COMMON ASSAULTS ON THE GOSPEL (Part 4)

“BELIEVE PLUS MAKE CHRIST LORD”  Pt. 2

by J. Hampton Keathley III

 

 


ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE LORDSHIP POSITION

 

A Subtle Form Of Legalism

 

The Lordship Salvation position is a subtle form of legalism and a direct attack on the free gift emphasis of the Gospel message so prominent in the New Testament. Proponents end up diluting the concept of salvation as a free gift.

 

In his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer writes, "It is not enough to believe that only through Christ and his death are sinners justified and accepted, ...In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything."  I have a great respect for this man, but this is a flat contradiction. Just compare Paul's argument in Romans 4:4-5 and 11:6.

 

Writing with regard to Packer's statement, Bob Wilkin writes:

 

Frankly I find this view of the gospel appalling.  It is gibberish to speak of a free gift which costs us everything.  It is absurd to suggest that we should show an unbeliever all of the things which believers are commanded to do and not to do in Scripture and then have them promise to do the former and not to do the latter from now on faithfully. Such a gospel is not a free gift. It is an earned wage. Romans 4:1ff. and approximately 150 other passages which condition eternal salvation upon faith alone in Christ alone contradict such a view ("The Grace Evangelical Society News," p. 3, June-July, 1988).

 

 

Salvation By Works

 

Ultimately, the lordship position leaves people trusting in their own record or performance and merit and not that of Christ.  In the final analysis, under such a view, people are saved by their works, but the New Testament emphatically states that men are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5).

 

Roy Zuck has a good illustration on this point:

 

If I offer my wife a gift and then tell her it will cost her something to get it, it is no longer a gift. Salvation is a gift from God. But if someone says a person must commit, surrender, obey, forsake all, or deny self in order to receive that gift and be saved, that implies that salvation is not a gift after all (Kindred Spirit, Summer 1989, p. 6).

 

Passages used to support lordship salvation can and should be explained in connection with discipleship or rewards in the kingdom – in these passages, it's not entrance that is in view, but inheritance or rewards (2 Peter 1:10-11).

 

 

Salvation Versus Sanctification

 

In other words, salvation is confused with sanctification or conversion with consecration.  As Zuck writes:

 

The lordship view does not clarify the distinction between sanctification and justification, or between discipleship and sonship.  It mixes the condition with the consequences.  It confuses becoming a Christian with being a Christian (Kindred Spirit, p. 6).

 

These passages deal with the consequences of sin on fellowship, physical health, inheritance in the kingdom or rewards or their loss, but not on entrance into the kingdom of God.

 

An illustration is Luke 14:16-33. First, when those invited to the banquet find excuses not to come (a reference to unbelieving Israel), the servants are told to go out into the highways and hedges and compel people to come to the banquet.  The banquet is a picture of the kingdom (vss. 16-24).  In other words, there are no requirements. Entrance is free. However, in the next section, verses 25ff., the Lord shows that in order to be His disciple, one must be willing to count the cost.  This is not a call for salvation, but a declaration of what is involved in being His disciple.  Furthermore, the emphasis is not so much that Christ would not let such a person be His disciple, but that such a person who had not counted the cost would not be able to be His disciple: when it came time to make those tough decisions, they would not be willing and able to do so because they had not dealt with their values and eternal priorities.

 

 

No Room For Carnality

 

The lordship position rules out the concept of carnal Christians (1 Cor. 3:3).

 

The lordship position leaves no room for spiritual regression in a believer's life or it is minimized.  The fact is the Bible is full of examples where believers fell into sin and in some cases stayed in that condition for some time.  David is a classic example.  Lot, who is called a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:7), was actually one whom I would not want to use as an example to follow.

 

With the lordship salvation view, there is ultimately no room for the carnal Christian; only Christians who act in a carnal way. This is precisely the statement of John MacArthur in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus (p. 97, footnote 2). Concerning 1 Corinthians 3:3ff. and MacArthur's view, Ryrie writes,

 

Notice that Paul does not merely say that Christians "can and do behave in carnal ways" (quoting MacArthur); he plainly states, "You are carnal."  How then can one charge that "contemporary theologians have fabricated an entire category for this type of person – 'the carnal Christian' (again quoting MacArthur).  Obviously, such a designation for some Christians is not a fabrication; it is a scriptural teaching (Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation, Victor Books, p. 61 ).

 

Clearly then, the text of 1 Corinthians 3:3 and the condition of the Corinthians as they are described in the book of 1 Corinthians shows the contrary. MacArthur is begging the question.

 

 

Misunderstands Salvation Passages

 

The lordship position misunderstands salvation passages which use "Lord" as a call to surrender one's life to Christ's lordship (Rom. 10:9).

 

In relation to Christ's lordship, there are two aspects. There is first of all the objective.  This recognizes the fact that Christ is God, the sovereign Lord of the universe.  Then, there is the subjective which involves personal surrender of one's life or commitment.

 

Does Romans 10:9 call for the objective fact or the subjective commitment or both?  Concerning this question, Everett Harrison writes:

 

"Jesus is Lord" was the earliest declaration of faith fashioned by the church (Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 12:3). This great truth was recognized first by God in raising his Son from the dead – an act then acknowledged by the church and one day to be acknowledged by all (Phil. 2:11)…  Paul's statement in vv. 9, 10 is misunderstood when it is made to support the claim that one cannot be saved unless he makes Jesus the Lord of his life by a personal commitment.  Such a commitment is most important; however, in this passage, Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, which is the very cornerstone of faith, something without which no one could be saved. Intimately connected as it was with the resurrection, which in turn validated the saving death, it proclaimed something that was true no matter whether or not a single soul believed it and built his life on it (Everett F. Harrison, "Romans," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, 10:112).

 

Roman's 10:9 is calling for the need to confess that Jesus is God. In this context Paul quotes the Old Testament a number of times and is dealing with Jewish unbelief, not lordship issues.  "Lord" (the Greek kurios) certainly is used as the equivalent of Yahweh in the Old Testament. It is calling for the acknowledgment that Jesus is the "I Am" of the Old Testament and therefore God.

 

That Paul refers to confessing that Jesus is Lord is also supported grammatically.  The passage should not be translated as does the NASB, "Jesus as Lord," or as the KJV , "the Lord Jesus," but as the NN , "Jesus is Lord." This involves a fine point of Greek grammar involving the use of what grammarians call the "double accusative of object-complement" where one accusative is the direct object of a verb of "calling, designating, or confessing," and the second accusative is the complement that makes an assertion about the direct object.  Some grammarians would call the second accusative a predicate accusative (cf. Robertson, Short Grammar, p. 219).  Generally, the first accusative is the object and the second is the complement, but, as here in Romans 10:9, this is not always the case. Since Jesus is a proper name, even though it follows the noun Lord by way of word order, Jesus functions as the direct object of the verb confess, and the other accusative, Lord, is its complement (See Daniel Wallace, An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek New Testament, Preliminary Draft, Zondervan, p. 151.)  So the confession that is required is that "Jesus is Lord," i.e., Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.

 

Obviously, when a person confesses that Christ is God there is an underlying recognition or awareness that Christ has the right to rule one's life, but the passage is not calling for a subjective commitment to Christ's lordship in order to be saved. Instead, the passage is saying that for a person to be saved, he or she must acknowledge, believe, that Jesus was [is] also God, God come in the flesh, the God-man and so the only One able to save.

 

 

Not All Scripture Is Relevant

 

The lordship position rules out a large portion of the epistles as being relevant like Romans 6 and 12.  If being a true believer includes commitment or total surrender, then why do we have these passages which were written to believers?  If they were written, as it is claimed, simply to challenge us to more commitment, then how much is enough to be saved?  Again we must ask the question, is it 10% or 50%, etc.?  Where and how do we draw the line?  The Bible says, "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart?"  This is to be the goal, but does anyone ever measure up?  And if so, for how long?

 

These passages in Romans and many others show us that saved people, true Christians whom Paul thought of as saved, do not settle the matter of the personal, subjective lordship of Christ until after they are saved.  Paul deals with the Gospel and the how of salvation in Romans 1-3, but he doesn't deal with lordship or commitment until chapters 6 and 12.  If commitment or surrender to the lordship of Christ was a part of the Gospel, then the Apostle either didn't know it or was careless in his responsibility.  We know neither of these could be the truth for He wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit.

 

Our good works are not always measurable and observable by men, not even by ourselves – especially when it comes to motives (1 Cor. 4:4-5).  Further, unbelievers can and do point to their good works, but they are unsaved.

 

 

The Issue Of Divine Discipline

 

It is contrary to those passages that teach Christians can be disciplined unto physical death while still viewed as saved (1 Cor. 5:1f; 11:28f; 1 John 5:16-17).

 

These are passages written to Christians about Christians who were clearly not living for the Lord and would be disciplined as God's children, in some cases, even unto physical death, yet they are still viewed as saved.  Of course, these passages are usually applied to unbelievers by those in the lordship camp. ˘

 

J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M. is a 1966 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a former pastor of 28 years. Hampton currently writes for the Biblical Studies Foundation.

 

Copyright ©1997, 1998, 1999 Biblical Studies Press. This material is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other oral communication. This material may be quoted in written form but give credit where credit is due (author’s name and web site address: www.bible.org). It may not be reprinted for commercial publication. It may be copied or reprinted for distribution as long as it is given away and no charge is made for copies, shipping or handling.