In short, I totally disagree with Dr. Zuck’s definition of Lordship Salvation.

I will let Dr. Zuck respond to what he wrote specifically, since it was his article.

As a general response, I think I can make a couple of comments and observations.

This article first appeared in the DTS magazine “Kindred Spirit” in 1989. If I remember correctly, that was about the time the Lordship Salvation was much more of a hot topic than it is now – at least in writing. There were a lot of responses on both sides of the issue with John MacArthur and Zane Hodges being at what could be called the polar extremes – and as such, I think both probably overstated their case. I think Charles Ryrie’s book, So Great A Salvation probably struck the correct balance in looking for and finding a biblical way between the two.

I don’t know that I can provide a quote from a theologian who advocates Lordship salvation that explicitly puts it quite the way Dr. Zuck did. However, I would say that Dr. Zuck’s analysis of the situation is pretty close to the reality – at least as it was being expressed in the late ’80′s and early ’90′s. I think the overall discussion has become a bit more nuanced now and for conservative evangelicals like you and I this actual difference in what we believe constitutes the gospel and saving faith are probably not a hair’s breadth apart.

I think the difference becomes larger when one moves to one of the two extremes in the discussion – full Calvinism and full Arminianism. In Arminianism (as expressed in holiness theology), Lordship has been assumed because of the nature of what it takes to “stay saved” in their system. I find Calvinism to be somewhat anachronistic in this discussion, however, and interestingly, some of the strongest proponents of Lordship salvation hold to the idea that regeneration precedes faith – which in my opinion sort of renders the whole point rather moot since a regenerated person will necessarily exercise saving faith. Because of this, Lordship salvation with Calvinism, has become more of an external test to determine whether or not someone is actually in the faith – which means, one of the elect.

However, this also becomes a huge problem for several reasons. For one, this is almost identical to what the Pharisees attempted to do. And for a second, in the parable of the wheat and the tares, Jesus warned us not to try to sort this out. Of course, there is always the issue of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and the matter of “the good tree bearing good fruit” – but this was more for the purpose of being careful about following the teaching and lifestyle of false teachers and false converts in general. It wasn’t intended to be a means of weeding them out, per se.

But again, I am virtually certain that if you and I were to sit down and discuss this, we would be completely comfortable that the other person’s position was acceptable – and I would have no problem with you preaching the gospel as my guest and you would have no problem with me doing the same as your guest. I don’t think the difference is really between us, but rather further out along toward the edges of the Calvinism-Arminianism continuum.

In my first post I wrote this: “I wonder if the problem here is the belief that those who espouse LS believe that ‘a person must surrender every area of his or her life to Christ’s absolute control in order to be saved.’ Do responsible, knowledgeable scholars say that? I haven’t come across it yet, but maybe Prof. Zuck has.” I suggested at the end of that response that Zuck give references. If there are Lordship scholars who are saying such things, I’d like to know so I don’t look silly in denying they do!

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I think your point is exactly right – that Christians should rightfully and joyfully submit to the Lordship of Christ. This is the only appropriate and normal response for the believer. And along with this is the idea that this is something that an unbeliever is incapable of doing – so to make it a condition for salvation is adding to the gospel. For many who most strongly hold to Lordship salvation, I believe it is a moot point, because they are Reformed with regard to their theology of salvation – and have regeneration preceding faith. If that is true then it really can’t be a condition for salvation even though it is expressed that way.

There is, in my view, a tension purposely created by our Lord in the Word. Yes, salvation is by grace through faith. Period. No one can build a Tower of Babel to heaven. Becoming a Christian doesn’t mean you are instructed to build one. Every breath of our new life in Christ is a gift. Even our obedience to Him is a gift.

However, the Word clearly states that we are to commit all things to God. Salvation is free, yet it is also costly because it costs us our lives. The true Christian eagerly surrenders his or her life to Christ because it is a joy — not a burden — to do so. What true believer would not joyfully surrender all to the great love that is God? Who would not say, “Yes, Lord, I am here. I surrender everything, even my very self, to you?”

Finally, I think a key verse is in 1 Corinthians 13: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,but have not love, it profits me nothing.”

Regrettably, it seems the discussion can drift towards “What do I have to do to get it right?” and away from “What a joy it is to be filled, bathed, lifted up and, yes, completely motivated, by the love of God that surpasses all understanding.”

I don’t know if you have read my post on worldviews, but I think you will find that I have tried to find the biblical balance in this. Check that out and see if we’re really that far apart.

My experience has been that we can easily end up overstating our position after a series of iterations in these kinds of discussions. I think this happened between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges back in the 80′s.

1. I’m curious why you think the call to Peter and Andrew presumed a previous relationship. Jesus was a rabbi who was calling some Jews to follow Him. One might reasonably suppose they had some knowledge of him already since they didn’t stop to ask where he was leading them. If there’s no support in the text, though, for the idea of an established spiritual relationship, it would be illegitimate to use that story as support for your position. You mentioned Judas. Peter and Andrew came to believe Jesus was the Messiah (Peter made an explicit declaration, recorded in Matt. 16:16). Either Judas did, too, and fell badly, or he never did.

2. I, as a Lordship advocate, see no reason to believe Judas was a real (believing) disciple just because he followed along. Other people followed Jesus and later stopped (cf. Jn. 6:66). A person’s “following” could be as phony as a prayer offered up at the end of an evangelistic crusade. John spoke about people who turned away (1 Jn. 2:19).

3. Re: using obedience as a test of someone’s Christianity–If a person, over a long period of time, exhibits no interest in real discipleship, other Christians would be warranted in asking the person what his position really was. It’s risky business saying finally what a person’s condition is, but we can urge him on to obedient living. There are times we can even treat such a person as an unbeliever (Mt. 18:15-17).

4. You said, “Certainly no one can reject his Lordship and be saved.” Wouldn’t it be odd for someone (if asked, and assuming he knows what “lord” means) to say, “Oh yes, I know Jesus is Lord over all, but as far as I know now, that has nothing to do with how I live, with my relationship to Him. Right now I’m just believing for salvation.” That person either doesn’t know what “lord” means or isn’t serious about accepting Christ.

5. Re: commitment being an added condition–I think “submission” is a better word. The position I’m advocating doesn’t make submission an add-on; it’s part and parcel of genuine faith, even though it isn’t fully understood what that means. Jesus called people to “repent and believe in the gospel.” In the context of the NT, that doesn’t just refer to a change of mind; it means a change of direction (see the reference above to the discussion of metanoia in NIDNTT). Simply to acknowledge the gospel as true means the person has turned (inwardly, at least) toward God. What is that person turning toward? Just salvation?

6. Interesting point about the significance of Reformed theology in the matter. I believe in election but not that regeneration comes first. But even for those who do believe this, there’s a distinction between what goes on “behind the scenes” in the spiritual realm and the psychological state of the person. I suppose if we push Calvinism hard enough, a call to salvation wouldn’t be needed either.

Always good to hear from you! Thanks for your comments.

I will leave the specific responses directed to Dr. Zuck and his article to him, if he is following this and would like to weigh in.

However, I would add a few of my own thoughts.

The first is that this article was originally published in Kindred Spirit in 1989, which (if I remember correctly) was about the time that John MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus was being widely read. The subtitle of the book is “What did Jesus mean when he said, ‘Follow me?’” We first find this statement by the Lord in Matthew 4 when he calls Peter and Andrew. But I think contextually, this is a call to discipleship and to be with Jesus in ministry. Rather than being a call to salvation, it presumes a spiritual relationship to Christ. Although, as Dr. Zuck points out, responding to the call to discipleship and ministry does not require someone to actually be in that relationship. Judas is the biblical example that Dr. Zuck provides – and throughout history, many people have been in Christian ministry who are not born again.

And it is this last point that actually illustrates the problem with the Lordship view – at least the way it is often applied. In the case of Judas, who did respond to the call to “Follow me,” his commitment to the Lordship of Christ did not save him. However, up until his betrayal of Jesus, a Lordship proponent could have looked at his life and concluded that he was a believer because he was a “disciple.” However, as we can see, this commitment was not preceded by genuine faith and so he ultimately fell away.

By adding commitment to faith, we actually introduce more than a condition for salvation, we are also using it as a test for salvation and in practice it can lead to our natural temptation to judge who is actually a believer and who is not. The danger here is that this is essentially what the Pharisees were doing. They set up extra-biblical conditions – ways to measure if someone was actually in the faith or not. I’m not at all suggesting this is the motivation, but it is a result that has many examples in the church today.

Of course, someone must understand who Jesus is – and among those things is the fact the he is Lord. Certainly no one can reject his Lordship and be saved, because to do so is to reject him personally. An unbeliever can accept the *fact* that Christ is Lord, but I would suggest that it is beyond the ability of an unbeliever to *submit* to the Lordship of Christ. He can *believe* Jesus is Lord – in fact, I don’t think it is inappropriate to say he *must* believe he is Lord. And that is the essence of the “change of mind and heart” – to understand and accept that Jesus is Lord – the one who should have control over our lives – not ourselves.

The interesting thing about the Lordship view is that the most prominent proponents hold to a Reformed view of salvation. John MacArthur does and many, if not most of the footnotes in The Gospel According to Jesus cite Reformed theologians. As I’m sure you know, in Reformed soteriology, regeneration precedes faith – which I believe is not a biblical view. But, for the sake of argument, if regeneration precedes faith, then we are talking about the faith that a *regenerated* person would have – not that of an unregenerate person. If this is true, then Lordship requirements are not unreasonable – yet, at the same time, Lordship is actually a moot point – which is why I believe the Lordship view within the Reformed view is theologically unnecessary. Those who hold to Lordship as a condition for salvation tend to fall at the two extremes of soteriology – full Arminians and full Calvinists. The Lordship view is a theological necessity in Arminianism, but is completely unneeded within Calvinism.

I understand your point, but I would suggest that, in line with Dr. Zuck’s article, that commitment is not a part of faith or trust in the sense you describe because it is in essence a “promise” to do something.

For example, if there is a need in our church and they are looking for volunteers and I commit to meeting that need, then I am making a promise to do certain things and meet certain expectations. But, I think this begs the questions, “To what degree do I need to commit?”; “Must I be willing to make sacrifices to keep that commitment?”; “If I fail to keep the commitment at any time, then does that mean my initial statement of commitment wasn’t genuine?”

I agree that we can adjust the *presentation* of the gospel to be audience-appropriate (i.e., the presentation might be different for a group of teens versus for a group of senior citizens). However, we cannot change the *content* or requirements of the gospel. If we say to some that they must “commit their lives to Christ,” then that is a fundamental change to the requirements. If anything, trust implies “resting” rather than commitment.

If we aren’t careful to maintain this distinction, then we are adding to the gospel and actually trying to step in to do only what the Holy Spirit can do, namely, to convict people and convince people concerning the gospel – including those who aren’t very committed to things in general. Only someone who is born again can genuinely commit his life to the serving the Lord. To add commitment to the “equation” is to add a condition that an unbeliever cannot meet.

I understand that the motivation is usually to try to avoid “false conversions” – which is a good reason – but if the gospel is presented biblically (which is our responsibility) then the rest is between the individual and the Lord (which is not our responsibility).

I wonder if the problem here is the belief that those who espouse LS believe that “a person must surrender every area of his or her life to Christ’s absolute control in order to be saved.” Do responsible, knowledgeable scholars say that? I haven’t come across it yet, but maybe Prof. Zuck has. Could it be rather that he has set up a straw man? I’m sure that J.I. Packer, who believes one comes to Christ as prophet, priest, and king, would not fit Zuck’s descrption. If anyone *has* said that, I’d disagree.

If Zuck’s position is that there must be a true acknowledgment that one is coming to Christ who is God in flesh and has the authority and power to cast body and soul into hell, and that what is required is genuine willingness to change when one is made aware of necessary changes, then I am largely with him. However, because of differences with him, I think there must be a third position (if he’s correct that advocates say what he says they do). Just a few notes here.

At one place Dr. Zuck says repentance is a change of mind. At another he says it is turning away from sin. Much has been made by those who reject LS about metanoia meaning to change one’s mind. OT scholar John Walton made the point in a recent book that a word’s meaning isn’t determined by its etymology but by its use. In the NT, metanoia means the turning of the person prompted by a change in thinking. (See the discussion on metanoia in NIDNTT under “Conversion, Penitence, Repentance, Proselyte.”) Zuck acknowledges that it means turning from sin. He goes on to say, however, that the “turning to Christ” part is faith. In the NT, however, repentance also involves the aspect of turning to God (cf. Acts 20:21; 26:20 [which also notes the necessity of proving repentance by one's deeds]; Rev. 16:9).

Prof. Zuck says lordship salvation “seems to” add works to salvation. I suspect we have a straw man here. What work is being added? Is this possibly some supposedly logical inference from the fact that change is expected in the Christian’s life, the conclusion being that if there isn’t real change, the person wasn’t saved at all? I don’t know how Prof. Zuck can disagree with that. Look again at Acts 26:20. James also makes abundantly clear how works prove real faith. To simply dismiss the significance of the evidence of works by asking rhetorically, “How much must a person’s life change in order for him to be saved?” will not do. What does Dr. Zuck believe Jesus is talking about in the passages he cites in the first paragraph under #5 above? Shall we just say that Jesus doesn’t really expect us to do those things and dismiss them as referring only to his hearers? It makes more sense to understand them in keeping with the overall message of Scripture: that sin has damaged us and rendered us worthy of eternal punishment; that we are in rebellion against God; that we come to Christ not only to get into heaven but to be conformed to His image; that the accomplishing of that will require change in our lives; and we are coming under the authority of One who is in the position of requiring change in our lives in a relationship of trusting obedience. This is the substance of LS as I understand it.

The person coming to Christ recognizes that the Lord of the universe has demanded something of him with severe consequences if he refuses (i.e., repent and trust in Christ or go to hell). To accept that verdict and put one’s faith in Christ is to acknowledge the power and authority of the One doing the calling and to submit to it. It is itself an implicit (if not explicit) acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship. The person is saying, in effect, “I’d better do what Jesus says I should do.” And then he does it.

Dr. Zuck says this about discipleship: “Lordship salvation limits the meaning of the word ‘disciple.’ To most Lordship advocates a disciple already means one who is totally committed to the Lord.” Once more, I haven’t heard a lordship advocate say this; I certainly don’t believe it myself. Contrary to what Prof. Zuck says, though, LS takes discipleship seriously. It acknowledges that we’re called into real discipleship, into a relationship of obediently following the supreme Model. A person coming to Christ must know that changes in his life will be expected. Jesus Himself made clear to people that they must count the cost of following Him, which following will require things of them (Lk. 14:25-35).

To repeat: I suspect that a big problem in this discussion is the notion that advocates of lordship salvation say a person has to “surrender every area of life” to be saved. That’s a positio easily refuted. Based on my (limited) reading, however, I don’t think they do. If I’m wrong, I join Dr. Zuck in rejecting such an extreme position.

I wonder if Prof. Zuck would mind posting such references.