The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Lordship Salvation Why So Controversial?

I am finding a another huge hot button that seems to be able to seperate Reformed Christians who usually agree with each other is "Lordship Salvation".
Rarely is it profitable even discussing the issue with those who think it is heretical.
I have even used a few articles from the Highway on this issue. Such as an excellent one written by William Webster to no avail.
They even went a step further and told me that there is no.such thing as "easy believism."
This issue seems to me like a no brainer, yet it is so controversial in the Reformed Community. Sigh...

Any thoughts?

It's been 20-30 years since I last heard of it as a debate. I think it was between 2 radio preachers - John MacArthur and Chuck Swindoll. MacArthur in favor of Lordship Salvation and Swindoll against. I'm sure anyone can twist the argument around, but it is a good debatable topic. The rope should remain tight, and it is easy to lighten up one side or the other.

Back then, I sided more with MacArthur, but I heard some good arguments saying that he went too far. Is the current debate on the subject the same as it was back then?

Webster's article is salient and solidly biblical, which would be expected from the pen of William Webster.

To claim there is no such thing as "Easy Believism" is like saying there is no such thing as gravity. It is so overwhelming prevalent throughout Christendom I cannot fathom how anyone could deny its existence. See Michael Haykin's great article here: Sandemanianism.

John

Yes, I remember the issue itself. I also know that MacArthur is not without some of the blame However, I also know that when some of his fellow Calvinists such as Dr. Michael Horton and Dr. RC Sproul talked to him about the matter. He agreed with them and I understand he tried to clarify what he believed; hoping it would clear up the matter. Yet, despite all that it did very little good concerning his critics.
On the Lordship Salvation issue, there was no bigger supporter of MacArthur than RC Sproul.

As an aside note, I have talked to a few Calvinists over the years who maintain that Lordship Salvation is heretical. Hmm..., makes me wonder if they believe those who agree with it are heretics as well?

William Webster wrote an excellent article on Lordship Salvation, that can be found in the article section of the Highway.
https://www.the-highway.com/lordship-salvation_Webster.html

Tom

The problem with Lordship salvation is that it completely undermines the concept of salvation by grace through faith. It adds works as a condition of salvation. It is basically telling Calvin and Luther ‘nice try but we like our works’.

It does nothing of the kind; did you actually read Webster’s article?

Tom

Can you give one or more examples from whatever literature you have read where you think this denial of grace through faith is substantiated?

The basic premise of Lordship salvation would appear to be that unless one makes "Jesus Lord over all aspects of ones life, then he is really Lord over none of it."

The biblical truth is that the very moment God saves us in Christ, God Himself has placed Jesus as the Lord over his own, but when do need to keep on maturing in the faith, and walking out our salvation in this life.

the biggest problems to me would be no sure way to know when and if he is :Lord enough: to have me really saved, and they seem to minimize the concept progressive sanctification in the life of every believer.

1. Actually, Jesus IS Lord by virtue of His very being. He is LORD over every human being who was ever conceived, e.g.,

2. Practically speaking, one is not saved by making Jesus "Lord" enough in their life. Nor is one saved by not making Jesus as "Lord" in their life. One is saved by having been regenerated by the Spirit, brought to genuine conviction of sin, repentance, faith in the person of Jesus the Christ and being clothed in His perfect righteousness via imputation, and being adopted as a son/daughter of God; by God. A true believer is indeed sanctified progressively and by his/her fruit they are known to be who they profess to believe before men. (cf. Matt 6:17,20; James 2:17-26).

Your points are good, but the truth is that Lordship salvation is not really teaching what you are advocating for here!

Have you read this article by William Webster: Lordship Salvation: Biblical or Heretical?

JesusFan

I encourage you to read the article by William Webster.
If as you say .
There is a problem, mainly because not only is this William Webster's understanding, it is also the understanding of most of the Reformed community. It also involves some very essential issues when it comes to soteriology and we can't afford to be wrong on this one.
I have read the arguements of some of the ant-Lordship Salvationists and noticed they name names such as RC Sproul, John Murray, A.W. Pink, as they put it From: https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Lordship%20Salvation/macarthur.htm

Pilgrim, am I overstating my case?

Tom

I don't know exactly who these people are, but it appears that some (after doing a quick search online) are semi-Pelagian Dispensationalists. Reading through the article you linked to above, it certainly appears that Sandemanianism is being advocated, aka: Easy Believism, for according to the author, the faith that saves is one that simply "assents" to the Gospel... The author openly rejects any idea of "fiducia", i.e., faith consists in a full participation of a person's mind, affections and will of not only the Gospel but with Christ personally. Many times in the Scriptures what the author calls "simple faith" is exposed as a false, empty faith (cf. Jh 2:23-25; Matt 7:13-27; Jam 2:20-26). One of the by-words often uttered in opposition to the Roman Catholic of salvation; faith+works=justification and in rebuttal to the RC's claim that sola fide allowed one to continue in sin was "man is saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." Works do not and cannot justify, whether alone or intermixed with faith. But a true living faith justifies AND it also sanctifies. As James makes clear, works "justify" ones faith, i.e., works (obedience to God's laws, precepts, commands, etc.) evidence one's faith as being genuine saving faith.

Again, I don't know a whole lot about those who are opposed to the doctrine if faith as taught in Scripture and embraced throughout history by the true Church and its members, but there are also groups who advocate "hyper Grace", which is a form of antinomianism.

One individual mentioned in the article as opposing "Lordship Salvation" is Zane Hodges. Mr. Hodges is no stranger to many as being an adamant enemy of the doctrines of grace. And, although I would not give full approval of what the author(s) of the following article believe, it surely reveals some of the serious heresies Zane Hodges teaches: The Unusual and Troubling Teachings of Zane Hodges.

I think that the biggest concern with some of us in regards to Lordship Salvation is that it is mixing/blending together Justification and Sanctification, so one can be unsure of their real spiritual state, as in enough good works and enoug having jesus over my life etc.

Do you think that William Webster, in his article, is guilty of "mixing/blending together Justification and Sanctification"? Please provide quotes where you see this in his article.

Anyone who concerns themselves whether they have "enough good works and enough having Jesus over my life" is at best seriously confused about the two doctrines, and most notably justification.

What is most dominant in our present time is a total corruption of orthodoxy in both doctrine and life. Hundreds of thousands of people are still unregenerate but believe they are saved because some so-called pastor or evangelist told them they were saved. Or, they followed a series of "steps" written on the back of some tract, e.g., "The Four Spiritual Laws". Sandemanianism, aka: Easy Believism is surely the most insidious of the common heresies being promoted today.