- The Harbinger: Fact or Fiction?
- Are Muslims Seeing Jesus?
- “Son of God” Translation Controversy
- God’s Plan through the Ages
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 2
- Supersessionism Rising: Dispensationalism…? Part 1
- The Greatest Tragedy of the Rapture Prediction forum
- ABI Ministry Update
- “The Muslim Brotherhood and the Gospel of Christ”
- The Crisis in Egypt
- Saddleback’s Health and Fitness Seminar: An Eyewitness Account
- Rick Warren’s Controversial New Initiative
- ABI 2010 Year-End Report
- Ministry Trip to S. Korea / Philippines
- Where Should We Meet?
- Burning Korans (the right way)
- Glenn Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment”
- ABI Quick Survey: Mark Galli’s CT article
- Christianity Today: God – the “Divine Drama Queen” forum
- Partnership Opportunities: ABI International
Pondering the Incarnation: Was Christ really tempted?
Over the years Karen and I have engaged in a lot of ministry through the internet by interacting in a number of forums. It has been an amazing opportunity to share the gospel and other biblical truth about a wide range of topics. Over the last couple of days I have been involved in some discussions over at Grace Centered Christian Forums (note: this is not an endorsement of this website because I haven’t yet fully investigated their theological positions).
One of the questions that was posted a couple of hours ago was related to the temptation that Christ experienced. It was a common question that almost everyone considers at some point: “Was Christ really tempted? And could he have sinned?”
As you might expect this has generated a number of responses in a short period of time. Some have represented the view that although Christ did not sin, he could have sinned. Those who hold this position, often also believe that it is possible for someone to lose their salvation and the two issues are connected according to this theology: that we can choose, just as Christ chose – and just as Jesus chose not to sin, although he could have, we can do the same. If we don’t, then we will be lost, unless we continually repent or choose not to sin (which many say is possible).
However, I believe the Scriptural response is: “Yes, Jesus was truly tempted and no, he could not have sinned.”
Then, the inevitable counter-response is: “But if Jesus could not have sinned, then he must not have been genuinely tempted.”
Being the Christmas season, I think it is a good time to consider what I would suggest is one of the most important aspects of the Incarnation – the nature of Christ in relation to temptation and sin.
The following is what I posted on the Grace Centered Christian Forum (although I have proof-read and edited this a bit from my forum post):
_________________________
Biblical Fact #1: Jesus was/is human (Matthew 8:20;John 8:40; Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Timothy 2:5)
Biblical Fact #2: Jesus was truly tempted – the Scripture plainly says that he was tempted (Hebrews 2:17; 4:15)
Biblical Fact #3: Jesus was/is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 20:26-29; Philippians 2:5-8; Revelation 1:8-11)
Biblical Fact #4: God cannot sin by virtue of his perfect holiness (Leviticus 11:44; Joshua 24:19; 1 Peter 1:15; 1 John 1:15; Revelation 4:8)
Biblical conclusion: Jesus being the God-man, was truly tempted, but did not and could not sin.
How this could be true is as much a mystery as the Incarnation itself (how can God become a man?). To deny one or the other seems to be a futile (and arguably unnecessary) attempt to resolve the logical tension felt by humans (finite beings), but which involves a reality that can only be fully comprehended by God (an infinite being). I believe it is beyond our capacity to fully grasp. This doesn’t mean it is illogical. Rather, I think it simply involves “supra-human logic.”
Perhaps a simple (although not fully adequate) analogy would be the futility of trying to explain quantum physics or the special theory of relativity to a three year-old child.
Over the years I have used the following illustration (being an engineer at heart 
to help students try to somehow grasp the mutual truths of Jesus’ temptation and his inability to sin. It involves a piece of paper, a hydraulic ram, and a pressure gauge (or your fist and a concrete wall).
Let’s illustrate human nature as being like a piece of paper.
Let’s illustrate temptation as being like a ramrod capable of unlimited pounds of pressure per square inch.
Then place a pressure gauge on the end of the ramrod.
Now, hold the paper up (with nothing behind it) and run the ramrod up against it.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register – no matter the force of the ramrod?
Answer: Very little – because the paper easily gives way and the pressure felt by the paper is almost nothing.
The point: The giving-way by the paper illustrates how easily we naturally fall into sin with very little pressure /temptation because of our sin nature.
Now, glue a piece of cardboard to the paper.
The cardboard illustrates our new nature as believers, coupled with our old weak nature.
Now, run the ramrod against the paper / cardboard combination.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: More. And the stiffer the cardboard (illustrating the more mature the Christian) – the more pressure that is registered by the gauge and therefore “felt” by the paper (illustrating the the human nature).
The point: The one who is most mature in Christ doesn’t feel the pressure of temptation less, but feels it more. This helps to illustrate why more mature Christians are more sensitive to the slightest pressure / temptation to sin than is the new / immature believer.
Now: Glue the paper to a massive block of tungsten steel that extends infinitely in all directions.
The block of steel illustrates the immovable, sinless nature of God.
Now, run the ramrod (remember the one capable of infinite force) against the paper.
Question: How much pressure will the gauge register now?
Answer: An infinite amount of pressure.
(If you want, you can approximate this test by trying to hit a piece of paper held in the air with your fist as hard as you can. Then tape the paper to a concrete wall and swing at it as hard as you can. Your now-broken hand experienced exactly the force felt by the paper. Honestly – it might be better to get one of your students to do this one.)
The point: By virtue of a human nature being coupled with the divine nature, Christ fully experienced the temptation to sin infinitely more than any human being. It was actually Christ’s inability to sin that made it possible for him to be fully tempted in every point as we are. No mere human has ever experienced the full force of temptation to sin.
It is not, as as been said, that “temptation implies the possibility of sin.” That would essentially be the same as saying that an invincible army cannot be attacked. (1)
And then Christ died for the sins of all (Romans 5:6; 1Corinthians 15:3; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2) who have given in to the full range of temptation – and he offers the free gift of salvation from sin to all who will believe, to all who will simply receive him by faith (John 1:12-13; 3:16; Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9).
What a wonderful Savior!
Have a very merry Christmas, and a grace-filled, joyous New Year!
Dave James
(1) Charles Ryrie in Basic Theology (p. 304) quoting the opposing views Hodge and Shedd.
Manhattan Declaration: A Response – Part I
(An article combining this post and the previous one on the Manhattan Declaration is available in downloadable and printable PDF, 2-column article format: Click here to download)
National Press Conference
.
A week ago today, the Manhattan Declaration was released by Chuck Colson and almost 150 other signers at the National Press Conference. Since then there have been countless blogs and articles written about the 4700-word document and the response has been quite mixed.
Predictably, it has been denounced by liberals of all stripes who support the LGBT agenda and who advocate “a woman’s right to choose.” But neither has it been received well by those who would consider themselves to be evangelicals, but who also challenge the historical view that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior.
In contrast, a significant number of Christians have enthusiastically embraced the Manhattan Declaration. with the number of signers via the internet now at 184,780 and counting. They have joined the original signatories in voicing their concern that as America continues its turn to the left, led by the present administration, they are prepared to take a stand to protect life, marriage and religious liberty.
Yet, another view has been expressed by some Christians who have not signed the Manhattan Declaration. In this view, the Manhattan Declaration is itself a cause for concern, being seen as a misguided ecumenical cooperative effort that conservative evangelicals would do well to avoid. John MacArthur has written a cogent blog from this perspective.
To make matters more confusing for the average evangelical believer, it must be noted that there are good, solid, conservative theologians on both sides of the issue. This would tend to indicate that whatever our personal opinion might be, the “correct” response is probably not as obvious nor as certain as we might hope or desire. So, after a week of reading, talking, thinking and praying, I’m going to take my own stab at evaluating the Manhattan Declaration and developing a framework of principles for responding to this document, as well as the overall situation that precipitated it.
First, I would say that overall the Manhattan Declaration is a carefully crafted, well-worded document. It was obviously written out of both passion and conviction. It would be difficult to fault the drafters in their intentions or desire to make a difference in the “culture wars.”
Manhattan Declaration
Second, I think all who truly believe in the authority of Scripture should agree with the framers of the Manhattan Declaration concerning the three specific issues it addresses, namely, life, marriage and religious liberty. It affirms that life begins at conception and should be allowed to continue until natural death (Exodus 20:13; Job 1:21; Psalm 139:12, 16; Jeremiah 1:14). It affirms that marriage was instituted by God to be solely between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are to be only within that relationship (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:5,6; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). And it affirms the principle of religious liberty which seems to be legitimately rooted in the truth of Matthew 22:21 (“Render unto Caesar…and to God…”) and Acts 5:29 (“We ought to obey God rather than men.”)
And third, I believe that as American citizens we have a legal right and a moral responsibility to participate in the democratic process in upholding and preserving the rights we have as guaranteed by the Constitution, as well as the ideals upon which this country was founded.
It could be argued that the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979, provides an historic backdrop and precedent for the Manhattan Declaration. The Moral Majority became the politically active extension of the Christian Right, which was riding the wave of the resurging political conservatism that swept Ronald Reagan into office in 1980. The Moral Majority sought to gain an influence in governmental policies and legislation, such that they would reflect or at least not contradict Christian morality – and thereby broadly shape, influence and guide the direction of American society as a whole.
A demographic map of the United States shows that geographically the entire country continues to be overwhelmingly conservative – both politically and socially. And this conservatism is certainly not limited to evangelical Christians. Therefore, it was considered expedient and prudent to be as broadly inclusive as possible to maximize the potential political influence of the movement. This meant that the Moral Majority consisted of not only conservative evangelicals, but virtually all types of conservative Protestants, Catholics, Jews and even Mormons who joined forces for the purpose of advocating common moral values with a unified voice.
Probably the most common argument in favor of evangelicals joining together with those from Catholic and Orthodox traditions in signing the Manhattan Declaration follows that used to defend the Moral Majority in the face of similar criticism. In this view, it is argued that because we share a common moral heritage with other theological traditions within Christendom, we can and should join together as allies in the culture wars against the common enemy of those morals. Therefore, the Manhattan Declaration is hailed as an opportunity for those who name the name of Christ to fulfill a long-neglected obligation to engage and even confront a society and an administration that is increasingly liberal, secular and humanist – and even anti-Christian in its bias. Looking at it this way, it is understandable why, as I noted earlier, many concerned Americans have already signed the document and I would assume that many have been conservative evangelicals.
However, I have not yet signed it myself because I have some questions and concerns about both the nature and the value of the Manhattan Declaration. At the risk of being dismissed, ridiculed or criticized as being too picky, too narrow-minded, divisive or just overly critical, I am going to present what I believe are some significant reasons why a born-again believer should consider not endorsing or signing the Manhattan Declaration.
The Manhattan Declaration begins with these words:
Christians are heirs of a 2,000year tradition of proclaiming God’s word
This is a statement of exclusivity, identifying the framers of the document as “Christians” as opposed to adherents of any of the other world religions. It is also intended to reflect Christian values and morals. As such, it must necessarily be viewed as an inherently Christian document. Consider the following quotes from the Manhattan Declaration:
we claim the heritage of those Christians Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths
Therefore, the writers of the Manhattan Declaration present it as a document by Christians on behalf of Christians. And as a Christian document, it discusses the issues of life and marriage within a framework of Christian morality. It derives its authority to speak about these moral issues from the Bible. The Manhattan Declaration reflects a very specific worldview which is informed by very specific theology. Therefore, not only is it a Christian document, it is first and foremost an inherently theological document – or at least theologically-driven. This point is extremely important to the discussion because for some, the defense of cooperation with Catholic and Orthodox writers and signers depends largely upon the validity of the argument that the Manhattan Declaration isn’t a theological document. If true, then it could be argued that theological differences are irrelevant to the task at hand and cooperation is not an example of unbiblical ecumenism. But, again, it is a Christian document and is therefore a theological document by nature. And being a theological document, not only does theology under-gird the moral argument set forth in the Manhattan Declaration, theology also forms the basis for what the writers consider to be their essential unity as a group. This is clearly reflected in the first paragraph under the Declaration section:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.
It is important to not miss the significance of this statement. When one discusses Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism for example, these are treated as world religions. And, of course, Christianity can be spoken of as a world religion, as well. But there is an important and fundamental distinction that must be remembered: A Christian in the biblical sense of the term does not merely mean someone who is an adherent of Christianity as a world religion. For someone to become a true Muslim, a person must simply make a decision to follow the teachings of Islam and live accordingly. However, the same is not true for biblical Christianity. For someone to become a true Christian, they must explicitly place their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ and thereby be born-again of the Spirit of God. Someone does not become a Christian by merely adopting Christian traditions or by beginning to live a Christian lifestyle – or even by faithfully following the teachings of Christ. In 1994, Chuck Colson was involved with drafting the first Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. That document blurs and actually eliminates the distinction between Christians in the world-religion sense and Christians in the biblical sense, such that it seems clear that Mr. Colson considers the two as not only intersecting, but as synonymous as indicated by the next three quotes from the first ECT document:
As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants.
We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.
All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Some may argue, however, that the two documents are fundamentally different in scope and purpose and therefore should not be compared or evaluated in this way. Yet, the essential philosophical /theological similarities between the two documents cannot be ignored because they reflect the broader philosophy out of which they were formulated:
Manhattan Declaration: We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. First ECT document: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission. This statement cannot speak officially for our communities. It does intend to speak responsibly from our communities and to our communities.
Manhattan Declaration: We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. First ECT document: There is a necessary connection between the visible unity of Christians and the mission of the one Christ. We together pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: “May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17) We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples. The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly identified as Evangelical. All Christians are encompassed in the prayer, “May they all be one.”
It seems appropriate to suggest that some important linkage does exist between the Manhattan Declaration and the ECT document and that this linkage is intentional and by design. This shouldn’t be surprising given Mr. Colson’s key role in the formation of both documents. Given that the purpose of the ECT document is inherently ecumenical, it seems reasonable to more carefully explore the potential ecumenical issues raised directly by the Manhattan Declaration. Likewise it seems reasonable to at least examine whether or not those issues might be sufficient to give legitimate reasons for withholding support and participation in the Manhattan Declaration. I will conclude my response to the Manhattan Declaration, in a couple of days and try to make a case for why Christians should or should not be involved with this initiative or others like it. It doesn’t seem that there is a one-size-fits-all answer, but I can discuss general principles related to the role of Christians in government and political activism. Can and should Christians engage and confront the culture and government in their social context – and what kind of ecumenical alliances can be formed to accomplish this? Ecumenical alliances and civil disobedience. Just what should we think and do? And what, if any, is the potential historical significance of the Manhattan Declaration?
Chatting with an atheist
For the past couple of weeks I have been in an ongoing chat conversation with someone who self-identifies as an atheist. He connected with me after a discussion concerning a recent ABI blog. Over the course of our discussion I have asked him a number of questions, including those below in one form or another. I have also added a few comments after the questions to provide some perspective and additional “food for thought.” Perhaps some of them will be helpful if you find yourself in a similar discussion.
Question(s): If it could actually be proven to your satisfaction that God does exist, would you then be willing to submit to his authority and surrender your will to his?
Question(s): Since you don’t accept the biblical record concerning the resurrection of Christ, what evidence would be compelling enough for you to believe that it actually happened? What kind of evidence would persuade you that any given event happened over 500 years ago?
Comment: The intent of these two questions is to help someone see that their real problem is not really with God’s existence or Christ’s resurrection, but rather with the implication of personal accountability that flows from these truths.
Question(s): You have stated that you don’t believe it is wrong to lie. Using the same philosophy /reasoning would you also conclude that it isn’t wrong to steal? Or would you agree that it is not wrong to murder? If murder and theft are wrong, but lying is not, can you explain the fundamental difference between the two without using a moral argument since you believe morality is relative?
Question(s): If everything can ultimately be explained in scientific terms or through scientific discovery, is it only possible to speak in terms of what actually *is* or can we also speak in terms of what *ought* to be? If you think something ought to be and someone else thinks something contradictory ought to be, then what / who has the privilege or authority to determine which of the two actually *will be* (given that one of the two *must be*)?
Comment #1: Atheists frequently insist that morality can be developed philosophically apart from religion and does not require the existence of God. However, this is really a moot point because the real issue for atheists is not morals, but rather moral authority. In other words, the problem is not whether someone believes certain actions to be good or bad / right or wrong, but rather the problem is when someone else tries to tell them what is right or wrong and attempts to restrict their absolute freedom in behaving in certain ways. But even in this regard atheists are demonstrably inconsistent because when their sense of right and wrong comes into conflict with someone else’s they would choose to have the other person’s freedom curtailed rather than give up their own.
Comment #2: Apart from moral authority, the concept of morality itself seems to logically and philosophically require something other than evolution as its basis and means of development. If evolution were responsible for the development of morals it would seem that there should be enough uniform agreement throughout humanity that there should neither be internal conflict of conscience nor external conflict between individuals. Also, if morality can be explained in terms of evolution, it would seem that the concept of morals would make sense not only with reference to humans, but throughout the animal kingdom. However, we seem to intuitively know and agree that when one animal kills another for food – even one of its own species – the killing should not be called murder and the eating should not be condemned as immoral cannibalism. Neither does any form of sexual activity among animals have moral implications associated with it.
Morality also tends to have some form of responsibility tied to it, but if, for example, an animal abandons its young for whatever reason, it is not considered a moral issue. As humans, we might try to superimpose our sense of morality or justice upon certain animal behavior, but it would certainly not be recognized as such by the animals themselves.
Question(s): If lying is not morally wrong, then doesn’t this undermine the entire basis of a fair judicial system? Can’t a fair judicial system only exist in the context of the commonly accepted philosophical premise that says truth-telling is right and valued. If truth is not required by an external party, why would anyone feel compelled to tell the truth if it would ultimately hurt them and help their opponent. Arguably, all of society is built squarely up moral values at every level, to the degree that society would collapse into chaos if morality were removed and expected standards for truth-telling, honesty, and integrity were removed. And if such a collapse were to happen, then there can be no path toward rebuilding a societal structure without prior mutual agreement on a system that values the moral constructs of faith, integrity and trust.
Ultimately, I believe that these philosophical arguments have only limited value when dealing with unbelievers. Sooner or later you run up against an insurmountable barrier. This limitation is caused by the sinful nature of humans that prevents us from fully understanding the whole matter. Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So, we must understand and accept the fact that our best questions, impeccable logic and perfect philosophical arguments will always fall short of persuading someone to move from atheism to belief in Christ. The logic barrier can only be crossed by faith.
However, apologetics does have value in a witnessing situation when used appropriately and their inherent limitation is taken into account. We will never reason someone to faith in Christ – but we might reason them from atheism to agnosticim – which is actually a huge leap and movement in the right direction.
If you have more questions or experience with discussing these kinds if issues with atheists or agnostics, please add your comments to this blog or email me and I will try to pick them up in future blogs and articles.
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
“Cheap Grace?” by Dr. Roy Zuck
This blog is by guest contributor, Dr. Roy Zuck. Dr. Zuck is Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary and the editor of the theological journal Bibliotheca Sacra. He is the author or editor of many books including Basic Bible Interpretation, Bible Knowledge Commentary, A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament and A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Dr. Zuck is one of ABI’s endorsing theologians.
__________________________
Must a person submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ in order to be saved? If he did not make Christ Lord of his life at the moment of salvation, is he now saved? If an unsaved person did not consciously surrender every area of his life to the control of Christ, was he genuinely saved?
Advocates of “lordship salvation” (the belief that a person must surrender every area of his or her life to Christ’s absolute control in order to be saved) contend that one cannot receive Christ as Savior from sin without also receiving Him as Lord of one’s entire life. Why do they promote this view? One reason is their concern over so many people who say they are Christians but give little or no evidence of a changed life. According to lordship adherents, those so-called Christians are not genuinely born-again—they only say they are saved. Since those professing believers were not challenged to obey Christ, to surrender all to Him, they may well be lost. Others claim omitting the requirements of commitment, obedience, and self-denial makes salvation too easy. They say it cheapens grace by de-emphasizing the cost of becoming a Christian. Therefore unless a person is a dedicated disciple of Christ, he is not a Christian at all. To become a Christian, a person must give up everything, renounce his own will and plans and give up every sin.
But is this view correct? How does it compare with what the Bible teaches about salvation?
Common Emphases
Let’s look at several truths with which those who teach lordship salvation and those who do not can agree.
1. Faith is not merely intellectual assent.
Salvation involves more than understanding certain facts and mentally acquiescing to those facts. In coming to Christ for salvation, a sinner acknowledges that as a sinner, he cannot save himself, that Christ died for him as his Substitute, and that he can have eternal life through faith in Christ. But in coming to Christ a sinner also is emotionally sensing and acknowledging his desperate need, and is volitionally turning to Christ. To “believe” means more than accepting the facts in one’s mind. It is an act of volition, an exercise of the will.
2. A person may say he is a Christian but not actually be saved.
Judas is an example of a professing but no genuine follower of Christ. He was even a “disciple” (Matt. 10:1). In other words it is not merely enough to claim to be a Christian. However, others cannot always tell if a person is saved. Even Judas for a time deceived others into thinking he was regenerate.
3. Repentance is a genuine part of salvation.
Repentance is included in believing. Faith and repentance are like two sides of the same coin. Genuine faith includes repentance, and genuine repentance includes faith. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means to change one’s mind. But to change one’s mind about what? About sin, about one’s adequacy to save himself, about Christ as the only way of salvation, the only One who can make a person righteous.
Repentance is not a feeling of remorse or anguish over sin, nor an exercise in recounting past transgressions. Repentance is a turning from sin, while faith is turning to Christ. A change of outlook toward both sin and Christ, as Lewis Sperry Chafer has noted, “promotes a change in the course being pursued.”
Peter said to the Jews, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped” (Acts 3:19). Barnabas and Paul told the people of Lystra to “turn from these worthless things to the living God” (Acts 14:15). Paul reported to the Ephesians elders that he had preached to Jews and Gentiles that they “must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:21). To the Thessalonian believers Paul wrote that they had “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). When a person accepts Christ as his Savior, he is simultaneously turning to God (faith) and from sin (repentance).
4. The life of a true believer is changed.
Everyone “in Christ” is a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17). He has been regenerated, justified, reconciled, redeemed, and made a child of God. The Holy Spirit has baptized (placed) him into the body of Christ, indwelt him, and sealed him. Genuine believers practice righteousness (1 John 3:7, 9) and obey Christ’s commands, though, as will be discussed later, they may falter at times, some more than others. The Holy Spirit’s presence and work in a believer’s life will result in some fruit. Some evidence of a changed life will be seen at some time in his life, while no change whatever over a long period of time may well reveal a person is not saved at all (see 1 Tim. 5:24-25; 1 John 2:19).
5. True believers will sin; no one is perfect this side of heaven.
Some advocates of lordship salvation, however, speak as if perpetual spiritual progress is inevitable, as if obedience is flawless and continual. Other lordship proponents, however, recognize that when a Christian sins, the Holy Spirit seeks to make him sensitive to his need for confession of sin and for restored fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:9).
Problems in lordship salvation
Several problems, however, exist in the “lordship” approach to the gospel.
1. Lordship salvation may dilute the idea of salvation as a free gift.
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.
Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “If you knew the gift of God . . . you would have asked him and he would have given you living water” (John 4:10). Romans 5:15 speaks of “the gift that came by [God’s] grace.” According to Romans 6:23, “The gift of God is eternal life.” Salvation by God’s “surpassing grace” is “his indescribable gift” (2 Cor. 9:14-15).
2. Lordship salvation may confuse consecration with conversion.
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.
True, a person who is justified by God’s grace is sanctified positionally, set apart to God at the moment of salvation. But that is when the Holy Spirit begins His work of ongoing sanctification, not finishes it. One follows the other. Discipleship starts at rebirth and should continue on after it.
Regeneration pertains to one’s relationship to Christ as Savior from sin. Sanctification, on the other hand, pertains to one’s relationship to Christ as his Lord and Master. In the new birth a person is made a new creation in Christ; in sanctification he grows in that relationship.
3. Lordship teaching seems to add works to salvation.
Though advocates of this teaching deny their view leads to adding works to salvation, the view itself does not give that impression. If a person must do something to be saved, he is adding to salvation. Repeatedly the Bible clearly states that salvation comes only by receiving it by faith. Jesus said to a woman, “Your faith has saved you” (Luke 7:50). He did not say, “Your faith and your commitment have saved you.”
A person can become a child of God only by believing, as John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 20:31; acts 16:31 and other verses make abundantly clear. Faith, not faith and surrender or obedience, is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:5). Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved, through faith”—not through faith plus surrender (Eph. 2:8). Faith in Christ as Savior is the only way of salvation. To add to faith, to add to receiving God’s gift of eternal life is to alter the gospel.
4. Lordship salvation can cause some genuine believers to lack assurance of salvation.
Those who promote lordship salvation suggest there is no middle ground. Either a person is a genuine believer and is living a life of unreserved obedience, or he cannot be sure he is saved. As one writer put it, “To know assurance you have to see a pattern of holiness . . . . Therefore, if you are not denying ungodliness, you cannot be certain you are really saved.”
But what of a person who has been genuinely born again but is still struggling with some sin in his or her life? According to the lordship doctrine, his salvation is questionable. As a result he doubts his salvation. He asks himself, “Did I really accept Christ as my Savior?” I thought I did, but this struggle with sin now makes me wonder. Must I be saved again to be sure of my salvation?
Losing one’s salvation is not what lordship salvation proponents believe, yet ironically their system causes some genuine believers to doubt their salvation and wonder if they need to be saved again. And again! This obviously contradicts the biblical teaching of a believer’s security in Christ (see John 3:16; 5:24; 6:37; 10:28-29; Rom. 8:29-30).
5. Lordship salvation raises the question of how much commitment is enough.
How much must a person’s life change in order for him to be saved? How can he know at the moment of salvation if he is giving up everything? Must a person sell all his possessions and give them to the poor (Matt. 19:21) to be saved? Must a person hate his parents (Luke 14:26) in order to be saved? Must a person be perfect as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48)? Must he relinquish all anger, jealousy, lust, pride, selfishness, bitterness, swearing, worry, hatred? Has anyone ever done these things? If not, is anyone genuinely saved? And how can someone do any of these things if he is still unregenerate, has no spiritual life, and has no receptivity to spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)?
Some advocates of lordship salvation respond by say a person coming to Christ must be willing to relinquish these things. But is that not an entirely different matter? Willingness to do something is not the same thing as actually doing it, and does not answer the question, “How much commitment is necessary?” If Lordship proponents do not mean a person must surrender everything to be saved, then why do they say all must be surrendered?
6. 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. But this view that “believers” and “disciples” are always synonyms overlooks the fact that in Scripture the word “disciples” is used of (1) curiosity seekers who later left Jesus and obviously were not genuinely saved (John 6:66); (2) true followers of Christ (Acts 11:26); (3) and the Twelve—including Judas (Matt. 10:1). In the lordship salvation view, a person who is not a disciple of the Lord (in the sense of being a fully committed Christian) is not saved. Obviously this can bring confusion and doubt.
True, in becoming a Christian, a person enters into a discipleship relationship, in which he is now under a new authority, a new Head—the Lord. He becomes a disciple, but then grows in that discipleship as he walks with the Lord.
7. Room for spiritual growth and for spiritual regression in the Christian life is not allowed for—or at least is de-emphasized—in lordship salvation.
If one commits everything to Christ to be saved, where is there room for growth and development in the Christian life, as the Bible clearly encourages? And what happens if a believer falls into sin?
The lordship gospel does not make much allowance for carnality. Not that carnality is condoned or should go unchallenged. But it is seen in the Bible. To say that every true believer consistently obeys the Lord overlooks examples of many believers in the Bible who lapsed into sin. Peter denied the Lord but did not lose his salvation. Lot was called a righteous man (2 Peter 2:7) though much of his conduct was not admirable. When Abraham lied, or Job challenged God, or Moses disobeyed, or David committed adultery and murder, were they unbelievers? Obviously not. Did they lose their salvation? Again, the answer is no. But they did lose their fellowship with the Lord and needed, as David wrote, to have the joy of their salvation restored (Ps. 51:12). Confession was necessary (1 John 1:9).
Carnal Christians—Christians living in sin—look like the unsaved (1 Cor. 3:1-3). Therefore we cannot always tell whether a person living in sin is a Christian or not. Only God knows the heart. Paul addressed members of the Corinthian church as believers (1 Cor. 1:2) and “brothers” (1 Cor. 1:10; 2:1; 3:1; 12:1; 15:1, 58), yet they were guilty of gross misconduct. Did that mean they were unsaved? No. Paul did not deny their salvation; instead he admonished them to deal with their sin as believers.
All Christians struggle with temptation and sin. But the Bible urges us not to succumb and instead to make use of the spiritual resources provided by God’s Word, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and prayer.
What about verses that seem to support lordship salvation? Some vers of the Bible refer to unbelievers coming to Christ in obedience. Are these referring to commitment to a life of obedience? No—they are challenging unbelievers to obey by turning to Christ in faith (see Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 5:9).
When Jesus told the Samaritan woman to call her husband (John 4:16), He was not telling her to deal with her sin of adultery before she could be saved. He was pointing out the fact of her sin and showing her the He is the Messiah, as proved by his knowledge of her situation without being told (vv. 17-19).
What about Matthew 7:16, 20, which tells us that “by their fruit you will recognize them”? While it is true that believers will bear at least some fruit in their lives, it will not be evident to the same degree in all believers all the time. At some given moment, if a Christian is in sin his life may seem to others to be no different from the unregenerate. But in Matthew 7:16, 20 Jesus was speaking of those who had total lack of fruit. His hearers called Him, “Lord” but were evildoers (vv.21-23). They had never turned to Him in faith and repentance.
A free gift, received by faith
Salvation then is a gift, to be received by faith or trust in Christ, apart from any additional requirements or demands. A sinner becomes a child of God by faith in Christ as his Savior. Then as a believer his is to grow in Christ, to develop as a disciple, to make Christ Lord or Master of all areas of his life.
Assurance of salvation is based on the Word of God (John5:24; 10:28-29; 1John 5:9-13), not on good works. One’s good works, however, can demonstrate to others that he is saved. Lordship salvation proponents say the way to deal with the problem of professing Christians—people who say they are saved but whose lives don’t match their lips—is to inquire whether they submitted to the lordship of Christ at the time of their alleged salvation. However, a better answer is to challenge true believers who are seemingly not committed to become His disciples, to grow in their walk with the Lord, and to obey Him as their Master. That is the ongoing challenge of the Christian life.
| 11 CommentsImportant Questions from a Reader
Today, I received an email from an ABI Facebook Group member with some questions and issues that this person would like for us to consider as topics to be addressed on the ABI website and/or blog. I have also encountered these myself in a variety of contexts including ministry situations, articles and books, blogs and forums, conversations and just during personal reflection. I have summarized the main issues below and plan to write on many or most of them in over the next few weeks (or have guest writers contribute, as well.)
So, stay tuned.
(As always, please feel free to comment on the blogs – and also send me your own questions, as well.)
———————————–
Reformed theology: We are seeing this become an increasingly divisive issue within and between churches. Some churches now no longer want to have gospel invitations and didn’t like it that invitations were included in some of the teaching material they had been using. They had concluded that a person could not understand and properly respond to a gospel message the first time they hear it. This also seems to be related to the “Lordship salvation” / “easy believism” debate. (My comments: These also sometimes have implications for other issues that are worth discussing such as dispensational versus Covenant theology, Calvinism versus Arminianism, predestination versus free-will, eternal security versus conditional security, among others.)
The Emergent Church: I get asked about this a lot by many people, including pastors. But I’m also asked this by a lot of lay people and regardless of their role in the church – I would love to be able to refer people to a good, concise article that explains things clearly. On the other hand, I am amazed at how many others don’t even know that this and other major issues are having a profound impact on the church as a whole today.
Worldview: What does “worldview” mean in general – and what does it mean to have a biblical worldview? I have been in at least one rather tense conversation with someone who was struggling to understand that not every believer necessarily has a biblical worldview. Along this line of thought, I was recently involved in one discussion in which the actual “Christian-ness” of a parent’s worldview came into question by on of their teen children – because they appeared to be sort out the idea that there are possibly various degrees of Christianity.
Doctrine: A major issue I frequently encounter is the question, “why does doctrine matter?” For many, the bottom line is that “God is love” and we should all work together on that basis alone. We are seeing a wide variety of beliefs, many contradictory – which cause problems for both those who try to minimize the differences as well as those that are struggling to define core beliefs that essential separation issues. As one example, a few years ago when asked about what his church held to doctrinally the pastor responded, “Well – we are really on the cutting edge of theology here . . . ” We had a lot of discussion about just what that meant – and it just wasn’t very clear. The edge of theology (that lacks clear biblical basis) is not where we want to be nor where we would want our children being trained!
The “homechurch/family integrated church” movement: This thinking is promoted heavily by Vision Forum among others. (Also, the long-term effect / effectiveness of small-groups needs to be examined for results – long-term and short-term.)
Old Earth/Young Earth Creationism: This a big topic causing a lot of discussion a homeschool forum, with some suggestion that perhaps Young Earth Creationism is actually a tool of Satan to divide the church.
Biblically rearing children: Many methods and philosophies are being promoted concerning appropriate education of one’s children. This extends from more moderate mainstream views on responsible schooling – with often more heat than light generated in some discussions. Some are happy to put their children in school because the parents feel it is a comfort to put her children in school knowing that there were people in the government whose job it was to know what was best for her children and to take that burden from her. Others fall to the other extreme – perhaps something in the vein of the “quiverful movement,” Bill Gothard teaching and philosophy and even whether or not youth groups are biblical.
Depending on the context, some of these have turned into real emotional “hot-button” issues.
——————————————
Thank you for taking time to ask about these. We will try to address them in a fair and balanced way. Some might require multiple posts and I may call upon guest writers with greater expertise to write on some of them. Whatever the case, I encourage others to write to me as well – and we will try to address your hottest topics. info@biblicalintegrity.org
Dave James
Ministry Coordinator