Lordship Salvation

Introduction

Last time we examined Free Grace Theology (FGT) and how, according to this theology, we receive salvation. FGT maintains that we receive it on the basis of belief-in-Christ alone. Significantly, FGT distinguishes between the 'call to believe' and the 'call to follow' (see Free Grace Theology) arguing that for salvation it is only necessary to believe on the Lord Jesus (e.g., Acts 16.31), that is, to answer the 'call to believe'.

Lordship Salvation

In opposition to FGT is Lordship Salvation (LS)¹ which believes that the 'call to follow' Jesus Christ is part and parcel of the 'call to believe' (Matt 28.19-20; Rom 1.5, 16.26; etc). LS is convinced that discipleship is an inherent part of true belief in Christ as Lord.

Hence, one of the major teachings of LS is that being saved-by-grace-through-faith is always followed by works (Eph 2.8-10; Jas 2.17-20). The two (belief, and good works) will inevitably go together because 'faith without works is dead'.² (FGT would say that discipleship is a thoroughly desirable result of belief in Christ but not an automatic one.)

John MacArthur's, The Gospel According To Jesus (1988)³ sparked a major controversy between the two groups. MacArthur spoke about his views here: his major point in his article centres on the nature of saving faith.


Theologically, this is the crux of the disagreement between the two sides with FTG saying that saving faith is 'confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God has raised him from the dead' (Rom 10.9, 10 also). But, MacArthur for LS counters this notion by saying that saving faith necessarily involves repentance (Acts 2.38; 3.19; 11.18; 17.30; 26.20) obedience to Christ (Matt 7.21;1 Jn 3.23-24).

Repentance

Both camps argue about the meaning of repentance^4,5 with FTG asserting that it simply means to change one's mind about someone or something. One the other hand, the LS group says that repentance is not just changing your opinion about who Jesus Christ is. For in scripture repentance is inextricably connected with sorrow for sin, turning from sin, and a change of life (e.g., see Matt 3.8). Jesus joined repentance with believing the gospel (Mk 1.15): 'repent and believe the gospel'! 

Why was Jesus able to declare to others that Zacchaeus had entered into eternal life (Luke 19.1-8, 9-10)? Jesus knew because of the change in Zacchaeus heart towards the poor, and about his former (presumed) cheating of taxpayers (Luke 19.8). 

LS would argue that it wasn't just that Zacchaeus believed in Jesus as the Messiah but that he showed repentance for his former life by granting restitution to those he had cheated. Jesus confirmed Zacchaeus' new status by saying, 'This day is salvation come to this house'.

Covenantalism

At another level of theology, this squabble can be understood in terms of different views about how the biblical covenants are organised. The LS group tends to adhere to a view usually called 'covenant theology'⁶.

The covenantal view of redemption history holds that the Trinity made 'the covenant of redemption' among themselves purposing to save humanity by the Father sending of the Son, anointed by the Spirit, to die and rise again for sinners. 

Before the Fall into sin, 'the covenant of works' operated; after that, 'the covenant of grace' functioned under both the old and new administrations. Hence, three covenants in all.

The various biblical covenants explicitly referred to such as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New are different administrations of the covenant of grace. This notion is derived from the writings of John Calvin and thus Christian traditions associated with his teaching ('Reformed', Presbyterian, some Anglicans and some Baptists) have continued the Lutheran-Calvinian Reformed teaching of the importance of repentance and obedience in the lives of those claiming to be recipients of God's grace.        

1. Could also be titled, 'discipleship salvation' but as it is commonly called 'Lordship salvation' I will use that title.
2. The answer given by the FGT camp to this citation of James 2 is to say that James is speaking about the judgement of Christians with respect to future rewards (Jas 2.12-13).
3. Two expansions and revisions followed in 1994, and 2008.
4. God is even said to repent (Gen 6.6; Exod 32.14) (which can be understood as language used to accommodate to humans as creatures living in a world of change).
5. The Greek is metanoe-o' which literally translates as 'a change of mind'. However, we should not just accept 'literal' meanings as though they were law. It's far better to examine the way the word is used in the Bible to discover its meaning in context.
6. However, this is by no means a hard and fast rule. John F. MacArthur adheres to LS strongly but is a dispensationalist. I grew up in a movement which accepted and preached LS without question but which was also dispensationalist. 

How Are We Made Part Of God's Salvation?

It may be thought that debates about what constitutes 'salvation' are just arguments for theologians in academia. However, as someone has rightly said, 'ideas have legs'.

That is, ideas don't just swan around in some academic ether but become embodied in preachers' hearts and minds, and in words and actions. Hence, members of congregations become affected.

Dispensationalism And Salvation

Dispensationalism has been defined in posts on my One People Of God blog¹ as a view taken of many Bible issues on a radical theological distinction between Israel and the Church. In short, two people of God exist: one earthly, Israel; and one heavenly, the Church.


An implication of the acceptance of this belief in a radical distinction between Israel and the Church is the associated idea of there being at two gospels: one for the Jewish people, and one for the Gentiles (and Jews) prepared to believe that Jesus is God's Son.

Dispensationalists base this claim about these two gospels on the fact that when Jesus Christ preached to the Jews, he spoke in terms of a 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23). Dispensationalists argue that that gospel is the good news that Messiah would come, end the kingdom oppressing the Jews (i.e., Rome in the first century after Christ), free the Jews from their enemies, and set up a Kingdom to rule over all the earth.

However, as we know that didn't happen! Israel rejected the Messiah and consorted with the Romans to put him to death by crucifixion.

According to dispensationalism, God then put his plans for liberation of Israel on hold -he postponed the preaching of the Kingdom- and ushered in the church age.

This new 'church' age has a different gospel associated with it: the 'gospel of grace' (e.g., Acts 20.24). Hence, the Christian church (according to dispensationalism) does not come under the banner of the 'gospel of the kingdom' (e.g., Matt 4.23) or the 'gospel of God'. (The latter, it is said, was preached only to Israel (Jewry)). The Church comes under the gospel of 'free grace' and theology associated with this viewpoint is dubbed 'free grace theology'(FGT). This FGT then, is strongly linked with dispensationalism². 

How Is One Saved According To FGT?

To simplify the situation: the central principle all the FGT groups hold in common is that belief alone in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Now you may be saying, 'Well that's what I believe too and, furthermore, Acts 16.31, teaches that explicitly so what's the problem?'.

The issue that arises in response to the above question for those outside the FTG group is the one of obedience. The FGT group does not accept that obedience to the commandments of Christ is necessary for salvation. 

In other words, not only does FTG draw a sharp distinction between justification by faith alone and the work of sanctification in believers' hearts, it maintains that justification by faith is all that is required for ultimate salvation.

So, once a person has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved and do not have to do anything else to be saved. That includes anything in the future either; for to be saved means to be eternally saved.

Next time, we will examine the opposition to FGT which comes in the doctrine known as Lordship Salvation.


1. These posts are now also to be found exported to this blog too. See earlier months in this year for relevant titles. The posts are roughly in sequence.
2. However, not all dispensationalists are adherents of FGT. John MacArthur, a dispensationalist, is one of the strongest opponents of FGT.

Preaching the Word of the Gospel

I want to pause from outlining the Anglican Service of Holy Communion and examine the question of the preaching the Gospel in this service. Sometimes it can be too easy for preachers to re-tell a bible story and with that re-telling intersperse a number of moral exhortations.

However entertaining this action may be, it is not preaching the gospel.

It is presenting a moralistic discourse with lots of ethical crumbs which don't add up to the solid food of the whole Word of God. Ethical urgings are just a form of law after all.

Nor by that comment am I disparaging the law. 'The law is holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good' (Rom 7.12). To be opposed to the Law is to fall into the error of antinomianism (anti-, nomos [law]). But keeping the law cannot save us. The law simply arouses our sinful desires (Rom 7.5).

Hence, although the law is part of the Word of God unless the gospel of free grace (Eph 2.8, 9) is also preached the congregation will go away believing that it should rely on its own strength to remedy its shortcomings. When that happens, a tragedy has occurred. In other cases, more humble hearts come to believe that there is no hope for them because they simply can't fulfil what the law demands.

And these souls are not far from seeing the kingdom of God's grace because it only remains for them to hear the gospel of grace. The preaching of the gospel of grace is sweet nectar to fallen sinners because what we cannot do Christ has already done (Gal 2.13) in his death and resurrection. But then we have to ask,  
                                                                  so what is the gospel?
      Different Gospel Definitions?
One gospel issue that makes things difficult given that when one reads the first three gospel accounts and then the Pauline letters it's not hard to see that the former speak more about 'the gospel of the Kingdom' (e.g., Mk 1.14-15) of Heaven/God and the latter about gospel of salvation (Eph 1.13) understood as justification (e.g., Rom 3.21-26; 4.25) of the ungodly (Rom 4.5).

More variety than even the above can be found in the New Testament. For example, the fourth gospel account only mentions the Kingdom 5 times but more especially highlights 'eternal life' (e.g., Jn 3.16). Hence, even among the gospel accounts differences occur. And we could go on to talk about other NT books that raise issues about the writer's view of the gospel (e.g., James).

     The Gospel Message and Its Redemptive Effects
One evangelical error about the gospel that they are accused of making according to some writers is that what evangelicals define as the gospel is not really the gospel at all but the plan of salvation! As one blogger puts it: 'the gospel and personal salvation are not the same thing.  And that the gospel isn’t a “plan” as much as it is a Person'.

Now in one respect this blogger is correct. The gospel is embodied in the person of Jesus but to stop there is not to fully resolve the issue between the message and its salvific effects.

     An Attempt at Resolution
First, I think a resolution of some of the confusions about the different approaches by the NT writers is to remember that all the presentations are focussed on the Person of Jesus the Christ and Saviour as has been said. When we speak of the Gospel we are talking about the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ for the Gospel doesn't have any content unless one realises that it's good news about Jesus the One born in Bethlehem.

But in addition to that focus, Jesus' coming was/is good news because His incarnation was the climax of all the Old Testament hopes for salvation. Luke in particular emphasises this salvation theme through the songs of Mary (Lu 1.46-55), Zechariah (Lu 1.67-79), and Simeon (Lu 2.29-32). Also the angels' words to the shepherds (Lu 2.10-11) and the words of John the Baptist (Lu 3.4-6) mention this salvation theme. This salvation show the faithfulness of the God of Israel.

In Luke (4.18f) Jesus preaches in the synagogue that the hope-filled words of Isaiah's prophecy (Isa 61.1) are now fulfilled in his arrival! This focus on Jesus the Saviour continues throughout Luke's gospel account. And of course, Jesus' very name means 'God saves'.

All this says that we shouldn't become hung up on exaggerating the distinction between the gospel and its effects (salvation) because the gospel as salvation is embodied in Christ as the 'saviour of the world' (Jn 4.42); the two go together like love and marriage once did.

What is the Gospel (3)

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples. 

Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear.

But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are:

• His distinction between gospel and salvation

I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus at his coming, 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2Tim 1.10, emphasis mine).

In Ephesians, the gospel is called, 'the gospel of your salvation' (Eph1.13) which at least suggests that the link between the two is very close. 

Or further, it might suggest that the gospel is the message of salvation through Jesus the Messiah! Jesus we remember was called 'Jesus' because he was to save the people from their sins (Matt1.21)! Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luk19.10).

I also wonder whether all the preachers and teachers beginning with the Reformation have been failing to preach the gospel simply because they are concerned about the salvation of their hearers. I don't think so. Rather I believe that when preachers focus on the salvation of the unsaved, they will also preach Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

• Is Jesus always to be preached as the fulfiller of the story of Israel?

We know that Paul didn't always do this type of preaching because of his ministries at Lystra and at the Areopagus. Paul adapts his message [the gospel] to his audience. These two audiences were mainly pagan. However, McKnight still wants to see Israel's story implied in Acts 13. Well I think that's a stretch! And I think it's a stretch to find this suggestion of Israel's history in the Acts 17 passage as well. Paul appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 and to the idolatry subsequent to the Fall but any direct reference to Israel's story is absent. 

It can't be argued that because Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17) that this means he preached about the Story of Israel: that line of argument is clearly begging the question! That's the point McKnight is trying to establish so he can't assume it proven as part of his argument in Acts 17.

I think it better to say that the gospel is adapted to the audience. When hearers know nothing about Israel's story one can then appeal to the God of creation who is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would the preaching of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story be of benefit to those outside the church today? I hardly think that too many within the church would understand the point much less those outside.

• The relevance of the ecumenical creeds

McKnight, it appears, has discovered the Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene believing them to support his case. However, even a cursory look at these two creeds shows that McKnight is battling to argue that the creeds solely confess the gospel--as he understands it.

The Nicene says, 'For us and for our salvation/ he came down from heaven'. The creed is saying--just as the scriptures do--that Christ's coming was about sinful humanity; it was for our salvation, our rescue from the power and penalty of sin. And the Apostles' Creed (perhaps formulated originally to be used at baptism hence the use of the first person pronoun) finshes with 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN'. These are distinctly present and future salvific terms. The Trinity and their work of salvation are confessed as an integral whole.

• 'Story'

This point is more a quibble than anything else but we do have to keep in mind that in talking about 'story' and narrative, we are leaving out the majority of the bible! When we talk about the Bible's story we are talking about a humanly created storyline that theologians have developed about the Bible's content.  Nothing wrong with that in itself. We are all in the same boat. Most of us wish to have some over-reaching theme that covers the Bible's content.

The Bible's text is made up of many different genres: saga, genaealogy, law and ordinance, prophecy, parable, psalm, narrative, epistle, and apocalyptic. Without doubt, a movement from beginning(s) to final consummation exists from Genesis to Revelation. Interestingly, this sweep of history used to be known as 'salvation history', 'covenant history' or 'redemptive history' and all of these terms do give insight into the nature of this history.

It's all right to call it a story or a drama but then we are left with the question as to what is the subject of the dramatic history. What is it about?

As you would expect various answers are given. Redemption, Jesus Christ and covenant are often mentioned. Another favourite is the Kingdom of God.

My point is that just talking about the drama or story of the bible is inadequate because it doesn't furnish us with a theme for the dramatic story.

Let me finish with a summary quote from the last link above proposing the Kingdom of God as the unifying theme/story of the Bible:

Like redemption, the covenant is definitely a unifying theme of the Bible, but it also seems to be inadequate to bring together the full range of Biblical revelation. By itself, the notion of covenant tends to be abstract and difficult to define. What we need is a theme that is broad enough to embrace every major Biblical idea, a theme that includes redemption, gives proper honor to Christ as the Creator and Savior, and also does justice to the centrality of the covenant.

Such a theme is the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, all of the other suggested major themes are included and given proper place. In addition, the kingdom of God includes other themes important for our understanding of the Bible, such as creation, the Biblical teaching about angels and demons, the doctrine of final judgment and everlasting punishment. Christ Himself remains a central theme of the Bible because as the King, He is the center of the kingdom, its very essence. Redemption as a central theme is the unfolding drama of God’s restoring the kingdom to its original purpose (p. 5).

What is the Gospel? (1)

Scot McKnight believes that the question, What is the gospel?, is a crucial question for the church. He also believes the church to be confused about the 'real' answer to the question, the biblical answer.

I've not long finished a stimulating book by McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (2011).

Provocatively he argues that Evangelicals (those supposedly concerned about the evangel, the gospel, good news) today are not really evangelical at all! They are more accurately called soterians! (He's coined this word to denote those who are primarily concerned with salvation at the expense of the gospel.)

He believes that evangelicals--and included in this description would be many charismatic and Pentecostal churches as well--have built 'salvation cultures' (p. 29) rather than 'gospel cultures'. The two he affirms are not the same thing even though the former is part of the latter. Once might say that the gospel is the big picture whereas salvation is one of the smaller pictures within that.

So we might ask, So what is the gospel?


He's not quick to answer that until he mentions some of his concerns about modern-day evangelicalism and also the traditional, mainline denominations (one of which I attend).

Starting with the latter first, he says that to baptise babies or young children and then onto confirmation is leading to big problems. In many cases, the baptised are never brought back to church. Their parents don't ever bring them back and hence they never get the instruction preceding confirmation. The mainline, traditional churches generally as we know are slowly dying of old age. They often have 'members' of the church who have never personally believed on Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

But what is happening in the evangelical world is sometimes not much better! Although some sort of personal response is called for and made, those decision-makers don't always go on to become disciples. They come to church perhaps and worship but during the week their discipleship of Christ is lacking. For example, from personal experience I am been shocked by what some 'Christian' converts claiming to be 'born-again' imagine is acceptable moral behaviour.

McKnight does not believe that people should not be challenged to make 'decisions for Christ' and elect to believe on him as the Saviour of the world--what he calls 'the decided' group. But it should not stop there. The 'decided' need to be discipled, to be disciples of Christ.

And yes I know, we still haven't got to the answer to the question of what is the gospel. To do that, McKnight says, we have to distinguish (but not separate) four elements: the Story of Israel/the Bible; the Story of Jesus; the Plan of Salvation; the Method of Persuasion. McKnight states that Evangelicalism, and even Catholicism and Orthodoxy would align the gospel with the Plan of Salvation. Under that understanding, the Plan and the Method are often merged (but that is another issue).

He believes the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel is essentially the gospel (particularly as we find it in 1 Cor 15.1-8) and in the historic creeds of the church (Apostles' and Nicene Creeds).

Next time I will give an outline of how he arrives at that idea and whether it is sustainable.

The Power of Pentecost

It's Pentecost Today! (Well yesterday it was anyway!) You know, the day the Church of 120 in the first century got its first dose of the Holy Spirit with power.

Being brought up in the AoG in the 50s and 60s we knew Acts 2.1-4 off by heart because we heard and we sang it often. In the church I was in, the choir used to sing a rendition of this passage and I can hear that choir's recital coursing through my heart's memory as I write this.

This filling with the Holy Spirit equipped the Church for service and the service was for the salvation of those around. It was not just for the edification of the apostles and disciples but for the salvation of others. That's the whole business of the gospel which is 'the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes' (Rom 1.16).

But Pentecost had been celebrated and still is within the Jewish community. Pentecost (denoting 50th day) was the 50th day after the Exodus reaching to the giving of the Law at Sinai. The day was associated with the harvest of first-fruits so one could understand the respondents to Peter's message to be an in-gathering of the First Fruits.

Interestingly this Feast is regarded as second only after Easter. Hence, although much is made of the Incarnation, Pentecost is considered more important by the Church.

Prayer
We also have today a number of strange practices abroad in the Church including praying directly to the Holy Spirit for which no biblical warrant exists. (In fact, it's hard to find any prayers in the New Testament addressed directly to the ascended Son either.) We should always pray to the Father through the Son and in the power of the Holy Spirit. All Paul's prayers follow this model.

Hindu Woman from a Brahmin Family finds Salvation

This video is an inspiration and shows the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ over the powers of spiritual darkness.