reflection on your theology, then I expected as much from you. Puritanism is, of course, extremely Reformed, usually Covenant, and often hyper-Calvinistic. There are several beliefs that fall naturally from this, one of which will be a Lordship approach to salvation. I'll simply say now that your exegesis of Scripture is far from sound and rests on a few hundred years of American interpretation.

In the meantime, I would suggest to you that you look up the difference in "knowing" someone in Greek and Hebrew thought and compare this to someone who is judiciously declared righteous. In other words, there is a difference in a disciple and a child of God. You can be one and not another. The children of God are called to be disciples, and all are called to be children (although you would disagree with that, considering you believe only the elect are called), but not all disciples are, in fact, children.

Just some things to chew on . . . more later.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Puritanism hyper-calvinistic? I think you need a history lesson in the area of world missions. I won't go into it here, but let you do your own research. I have yet to see any exegesis in any of your posts that suggest that Jesus can be a Savior without being Lord.

“We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke 19:14). This was the attitude of the First Century Jews toward the Savior. Interestingly, these same people were witnesses to Jesus' true title at His crucifixion, “JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:19). Try as that might, they could not get it removed. “What I have written, I have written”, replied Pilate (John 19:22). The Bible expresses the importance of works as a result of Salvation in James 2:14-20.

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?”

This flies in the face of the “easy-believism” that has infiltrated the modern church, replete with a gospel message that requires no repentance, and a Christian faith that requires no cross to carry. In reality, we only have three choices as to who will be our Lord. It will either be Christ (Christianity), Man (Tyranny/Socialism/False Religion), or Self (Antinomianism/Anarchy). Christ's yoke is easy (Matthew 11:30). The other two are the mark of Hell.

[puritan lad]

In other words, there is a difference in a disciple and a child of God. You can be one and not another.

That is true, but I wouldn't want to emulate Judas Iscariot if I were you.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Cook]

John 13:12-17

"You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also aught to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."

What are people's interpretations and understandings of what is Jesus' "Lordship" exactly? When I see the word "Lord" I'm likely to think in terms of kings and almighty regal power and having to be grovelly and obsequious. But that also seems like a "kingdom of earth" way of looking at it. What is the "kingdom of heaven" way? In the verse above and from other ones, it seems that Jesus is Lord of service and ministry.

Also there is this:

Mark 3:31-35

"Who are my mother and brothers? ... Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother."

And this:

John 15:12-15

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."

No longer does he call them servants but friends. I have a difficulty in seeing Jesus as the kind of earthly Lord with a crown and scepter but more as a big brother and friend you can turn to. How do others see it?

[Jbuza]

gone

[puritan lad]

No longer does he call them servants but friends. I have a difficulty in seeing Jesus as the kind of earthly Lord with a crown and scepter but more as a big brother and friend you can turn to. How do others see it?

He is a friend, but He is also Lord. We have a twisted view of God in our modern church, a God who is all Love, Grace, Friendship, etc. which is all true. But He is also a God who hates sin and cannot look upon it. He is a God of indescribable eternal wrath. He is a God to be feared (Luke 12:4-5), for this is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). This must be taught as well.

What did Christ accomplish for us at Calvary? He set us free, who were slaves to sin. We are now "Slaves of God", and this produces holiness(Romans 6:22), without such no man shall see God (Hebrews 12:14).

1 Thessalonians 4:7
"For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

While Christ is our friend, He is not our average buddy from across the street. His friends addressed Him as "Lord". He is "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS". The evidence that we know Him is that He is our Lord and that we keep His Commandments (1 John 2:3-4). May we grow to hate our own sins as much as God does.

[Cook]

No longer does he call them servants but friends. I have a difficulty in seeing Jesus as the kind of earthly Lord with a crown and scepter but more as a big brother and friend you can turn to. How do others see it?

He is a friend, but He is also Lord. We have a twisted view of God in our modern church, a God who is all Love, Grace, Friendship, etc. which is all true. But He is also a God who hates sin and cannot look upon it. He is a God of indescribable eternal wrath. He is a God to be feared (Luke 12:4-5), for this is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). This must be taught as well.

What did Christ accomplish for us at Calvary? He set us free, who were slaves to sin. We are now "Slaves of God", and this produces holiness(Romans 6:22), without such no man shall see God (Hebrews 12:14).

But do you see this "Lord" quality as being like earthly monarchal Lordship? How are we to consider ourselves in the "kingdom of heaven" and how is this similar or dissimilar to a slave of the human variety. You pointed to a verse on being a Slave to God, and what comes to mind for me is this one:

John 8:31-36
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

I am trying to reconcile the terminology of being a slave with being "free indeed". Do you think that if the Son sets us free from being slaves to sin, it is that we are children of God, and so we "belong to [the family] forever." I understand freedom in being a child of God who wants to do His will, once born of the spirit, but the terminology of being "free indeed" as a slave is more elusive for me. What are your thoughts?

While Christ is our friend, He is not our average buddy from across the street. His friends addressed Him as "Lord". He is "KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS". The evidence that we know Him is that He is our Lord and that we keep His Commandments (1 John 2:3-4). May we grow to hate our own sins as much as God does.

Yes, and I'll add, may we grow to love other sinners like Jesus loved and served them, keeping His commandments.

Matthew 22:36-40
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

And the one already from above:

John 15:9-12
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."

(p.s. I like how well-presented and clean your posts are, I think I may end up adopting this style of yours for quoting verses.)

[puritan lad]

But do you see this "Lord" quality as being like earthly monarchal Lordship? How are we to consider ourselves in the "kingdom of heaven" and how is this similar or dissimilar to a slave of the human variety. You pointed to a verse on being a Slave to God, and what comes to mind for me is this one:

John 8:31-36
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

I am trying to reconcile the terminology of being a slave with being "free indeed". Do you think that if the Son sets us free from being slaves to sin, it is that we are children of God, and so we "belong to [the family] forever." I understand freedom in being a child of God who wants to do His will, once born of the spirit, but the terminology of being "free indeed" as a slave is more elusive for me. What are your thoughts?

Ah. True freedom is found is Christ. While we are not yet perfect, it should not be a burden to obey God's commandments. We want to obey His will, and when we fail to do so, we are of sorrowful repentance. If you look a the verses I quoted ( Matthew 7:21-23, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) you'll notice a key word "practice". One who has Christ as Savior and Lord does not "practice lawlessness", but lives a life of repentance, realizing how utterly dependant we are on His righteousness.

He is our Lord in that we do what He commands (and willingly so). As I pointed out earlier, there are only three real choices as to who will be your Lord. Jesus, Man, or self. In Jesus and in Him alone, there is true freedom.

[Jbuza]

gone

[puritan lad]

I understand freedom in being a child of God who wants to do His will, once born of the spirit, but the terminology of being "free indeed" as a slave is more elusive for me. What are your thoughts?

Someone will be your Lord. There is only freedom if Christ is your Lord. The only other options will be tyrrany or anarchy, neither of which can give freedom. That is the true meaning of being a slave to God, freedom from everything else (Romans 6:16-23).

I feel that it means that slavation in Jesus frees us from the slavery to the law. I think that if we have his spirit and we do things from the spirit there is nothing that is sin. Granted we impose our own will anddo fleshly things that require repentance, but I think the teaching is also the teaching that paul writes about everything for him being legal. I think that everything was legal for him because he was wlking in the spirit, and allowing all that he did to be directed by the Spirit.

Not so. Christ freed us from the curse of the law, not from it's demands. In fact, the Bible warns against presumptuous sins. John tells us to "sin not" (1 John 2:1), and "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

Romans 6:14-15
"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!"

See verses 1 and 2 as well.

A good example is the scripture demanding church discipline (almost non-existent today) of a sexually immoral member in 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. Paul, over and over again, tells Christians to flee sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18). The only problem (for those who reject the law) is that the New Testament never defines sexual immorality. Paul never explains exactly what they are to flee from. He didn't have to. Leviticus 18 does a more than adequate job of defining sexual immorality, and this word will remain until heaven and earth pass away. This is why Jesus says that we are to live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

[Jbuza]

gone