ANOTHER GOSPEL

Tom Pennington Senior Associate Pastor

Introduction

1. The New Testament Attack on the Gospel: Gal. 2:1-16 a. The backgroundmounting pressure to accept those who deny sola fide (2:1-10) b. The compromisetotal capitulation by the churchs most well-known and respected leaders (2:11-13) c. The confrontationunwavering commitment to the gospel by the apostle Paul (2:14-16) 2. The Apostolic Perspective: Gal. 1:6-10 3. The Current Trends: a. The Lordship controversy b. The ECT controversy 4. The Common Thread: both controversies attack the heart of the gospel: justification by faith alone (sola fide). a. At its core, the no-lordship view denies that there is any necessary relationship between justification and sanctification, thus undermining the effects and consequences of justification. b. While the ECT proponents claim to believe personally in justification by faith alone, they either outright deny or fail to assert that justification by faith alone is the only way of salvation. The result is to add human effort or merit to the only true grounds of justification: the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I.

Evangelicals and Catholics Together* A. A Summary Critique of ECT 1. The ECT document represents a serious compromise of the biblical and evangelical position of historic Protestantism. 2. The Protestants who signed ECT have forfeited true evangelical unity and traded it for the illusory promise of ecumenical "unity"a false unity that is achieved only by ignoring fundamental doctrinal differences, thereby clouding the gospel. 3. The Protestants who signed ECT are guilty of seriously compromising the clarity of the gospel and ought even now to withdraw their signatures from the document. B. A Brief History of ECT 1. The Ft. Lauderdale Summit a. The first meeting between signers and critics of ECT was held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, January 19, 1995.
*Adapted from the Italian edition of Reckless Faith, 2000 by John F. MacArthur Jr.

b. Present were Chuck Colson (one of the principal authors of the ECT document), J. I. Packer, and Bill Brightall supporters of ECT. Also present were John MacArthur, John Ankerberg, Michael Horton, R.C. Sproul, and Dr. D. James Kennedyall critics of ECT. c. Those who had signed ECT: i. Refused to withdraw their support for the document ii. Assured the critics that despite their support for ECT, they were as committed as ever to the historic biblical and Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone including the truth that the only ground for the sinner's justification is Christ's righteousness, not any works done by the sinner himself iii. Wrote and released the following statement shortly after the meeting:

We Protestants who signed ECT, took this action to advance Christian fellowship, cooperation, and mutual trust among true Christians in the North American cultural crisis and in the worldwide task of evangelism. The same concern leads us now to elucidate our ECT commitment by stating: 1. Our para-church cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics for the pursuit of agreed objectives does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctive or endorsement of the Roman Catholic church system. 2. We understand the statement that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ, in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation; we seek to testify in all circumstances and contexts to this, the historic Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone (sola fide). 3. While we view all who profess to be ChristianProtestant and Catholic and Orthodoxwith charity and hope, our confidence that anyone is truly a brother or sister in Christ depends not only on the content of his or her confession but on our perceiving signs of regeneration in his or her life. 4. Though we reject proselytizing as ECT defines it (that is sheep stealing for denominational aggrandizement), we hold that evangelism and church planting are always legitimate, whatever forms of church life are present already. 5. We think that the further theological discussions that ECT promised should begin as soon as possible. We make these applicatory clarifications of our commitment as supporters of ECT in order to prevent divisive misunderstandings of our beliefs and purposes. Signed by: William R. Bright, Charles W. Colson, Kent R. Hill, James I. Packer

2. The Ft. Lauderdale Fallout

a.

The Christian Media i. An article in Christianity Today implied that the Ft. Lauderdale meeting had resolved the ECT controversy: A January 19 gathering of top evangelical leaders has averted what Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson worried might become a 'serious rift' over the controversial statement 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together. ii. A February 6, 1995 press release from the "National and International Religion Report" stated: "Evangelical leaders and theologians resolved differences over Evangelicals and Catholics Together, the statement of Catholic-Protestant cooperation issued last spring." iii. Some reports seemed deliberately to imply that critics of ECT had agreed to drop their objections to ECT in light of the signers' "clarifying statement." iv. Buried in the text of the Christianity Today article was a brief paragraph in which John MacArthur was quoted: [John] MacArthur, pastor of the independent Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, says, "I'm very glad for the second document. I'm glad [Colson, Packer, and Bright] had the opportunity to clarify what is clarified there. It still doesn't go as far as I would have hoped." He remains steadfast in his belief that evangelical ECT signers ultimately should "recant." The bottom line, he says, is that Roman Catholicism is "another religion." v. The truth is that Drs. MacArthur, Sproul, Ankerberg, Kennedy, and Horton took precisely the same stance: the ECT signatories still needed to recant. And that was made perfectly clear to the ECT signatories in the meeting itself.

b.

John Ankerberg i. Within days after the Ft. Lauderdale summit, John Ankerberg wrote an irenic report of the meeting and published it in his book Evangelicals and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (co-authored with John Weldon): On January 19, 1995, four days before this book went to press, I participated in a private meeting with ten Evangelical Christian leaders... During our meeting, God graciously brought us all to agreement and reconciliation on the definition and nature of the gospel, as well as a full commitment to justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ as central to the gospel. ii. Ankerberg went on to say he believed the ECT signatories who were present at the meeting had taken the concerns to heart. Ankerberg cited their "clarifying

statement" and said, I am thankful for our brothers who listened patiently to our concerns and were willing to affix their names to this new statement that reaffirms and clarifies the gospel, which is the life of the church. iii. After several news reports implied that the Ft. Lauderdale statement had resolved all the ECT critics' concerns, Ankerberg released a revised statement, which may be found in subsequent printings of his and Weldon's book. In the revised statement, Ankerberg added these remarks, explaining what occurred at the summit:

During our meeting, we asked our friends to remove their name from the document as we stated our belief that ECT betrays the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they wouldn't do that. Second, we asked if they wouldn't recant of their participation in this document that they would revise the ECT document itself. But once again, they said they would not. Finally, we asked if they would at least be willing to write and sign a clarification statement explaining what they mean. . . .We would then print this separately and attach it to the ECT document. This they were willing to do. You can read their clarifying statement and the news release which accompanied it in [an appendix] in the back of this book. But now, 60 days later, at the second printing of this book, I find it necessary to clarify my understanding of the "clarification statement" that was produced in our meeting in Fort Lauderdale (and I believe I also speak for my friends who were there who did not sign ECT). 1. I (we) still believe that the ECT document is seriously flawed and misleading; that it betrays the Gospel by giving the impression that justification by faith alone (sola fide) is not essential to the Gospel or to salvation. Our acceptance of our friends' clarifying statement only signified we were rejoicing in their reaffirmation that justification by faith alone is central to the Gospel, and their admission that this is what they should have written in their ECT document but somehow didn't. Our acceptance of their clarifying statement and the admissions they made in it certainly does not mean we now accept the ECT document. Some have said that we do, if not explicitly, then, at least, implicitly, But that is not true! To the contrary, we still believe our Evangelical friends who signed ECT should remove their names from it and discard it.

2.

3.

What did we think our friends were admitting when they signed their names to the now clarifying statement? To us they were making clear that (a) they did not intend to proclaim or imply that justification by faith alone (sola fide) is not central or essential to the Gospel; and (b) they did not intend to imply that Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox or liberal Protestants who deny justification by faith alone are brothers and sisters in Christ.

In closing, I would like to say that I appreciate the fact that my Evangelical brethren who signed the clarifying statement wanted to make clear their original intent in placing their name on the ECT document. I'm also thankful that they have promised to meet again soon to clarify other disturbing statements in ECT.

2. The Ft. Lauderdale conclusions a. The two sides agreed that they fundamentally disagree with one another on ECT and the ecumenism it represents. b. The signers of ECT were apparently saying that while they believe the doctrine of justification as articulated by the Reformers is true, they are not willing to say people must believe it to be saved. In other words, they believe people are saved who do not believe the biblical doctrine of justification. C. "ECT II" 1. In October 1997, a new document was released as a kind of addendum to ECT. 2. Signed by Catholics and Protestants alike, this document was titled, "The Gift of Salvation." 3. Its aim was to clarify and elucidate the areas of agreement between Catholics and Protestants regarding the doctrine of salvation. 4. ECT II included this section about the doctrine of justification: Justification is central to the scriptural account of salvation, and its meaning has been much debated between Protestants and Catholics. We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God's gift, conferred through the Father's sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was "put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification" (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so. The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. "By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel, the good news of God's saving work for us in Christ.

By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).

5. ECT II expressly claims to be affirming what the Protestant Reformers meant by sola fide. 6. But the document fails to clearly affirm the key differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine: a. that Christ's righteousness, imputed to the believer's account, is the only merit necessary to provide full justification for the believer b. that justification is an event, not a process c. that God's justifying work is objective, not subjective d. that justification has everything to do with Christ's righteousness being imputed to believers, and nothing whatsoever to do with any righteousness infused into or wrought in the believer himself 7. Rome has never changed its position on Sola Fide. a. The Council of Trent explicitly anathematized sola fide. b. Vatican II expressly reaffirmed all the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, including those anathemas. c. The New Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) also denies sola fide and affirms the anathemas of Trent. d. All Catholics (including signatories of these ecumenical documents) are obligated to accept the Church's official anathemas against the doctrine of justification by faith and to "venerate [the Church's one infallible tradition] with the same sense of loyalty and reverence" Protestants give to Scripture [Dei Verbum (9), Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation]. D. An Evangelical Celebration 1. In 1999, a new statement was created entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration. 2. The document was a straightforward statement of the gospel, including a clear and accurate presentation of the doctrine of justification by faith. 3. Regarding the doctrine of justification by faith it stated:

Gods justification of those who trust him, according to the Gospel, is a decisive transition, here and now, from a state of condemnation and wrath because of their sins to one of acceptance and favor by virtue of Jesus flawless obedience culminating in his voluntary sin-bearing death. God justifies the wicked (ungodly: Rom. 4:5) by imputing (reckoning, crediting, counting, accounting) righteousness to them and ceasing to count their sins against them (Rom. 4:1-8). Sinners receive through faith in Christ alone the gift of righteousness (Rom. 1:17, 5:17; Phil. 3:9) and thus become the righteousness of God in him who was made sin for them (2 Cor. 5:21). As our sins were reckoned to Christ, so Christs righteousness is reckoned to us. This is justification by the imputation of Christs righteousness. All we bring to the transaction is our need of it. Our faith in the God who bestows it, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is itself the fruit of Gods grace. Faith links us savingly to Jesus, but inasmuch as it involves an acknowledgment that we have no merit of our own, it is confessedly not a meritorious work. In a series of affirmations and denials, the document added these statements: 1. We affirm that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, the only mediator between God and humanity (John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5).We deny that anyone is saved in any other way than by Jesus Christ and his Gospel. The Bible offers no hope that sincere worshippers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ. 2. We affirm that the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is essential to the Gospel (Rom. 3:28; 4:5; Gal. 2:16).We deny that any person can believe the biblical Gospel and at the same time reject the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. We also deny that there is more than one true Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). 3. We affirm that the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical Gospel (2 Cor. 5:19-21). We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us. 4. We affirm that the righteousness of Christ by which we are justified is properly his own, which he achieved apart from us, in and by his perfect obedience. This righteousness is counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God, as the sole ground of our justification.We deny that any works we perform at any stage of our existence add to the merit of Christ or earn for us any merit that contributes in any way to the ground of our justification (Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5). 5. We affirm that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are in the process of being made holy and conformed to the image of Christ, those consequences of justification are not its ground. God declares us just, remits our sins, and adopts us as his children, by his grace alone, and through faith alone, because of Christ alone, while we are still sinners (Rom. 4:5). We deny that believers must be inherently righteous by virtue of their cooperation with Gods life-transforming grace before God will declare them justified in Christ. We are justified while we are still sinners.

4. While John MacArthur provisionally agreed to sign this document, he advised those who drafted the statement that it ought to have an additional sentence clearly stating that the doctrinal position this statement represents is fundamentally incompatible with any opposing view of the gospel. Without such a statement, he feared that those who signed ECT would add their signatures to this statement as well, giving the false impression (once again) that this agreement resolved all differences over ECT. He suggested they add the following paragraph: We affirm that this statement is mutually exclusive to all other views of the gospel. We deny that anyone can believe and adhere to this statement and, at the same time, accept any other view of the gospel as saving truth. 5. The drafters of the statement chose not to add to what they had already approved, perhaps believing that suggested revisions implication was already clearly implied in the existing statement. 6. When the statement was finally released, it was unveiled in the press as if it represented a major accord between pro-ECT and anti-ECT evangelicals that would set aside once and for all any controversy over ECTit was, of course, no such thing. 7. An Evangelical Celebration is a statement of evangelical distinctives that is wholly incompatible with Roman Catholic doctrine. In fact, not one of the Catholic signatories of the ECT documents has signed it.

Conclusion The evangelical signers of ECT must believe that people who affirm a different gospel from the biblical doctrine of justification by faith are nonetheless "in Christ"united with Him through their different gospel. Their position certainly seems to set them at odds with the apostle Paul, who defended the doctrine of justification by faith against the false doctrines of the Judaizers by telling the Galatians: But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9)!

II.

The Lordship Controversy A. A Brief History 1. Lordship salvation was originally a pejorative term used by those antagonistic to the position. John MacArthur writes, Lordship Salvation [although not by that name] is what historic Christianity has always taught about the gospel" (see The Gospel According to Jesus, Appendix 2 for a sampling of voices from the history of the

church). 2. Probably the first modern, written attack on the Scriptural teaching concerning Lordship salvation came from Ray Stanford. a. Served at one time as President of The Florida Bible College b. Possibly coined the phrase Lordship Salvation as a pejorative term c. Wrote The Handbook of Personal Evangelism (published by Florida Bible College in 1960s; a downloadable version of this book is available online at [www.gracenet.com]); one chapter was titled Lordship Salvation and decried it as false teaching 3. In 1969, Charles Ryrie wrote Balancing the Christian Life (Moody), with a chapter entitled Must Jesus Be Lord to Be Savior?, in which he equated Lordship Salvation with heresy. 4. In 1981, Zane Hodges wrote The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Redencion) in which he explores the relationship between faith, works, and baptism to assurance. He arrives at what could properly be called a radical no-lordship position. 5. Because of disturbing trends in evangelicalism to turn away from the historic gospel, in 1988, John MacArthur published The Gospel According to Jesus (GAJ). 6. Two books were published in response to GAJ: a. Absolutely Free!: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation by Zane Hodges (Academic Books, 1989) b. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ by Charles Ryrie (Victor, 1989) 7. A flurry of books on both sides followed as the debate intensified, including MacArthurs Faith Works: the Gospel According to the Apostles (Word, 1993). 8. Since the early nineties, the controversy has dramatically faded, possibly because of several factors: a. Ryries retirement from Dallas Theological Seminary b. Redirection of some of Lordship Salvations critics to attack contemporary challenges to dispensational eschatology c. Failure of the no-lordship side to adequately answer the lordship writers B. Current Developments 1. Recent books on the controversy: Radmacher, Earl. Salvation (Swindoll Leadership Series). Word, 2000. This book, written by a staunch no-lordship author, is the only recent book on this

10

issue.

2. Leading proponents of the no-lordship position: Grace Evangelical Society [www.faithalone.org]. a. Their stated purpose The aim of GES is to promote the clear proclamation of God's free salvation through faith alone in Christ alone, which is properly correlated with and yet distinguished from issues related to discipleship. Their doctrine

b.

What We Believe
Short Statement of Belief Jesus Christ, God incarnate, paid the full penalty for man's sin when He died on the cross of Calvary. Any person who, in simple faith, trusts in the risen Christ as his or her only hope of heaven, refusing to trust in anything else, receives the gift of eternal life which, once granted, can never be lost. Salvation The sole condition for receiving eternal salvation from hell is faith (trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died a substitutionary death on the cross for man's sin and rose from the dead (John 3:16-18; 6:47; Acts 16:31). No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one's sin, baptism, or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered as a part of, faith as a condition for receiving eternal salvation (Rom 4:5; Gal 2:16; Titus 3:5). This saving transaction between God and the sinner is simply the giving and receiving of a free gift (Eph 2:8,9; John 4:10; Rev 22:17). Assurance Assurance of eternal salvation is based only on the promise God makes in His Word that everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ alone possesses eternal life (John 5:24; 1 John 5:9-13). Good works, which can and should follow regeneration, are not necessary for a person to have assurance of eternal life even though they may have a secondary, confirmatory value (Eph 2:10. Titus 3:8). Discipleship (Growing in Christ) The ultimate goal of the Holy Spirit's work in the believer's life is to produce spiritual maturity reflected in consistent Christlike behavior and attitudes (Gal 5:22-25; Luke 14:25-33; Col 1:23-29). Therefore, obedience to the Word of God, while not necessary for obtaining eternal salvation from hell, is the essential responsibility of each Christian (Rom 6:12-23; Heb 5:13, 14; 1 Cor 2:14-3:4). However, the Bible does not teach that this obedience will be manifested in all believers. If a believer does not yield to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his

11

experience, failure will result, evidenced by sinful acts or even prolonged disobedience (1 Cor 10:1-13; Gal 5:16-21). Motivation The believer is assured of salvation from hell and is eternally secure, since that salvation is based solely upon the finished work of Jesus Christ (John 10:28,29; Rom 8:38,39). Therefore, it is inconsistent with the Gospel and with Scripture to seek to gain or keep eternal salvation by godly living. The Scripture, however, does present several motivations for obedience in the Christian life. 1. A powerful motivation for living the Christian life is gratitude to God for saving us by His grace (Rom 12:1,2; 2 Cor 5:14,15; Gal 2:20). 2. Believers should also be motivated by the knowledge that their heavenly Father both blesses obedience and disciplines disobedience in His children (Heb 12:3-11; Lev 26:1-45). 3. Finally, every Christian must stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to determine his destiny in heaven or hell, but to assess the quality of his Christian life on earth (2 Cor 5:10; Rev 22:12). Anticipating either reward or loss of reward at the Judgment Seat should also motivate believers to perseverance and to faithfulness to God's revealed will (1 Cor 3:10-17, 9:24-27; Jas 5:8,9; 1 John 2:28). A. A Basic Primer* 1. What Is Lordship Salvation All About? The gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christs authority. That, in a sentence, is what lordship salvation teaches. These articles of faith are fundamental to all evangelical teaching: Christs death on the cross paid the full penalty for our sins and purchased eternal salvation. His atoning sacrifice enables God to justify sinners freely without compromising the perfection of divine righteousness (Rom. 3:2426). His resurrection from the dead declares His victory over sin and death (1 Cor. 15:5457). Salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ aloneplus and minus nothing (Eph. 2:89). Sinners cannot earn salvation or favor with God (Rom. 8:8). God requires of those who are saved no preparatory works or prerequisite selfimprovement (Rom. 10:13; 1 Tim. 1:15). Eternal life is a gift of God (Rom. 6:23). Believers are saved and fully justified before their faith ever produces a single righteous work (Eph. 2:10). Christians can and do sin (1 John 1:8, 10). Even the strongest Christians wage a constant and intense struggle against sin in the flesh (Rom. 7:1524). Genuine believers sometimes commit heinous sins, as David did in 2 Samuel 11.

Alongside those truths, I believe Scripture teaches these:

12

The gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47). It is not a work but a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). Repentance is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:1820). Salvation is all Gods work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:15, 8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6, cf. Heb. 11). The object of faith is Christ Himself, not only a creed or a promise (John 3:16).

*Taken from Faithworks, 1993 John F. MacArthur Jr.

Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:2728). Real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Gal. 2:20). The nature of the Christian is different, new (Rom. 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:910). The gift of God, eternal life (Rom. 6:23), includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:1718; 10:910). He does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:89; Rom. 8:2830; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). Behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that ones faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). Genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Cor. 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19).

The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. They are standard precepts of doctrine affirmed, for example, by all the great Reformed and Calvinist creeds. Though our Wesleyan brethren might disagree on a few of the particulars, most of them would quickly affirm that the lordship of Christ is at the heart of the gospel message. No major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior no-lordship gospel is a fairly recent development. Except for a circle of North American pastors, authors, and conference speakers, practically no church leader in the world defends no-lordship doctrine as orthodox. . . . This is not to say that no-lordship teaching poses no threat outside the United States. Over the past three or four decades, gospel tracts, how-to books on witnessing, radio and television broadcasts, and other media have carried the no-

13

lordship message to the uttermost parts of the earth. 2. What Does the No-lordship Gospel Teach? I have listed sixteen beliefs of lordship salvation. The first seven are tenets every major no-lordship advocate would also affirm: Christs death purchased eternal salvation. The saved are justified through faith in Christ alone. Sinners cannot earn divine favor. God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation. Eternal life is a gift. Believers are saved before their faith produces any righteous works. Christians sin, sometimes horribly.

On that much we all agree. Those who espouse the no-lordship position, however, differ dramatically from lordship salvation on the remaining nine points. Instead they teach: Repentance is a change of mind about Christ (SGS 96, 99). In the context of the gospel invitation, repentance is just a synonym for faith (SGS 9799). No turning from sin is required for salvation (SGS 99). The whole of salvation, including faith, is a gift of God (SGS 96). But faith might not last. A true Christian can completely cease believing (SGS 141). Saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel (SGS 156). It is confidence that Christ can remove guilt and give eternal life, not a personal commitment to Him (SGS 119). Some spiritual fruit is inevitable in every Christians experience. The fruit, however, might not be visible to others (SGS 45). Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness (SGS 5354). Only the judicial aspects of salvationsuch as justification, adoption, imputed righteousness, and positional sanctificationare guaranteed for believers in this life (SGS 15052). Practical sanctification and growth in grace require a postconversion act of dedication. Submission to Christs supreme authority as Lord is not germane to the saving transaction (SGS 7176). Neither dedication nor willingness to be dedicated to Christ are issues in salvation (SGS 74). The news that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead is the complete gospel. Nothing else must be believed for salvation (SGS 4041). Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality. A whole category of carnal Christiansborn-again people who continuously live like the unsavedexists in the church (SGS 31, 5966). Disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of ones faith (SGS 48). A believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing. God has guaranteed that He will not disown those who thus abandon the faith (SGS 141). Those who have once believed are secure forever, even if they turn away (SGS 143).

14

4. A Bibliography 1. Lordship Belcher, Richard. A Laymans Guide to the Lordship Controversy. Crowne, 1990. Crenshaw, Curtis. Lordship Salvation: the Only Kind There Is. Footstool, 1994. Day, R. Alan. Lordship: What Does It Mean? Broadman Press, 1990. Gentry, Kenneth L. Lord of the Saved: Getting to the Heart of the Lordship Debate. P and R Publishing, 1992. Lescelius, Robert. Lordship Salvation: Some Crucial Questions and Answers. Revival, 1992. MacArthur, John F. The Gospel According to Jesus. Zondervan, 1988. _________. Faith Works: the Gospel According to the Apostles. Word, 1993. 2. No-lordship Bing, Charles C. Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response. GraceLife Ministries, 1997. Dillow, Jody. The Reign of Servant Kings. Schoettle, 1992. Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works. Redencion Viva, 1981. ________. Absolutely Free!: A Biblical Reply to Lordship salvation. Academic Books, 1989. Radmacher, Earl. Salvation. Word, 2000. Ryrie, Charles C. Must Christ Be Lord to Be Saviour? (pp. 169-181), Balancing the Christian Life. Moody Press, 1969. ________. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ. Victor, 1989.

Conclusion We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. . . . It is obvious that gratuitous [grace-wrought] righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseparable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor. 1:30) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not vigor, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ Himself; and wherever Christ is not, there is no righteousness, nay, there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification. John Calvin