The Two Surrenders

[DaveXR650]

So no, the Bible does not present a salvation that is fruitless, lifeless, or collapses under pressure. Nor does it present a salvation that allows a man to live in rebellion and then hear “well done.” Regeneration produces life, desire, growth, and, when needed, chastisement.

I don't understand then why you would object to what these guys are saying. It is a fact that there is within evangelicalism, or even fundamental Baptist teaching in America at least, a strain of belief that if someone prays a prayer and signs a card, and mentally assented to the fact the Jesus died for their sins - then they are saved and while they are welcome to follow Christ, it is not necessary.

To be honest, part of the problem comes from a semi-Pelagian view of coming to faith in Christ. If it is really all of your own free will there is no reason to think it would be any different than any other scheme or resolution we embark on in our lives. But if it was by grace and the result of the Holy Spirit that we came to Christ then all the rest of those things you mentioned will and must follow.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

And I agree with all of this and support Lordship Salvation. So, where do we see disagreement with each other on this?

On the substance of the three hypotheticals, I don’t actually see a disagreement between us. My point in addressing them was simply to say that Scripture does not present any of those scenarios as the pattern of a regenerate life. You affirmed the same in your reply.

We both hold that regeneration produces spiritual life and desire, that God chastens His children, that persistent rebellion is not ignored, that fruitlessness is not the mark of a believer, and that salvation is inseparable from the new creation God brings forth.

So on the core issue, the nature of genuine salvation and the reality of God’s work in His people, I don’t see daylight between us. Any disagreement would be only on how “Lordship Salvation” is defined and applied; you say you support it, and I hold that the system as commonly taught is in error.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

This goes back to the very start of the Reformation.
The first of Martin Luther's 95 theses states:

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

However, if MacArthur meant that one cannot have assurance of salvation before death, then he was quite wrong. But I've never read or heard him state that.

If one put this another way: "A person who lives a life of disobedience is not a Christian," Would you find that easier to accept?

1 John 3:3. 'And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as he is pure.' See also Galatians 5:19-21.

I would not phrase this as John Piper has done; perhaps we should see more of the quotation. But if someone claims to be a Christian yet continues in sin (1 John 3:6) and does not exhibit any of the fruit of the Spirit, is he deceiving himself? Transformation of life is not a condition of salvation, but it is the result of it. 'Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.'

In Britain we don't hear so much about 'Lordship Salvation.' My impression is that it is a reaction to Antinomianism and the libertinism that Calvin had to contend with in Geneva, but still seems to be very much about today. You are right that salvation is an act of God and therefore unconditional, but it is also true that 'Those who [continually] practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'

If someone wants the fuller context of each quote, that’s always available, and you are free to search them out and demonstrate whatever you think the broader context shows. But the larger context does not change the fact that:

MacArthur explicitly frames salvation as a lifelong process involving ongoing obedience and perseverance.

Washer explicitly states that a person who does not live a life of obedience “is not a Christian.”

Sproul explicitly ties the presence or absence of sanctification to the presence or absence of justification.

Piper explicitly speaks of “final salvation” being conditional upon transformation.

These are not isolated fragments; they are consistent with how each man presents the Lordship Salvation framework in his wider teaching. My point was simply to show the structure of the system as they themselves articulate it, not to deny the reality of repentance, obedience, or sanctification in the Christian life.

So the issue is not whether Christians repent or obey; we agree they do. The issue is whether repentance, obedience, perseverance, and visible fruit are conditions of salvation or the results of salvation. That is the doctrinal hinge I am addressing.

The hinge of the discussion is simple. If you believe that repentance, obedience, perseverance, and visible fruit are the results of salvation, then we agree. If you believe they are conditions of salvation, then we disagree.

The quotations I provided show how the Lordship Salvation system is framed by its leading voices. If you think the broader context changes the meaning of those statements, you are welcome to present that context. But the question remains the same.

Is a transformed life a condition for salvation, or is it the result of salvation?

That is the point I am addressing.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I don't understand then why you would object to what these guys are saying. It is a fact that there is within evangelicalism, or even fundamental Baptist teaching in America at least, a strain of belief that if someone prays a prayer and signs a card, and mentally assented to the fact the Jesus died for their sins - then they are saved and while they are welcome to follow Christ, it is not necessary.

To be honest, part of the problem comes from a semi-Pelagian view of coming to faith in Christ. If it is really all of your own free will there is no reason to think it would be any different than any other scheme or resolution we embark on in our lives. But if it was by grace and the result of the Holy Spirit that we came to Christ then all the rest of those things you mentioned will and must follow.

I am not objecting to the reality that regeneration produces life, desire, obedience, and perseverance. We agree on that. My point is not about decisionism or revivalism or semi‑Pelagian free‑will theology.

The issue I am addressing is much narrower.

The leading voices of Lordship Salvation frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself, not merely the results of salvation. That is what I am examining. I am not denying the abuses you mentioned; I am simply focusing on the doctrinal structure of Lordship Salvation as it is actually taught.

So the question remains the same: Are repentance, obedience, perseverance, and visible fruit post‑salvation conditions for salvation, or are they the results of salvation?

That is the point I am addressing.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return. And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, after receiving the kingdom, he ordered that these slaves, to whom he had given the money, be called to him so that he might know what business they had done. The first appeared, saying, ‘Master, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And he said to him, ‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.’ The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.’ He said to him, ‘By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow? Then why did you not put my money in the bank, and having come, I would have collected it with interest?’ Then he said to the bystanders, ‘Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ And they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas already.’ I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”[Luke 19:11-27]

Here we see blessings for disobedience and cursing for disobedience. The theme found all throughout the bible.

The parable you quoted deals with faithfulness and reward, not with the question I am raising. I am not disputing that God blesses obedience and chastens disobedience. We agree on that.

The issue I am addressing is much narrower.

Are repentance, obedience, perseverance, and visible fruit post‑salvation conditions for salvation, or are they the results of salvation?

That is the doctrinal hinge I am examining. The parable does not answer that question, and I am trying to keep the discussion focused on that single point.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Are repentance, obedience, perseverance, and visible fruit post‑salvation conditions for salvation, or are they the results of salvation? That is the issue I presented, and only that issue. Everything I have written in this thread has been directed toward that single doctrinal question. I am not addressing side topics or secondary debates, only this doctrinal hinge. Only that which I presented in the original post.

 

[37818]

John 17:17, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Matthew 7:12-14, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

John 17:17, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Yes. Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Since there seems to be confusion about what “Lordship Salvation” actually teaches, here are definitions from the men who promote it, in their own words.

John MacArthur: “Salvation is a lifelong process…”

Paul Washer: “A person who does not live a life of obedience is not a Christian.”

R.C. Sproul: “Justification and sanctification are inseparable. If sanctification is absent, justification is absent.”

John Piper: “Final salvation is conditional upon the transformation of life.”

Summary (from their own statements): Lordship Salvation teaches that obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit are conditions of salvation itself, not merely the results of salvation. That is the definition I am addressing.

I found this on John Piper's Desiring God website. I think it may be helpful. He draws a useful distinction between Justification by Faith Alone and Salvation by Faith Alone.

Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?

Protestants have long championed justification by faith alone. But we distort this truth when we confuse justification and final salvation.

www.desiringgod.org

I am happy to discuss this further, but I would like to have your view on the link first.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I found this on John Piper's Desiring God website. I think it may be helpful. He draws a useful distinction between Justification by Faith Alone and Salvation by Faith Alone.

Will We Be Finally ‘Saved’ by Faith Alone?

Protestants have long championed justification by faith alone. But we distort this truth when we confuse justification and final salvation.

www.desiringgod.org

I am happy to discuss this further, but I would like to have your view on the link first.

Martin, I am not entering another round of re‑definitions. The issue I raised is doctrinal and straightforward. Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct categories. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the point I am addressing. Piper’s “final salvation” framework is simply another form of that conflation.

This is the doctrine I am examining, and I am staying with that issue alone.

 

[DaveXR650]

The leading voices of Lordship Salvation frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself, not merely the results of salvation. That is what I am examining. I am not denying the abuses you mentioned; I am simply focusing on the doctrinal structure of Lordship Salvation as it is actually taught.

They don't do that but granting for a moment that they did I guess the same question could be put to you. Are you saying that since they are not "conditions" then can a person truly come to Christ and then live on for years and never show any change or do any good works? Can they continue on in known and willful sin? Or, to use one of their well known arguments: once a person is saved and if they should completely apostatize and willfully leave the faith - are they still saved? This is what is taught by the free grace movement.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

They don't do that but granting for a moment that they did I guess the same question could be put to you. Are you saying that since they are not "conditions" then can a person truly come to Christ and then live on for years and never show any change or do any good works? Can they continue on in known and willful sin? Or, to use one of their well known arguments: once a person is saved and if they should completely apostatize and willfully leave the faith - are they still saved? This is what is taught by the free grace movement.

I am discussing their doctrine, not mine. I’m not discussing hypothetical moral scenarios or Free Grace caricatures. I’m examining the doctrinal structure of Lordship Salvation as taught by its own leading voices. My point is very narrow: MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, and Washer all frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself, not merely the results of salvation. If you disagree, simply provide citations from their works showing that obedience, perseverance, and fruit are not treated as conditions of salvation. That is the point I’m addressing.

And yes, they do that. The leading voices of Lordship Salvation frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself.

You can research it for yourself.

MacArthur (The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works)
Piper (Future Grace)
Sproul (Faith Alone)
Washer (Shocking Youth Message, Ten Indictments)

 

[Van]

No.

Van, I agree with you that many, if not the majority, of professing Christians were never born anew; the point I’m making is that Lordship Salvation goes further by making obedience, fruit, and perseverance conditions of salvation itself, not merely evidences of it.

And the point I was trying to make is the only "condition" of salvation is to be transferred into Christ spiritually. Once "in Christ," always "in Christ."

Lordship salvation differs from easy believism in that professing belief does NOT result in automatic salvation. Care to address that issue?

 

[37818]

Yes. Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

Sanctification precedes repentance and faith. Per John 17:17.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Lordship salvation differs from easy believism in that professing belief does NOT result in automatic salvation. Care to address that issue?

I already addressed this. You can go back to the replies and see it. Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Sanctification precedes repentance and faith. Per John 17:17.

Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am discussing their doctrine, not mine. I’m not discussing hypothetical moral scenarios or Free Grace caricatures. I’m examining the doctrinal structure of Lordship Salvation as taught by its own leading voices. My point is very narrow: MacArthur, Piper, Sproul, and Washer all frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself, not merely the results of salvation. If you disagree, simply provide citations from their works showing that obedience, perseverance, and fruit are not treated as conditions of salvation. That is the point I’m addressing.

And yes, they do that. The leading voices of Lordship Salvation frame obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit as conditions of salvation itself.

I have MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" 2008 addition, and will be quoting from that. The issue is that at least the intention or tendency for obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit is included in saving faith, not that those things are required in addition to saving faith. That much he says and he then sites numerous Calvinist and non-Calvinist sources who make the same claim. And those sources are fairly old - and as he explains, that is because this was not an issue until fairly recently.

He quotes A.W. Tozier on page 44 as saying "The Lord will not save those he cannot command. He will not divide his offices. You cannot believe on a half Christ. We take Him for what He is -- the anointed Savior and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of all lords! He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that He can also guide and control our lives."

I use that from among many references Mac uses to show that this is by no means a Calvinist thing only. But still, you cannot get away from the fact that Mac used a Calvinist understanding of faith as a gift from God as opposed to something as "conjured up by the human will but is a sovereignly granted gift of God". (page 188) This is extremely important because if this is true then there obviously is no issue with faith being of a nature that will always lead one on to an actual walk with God. In other words, if it is a gift from God it cannot be a deficient or false faith. (It is also important to realize that in older writings both Calvinist and non-Calvinist serious theologians viewed faith as a gift from God. That in itself renders saving faith based on a faulty premise as impossible.)

Now the question comes up and it's a valid one, is it wrong to break saving faith down to an elemental statement of "the empty hand reaching out to Christ for salvation" and correctly say that there you have saving faith in the simplest terms? I say that is fine and have no problem with that - as long as you are not also saying that it is possible to reach out for salvation and stop there, having received absolution, and then actually fight against any suggestion that faith, to be completely explained, involves more. This is the issue and it is simply a fact that Mac documents very well in his book - that the free gracers actually oppose the idea that Jesus must be taken as Lord also. This is a huge difference from champions of free grace of old like Horatius Bonar, or J.C. Ryle, or Charles Spurgeon, who while preaching a simple reaching out to Christ or looking to Christ as the saving act on our part - had no problem warning about the necessity of holiness, and acknowledging Christ as Lord. That is the issue.

And that is why to understand MacArthur, Washer, and Piper on this you have to realize what it is exactly that they have in mind when they write. In Mac's book on page 39 he discusses Lewis Sperry Chafer, who in 1918 started this carnal Christian doctrine where the carnal Christian walked exactly like a non-believer. This has become very popular. In the '70's we had a Campus Crusade Bible study series that was steeped in this and like I said earlier it has taken over whole segments of evangelicalism today.
There are different ways to cope with this. Some groups do conflate justification and sanctification, or faith and works, or state that you better stay on the strait and narrow or lose your salvation. But what MacArthur and Piper and Washer are saying is that just beware that saving faith bears fruit and if not the "faith" was defective and that the danger of this cheap grace is a false faith that is an inoculation against further work of the Spirit to correct you and can be a fatal error.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I have MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" 2008 addition, and will be quoting from that. The issue is that at least the intention or tendency for obedience, surrender, perseverance, and visible fruit is included in saving faith, not that those things are required in addition to saving faith. That much he says and he then sites numerous Calvinist and non-Calvinist sources who make the same claim. And those sources are fairly old - and as he explains, that is because this was not an issue until fairly recently.

He quotes A.W. Tozier on page 44 as saying "The Lord will not save those he cannot command. He will not divide his offices. You cannot believe on a half Christ. We take Him for what He is -- the anointed Savior and Lord who is King of Kings and Lord of all lords! He would not be Who He is if He saved us and called us and chose us without the understanding that He can also guide and control our lives."

I use that from among many references Mac uses to show that this is by no means a Calvinist thing only. But still, you cannot get away from the fact that Mac used a Calvinist understanding of faith as a gift from God as opposed to something as "conjured up by the human will but is a sovereignly granted gift of God". (page 188) This is extremely important because if this is true then there obviously is no issue with faith being of a nature that will always lead one on to an actual walk with God. In other words, if it is a gift from God it cannot be a deficient or false faith. (It is also important to realize that in older writings both Calvinist and non-Calvinist serious theologians viewed faith as a gift from God. That in itself renders saving faith based on a faulty premise as impossible.)

Now the question comes up and it's a valid one, is it wrong to break saving faith down to an elemental statement of "the empty hand reaching out to Christ for salvation" and correctly say that there you have saving faith in the simplest terms? I say that is fine and have no problem with that - as long as you are not also saying that it is possible to reach out for salvation and stop there, having received absolution, and then actually fight against any suggestion that faith, to be completely explained, involves more. This is the issue and it is simply a fact that Mac documents very well in his book - that the free gracers actually oppose the idea that Jesus must be taken as Lord also. This is a huge difference from champions of free grace of old like Horatius Bonar, or J.C. Ryle, or Charles Spurgeon, who while preaching a simple reaching out to Christ or looking to Christ as the saving act on our part - had no problem warning about the necessity of holiness, and acknowledging Christ as Lord. That is the issue.

And that is why to understand MacArthur, Washer, and Piper on this you have to realize what it is exactly that they have in mind when they write. In Mac's book on page 39 he discusses Lewis Sperry Chafer, who in 1918 started this carnal Christian doctrine where the carnal Christian walked exactly like a non-believer. This has become very popular. In the '70's we had a Campus Crusade Bible study series that was steeped in this and like I said earlier it has taken over whole segments of evangelicalism today.
There are different ways to cope with this. Some groups do conflate justification and sanctification, or faith and works, or state that you better stay on the strait and narrow or lose your salvation. But what MacArthur and Piper and Washer are saying is that just beware that saving faith bears fruit and if not the "faith" was defective and that the danger of this cheap grace is a false faith that is an inoculation against further work of the Spirit to correct you and can be a fatal error.

Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

 

[37818]

Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

Give said Scripture.


Sanctification precedes.

1 Peter 1:2, . . . through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience . . .

2 Thessalonians 2:13, . . . from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth . . .

John 17:17, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

 

[DaveXR650]

Scripture presents repentance unto salvation and repentance unto sanctification as two distinct issues. Repentance in salvation is once‑for‑all, completed at conversion. Repentance in sanctification is ongoing, part of growth and correction in the Christian life. Lordship Salvation conflates these two categories, and that is the doctrinal point I am addressing.

It is true that a life of repentance and growth is necessary. You have to remember that the guys who MacArthur called out were saying that sanctification and growth and correction are optional and not necessary for a Christian. If you don't like the way MacArthur, Washer, or Piper express their concerns then you are in good company. The Trinity Foundation's Dr. John Robbins immediately took MacArthur to task for his first edition of the Gospel According to Jesus in the early '90's. Some popular Calvinist theologians behind the Calvinist insurgency of the early 2000's also took him to task for being theologically imprecise and over stating his case. And some of Piper's writings on faith recently have also caused controversy. I just don't follow him that closely anymore.

Frankly, if your concern is only to be precise and protect justification by faith alone then I have no problem with you on this. I happen to really like Ryrie, who is one of the one's MacArthur quotes in his book. But I know where Mac, Washer and Piper are coming from and understand what they are trying to correct and overall, their works are beneficial and greatly needed in the times they were written.