[G]reat essential agreement exists between proponents and opponents of lordship salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration, or the impartation of eternal life by the Holy Spirit to a sinner, is required for salvation. Both sides agree that regeneration produces a positional change: a Father-child relationship is established between God and the believing sinner. Both sides also agree that regeneration produces a constitutional change: a person receives the Holy Spirit and eternal life, which is God’s quality of life placed within his soul. This constitutional change provides the possibility and the power for a superb transformation of character and conduct. Both sides agree that such transformation is expected, desired, demanded, and possible for the believer. Both sides also agree that Christians can sin, and sin severely.
Both sides agree that sin in a believer is serious and brings on him or her the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and should result in confrontation and discipline by the church. And both sides agree that such disobedience can last for some period of time in a believer.… The truth is, lordship salvation does not teach that every professing Christian who sins is not a true believer. Likewise, free grace teachers do not affirm the salvation of everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Undoubtedly, much of Christian history has taught that regeneration will produce some outward and visible change and that no change whatsoever may be evidence of a lack of true regeneration. But free grace teachers teach the same thing. The points of disagreement go back to the nature of faith and assurance. What the free grace position simply will not allow is that the change produced by regeneration is the grounds of or the evidence for assurance of genuine salvation. (Thomas G. Lewellen, “Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught Throughout Church History?” 65.)
