Discipleship: The Mark of True Believers

Is every Christian a disciple? This one question perhaps more than any other gets right to the heart of the debate between Lordship salvation and free grace theology. While Lordship salvation holds that the life of discipleship is the inevitable result of placing one’s faith in Jesus (thus maintaining that all Christians are disciples), free grace theology insists that discipleship is not the inevitable consequence of belief (thus implying that it is possible to be a genuine Christian and not a follower of Jesus). Representing the FG perspective, Zane Hodges says, “It is an interpretive mistake of the first magnitude to confuse the terms of discipleship with the offer of eternal life…” (The Gospel Under Siege, 41). At first glance, Hodges’s statement may seem to have some merit. After all, according to FG theology, does not the Bible indicate that the call to faith is free of any obligations or demands and the call to discipleship is of the essence of commitment? A careful study of the New Testament, however, yields precisely the opposite conclusion.

As we have seen, true biblical faith is not simply a mental exercise, but is at its core a firm reliance upon and commitment to Jesus Christ as the Lord (read: Master) and Savior. As such, faith is more akin to discipleship than free grace teachers admit. Furthermore, since repentance is a requirement of being saved (and because it consists of a radical forsaking of sin) then the life of a Christian is very much the life of a disciple. Discipleship actually turns out to be the perfect metaphor of faith, as Dr. Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday point out in their book The Race Set Before Us. Four lines of evidence confirm that discipleship defines what it means to believe: first, in the Gospels Jesus’s call to discipleship is a call to trust in Him for salvation. Secondly, the terms “believers” and “disciples” are used interchangeably in the book of Acts. Thirdly, the descriptions of a disciple in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of a believer in the Epistles. Lastly, Jesus clearly teaches that discipleship is the evidence of a believer’s faith. Each one of these points will be expanded upon in the following paragraphs.

The Call to Follow Jesus: An Invitation to Believe in Him

In the Gospels Christ’s call to discipleship is also an invitation to salvation. Put another way, when Christ called people to follow Him in discipleship, He was inviting them to be saved. This becomes most apparent when it is considered that often times Jesus taught about discipleship when unbelievers were present. Luke 14:25 for instance says, “Now large crowds were going along with him; and he turned and said to them…” What follows is His detailing the requirements of discipleship. What stands out from this is twofold: first, it would be unthinkable to suppose that people could genuinely follow Jesus without also believing in Him. It makes more sense to see discipleship entailing belief. Secondly, since Jesus delivers such a message to a crowd where unbelievers were present, it is only logical to assume that He was calling such unbelievers to follow Him and thus also inviting them to believe in Him.

In the discipleship passages, Jesus also uses terms that elsewhere in Scripture are associated with salvation. For instance, in Luke 14:26 Jesus begins His teaching on discipleship by using the common words, “If anyone comes to Me….” (emphasis added). These same words are used in the Gospel of John to describe the act of believing. In John 6:35 Jesus says, “He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.” Clearly in this verse to “come to Jesus” is to “believe” in Him. Thus when Jesus uses this same phrase at the outset of His teaching on discipleship, He intends for the two concepts to be associated: to come to Jesus in discipleship is also to come to Him in faith.

Furthermore, the results of discipleship are also the results of salvation: eternal life. In Matthew 16:25 Jesus said, “whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.” In case there is any confusion about what is meant by Jesus’s use of the term “life,” a parallel account in John says, “The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life” (12:25; emphasis added).

“Disciples” and “Believers”: Synonymous Terms

Since the call to discipleship is simultaneously a call to trust Christ for salvation, it is no surprise that the terms “Christians,” and “disciples” are used interchangeably in the book of Acts. John MacArthur, in his classic book The Gospel According to Jesus, explains, “The word disciple is used consistently as a synonym for believer throughout the book of Acts (6:1, 2, 7; 11:26; 14:20, 22; 15:10). Any distinction between the words is purely artificial…” (221). Indeed, Luke records that “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch” (Acts 11:26). Apparently there was no distinction between a Christian and a disciple in the early church—every Christian was a disciple. On top of this, Millard J. Erickson, in his Christian Theology, says that the “...distinction between salvation and discipleship…is difficult to sustain, as for instance, in the Great Commission, in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to ‘go and make disciples’” (950). Since the Bible does not make any distinction between the terms “believer” and “disciple,” we should not either.

The descriptions of disciples in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of believers in the rest of the New Testament

What does a believer in Jesus Christ look like? The New Testament answers this question in various ways. In previous studies we have seen that the Bible speaks of believers as those who trust Christ (John 1:12-13), those who love Jesus (John 14:23), those who obey the Lord (John 3:36; Heb. 5:9), and those who repent of their sin (Rom. 2:4; 1 Thess. 1:9-10).

We get more insight into what a true believer looks like when we turn to the Gospel writer’s portrayals of disciples. Interestingly, the descriptions of disciples in the Gospels are similar to the descriptions of believers in the Epistles. For instance, Jesus says that disciples are those who “…deny themselves and take up their cross…” (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 9:23). These words sound remarkably similar to the Apostle Paul’s description of believers as those who “have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24). What is true of disciples in this case is true of Christians: both are characterized by self-denial. Dr. Darrell Bock, New Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, agrees:

“The essence of saving trust in God is self-denial, a recognition that he must save because disciples cannot save themselves, that life must be given over into God’s care and protection. Disciples do not respond to their own personal wills, but to God’s…For Paul, when a person in faith asks God to save through Jesus, the petitioner recognizes that Jesus must save from sin and that he imparts life, because the petitioner’s life needs redeeming on God’s terms. Salvation does not come on one’s terms or on one’s own merits (Rom. 3-5). Jesus calls this self-denial. Paul’s words are no different than Jesus’, just less pictorial. Salvation is a gift that God bestows to the one who knows the need for it, who knows one cannot provide it for oneself” (Luke 1:1-9:50, 852).

In other words, the believer-disciple says along with Paul, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). The reason why disciples and believers are described in similar terms is because in reality they are one and the same.

Discipleship: The Mark of a True Believer

Perhaps the clearest indication that every believer is a disciple of Christ comes from Jesus’s own words in John 10:26-27: “You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” There are a couple of things to notice about this text. First, notice that Jesus clearly indicates that His “sheep” are those who “believe.” So there is no question here who He is talking about. Jesus is talking about believers. Secondly, Jesus tells us three characteristics of true believers: they “hear” Him, they are known by Jesus, and they follow Christ. The last of these characteristics—the fact that Christ’s sheep “follow” Him—is most pertinent to our discussion. Nathan Busentiz comments,

“The word used here for ‘follow’ is akoloutheo. Whenever it is used in a religious context in the New Testament, it refers to discipleship. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says this about the term:

The distinctive statistical evidence shows that the special [meaning religious] use of akolouthein is strictly limited to discipleship of Christ; apart from a single reference in Revelation it is found exclusively in the four Gospels. … The disciple leaves everything to go after Jesus (Mk. 10:28; cf. 1:18; Lk. 5:11). This implies, however, that akolouthein signifies self-commitment in a sense which breaks all other ties (Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:61 f.). … The exclusiveness of the NT use arises from the fact that for primitive Christianity there is only one discipleship and therefore only one following, namely, the relationship to Jesus. The demand akolouthei moi in Mk. 2:14 and par. is a Messianic demand (–> sunakoloutheo). Because it signifies following the Messiah, this discipleship is essentially a religious gift. Akoulouthein means participation in the salvation offered in Jesus. (Gerhard Kittel, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 213–14; Greek terms transliterated).

So Jesus’ Himself uses a term for discipleship to refer to the characteristics of His sheep (true believers).

Those who have true faith (and thus are part of His flock) will follow their shepherd in obedience (See the rest of his thoughts here).

In light of this, one wonders how free grace teachers can honestly conclude that it is possible for someone to be a believer in Jesus and yet not follow Him in discipleship. Jesus, in John 10:26-27, could not have made Himself any clearer: a true believer will always “follow” Him.

Conclusion

We have seen in this brief study that there are at least four reasons to maintain that every believer is a disciple: one, because Jesus’s call to follow Him was a call to believe in Him; two, because the terms “disciple” and “believer” are synonymous; thirdly, because the Bible describes believers and disciples in the same terms; and, lastly, because discipleship is the mark of true believers. For all of these reasons (plus the reasons given in previous posts) it seems best to reject both the free grace concept of discipleship and salvation.

John Piper Defending Lordship Salvation

Also check out Piper's defense of the issue in his "Letter To A Friend Concerning the So-Called 'Lordship Salvation."

Jesus is Lord: What does this mean?

In previous posts we have examined two of the most prominent biblical reasons to reject the no-lordship position on salvation. The first reason I mentioned is because of the nature of repentance. Repentance, I pointed out, is an active turning from sin and more than a casual “change of mind” often suggested. The second reason to maintain the Lordship position (against the free grace position) is because of the nature of faith. While certainly understood as “trust” or “reliance upon,” biblical faith is manifested through obedience and leads to sanctification. Today I want to look at another prominent issue in the debate between Lordship salvation and free grace theology: the Lordship of Christ.

Perhaps this issue more than any other characterizes the Lordship position of salvation (hence the name “Lordship salvation”). Some free grace teachers deny that Christ’s Lordship has any bearing on a person’s salvation, while other teachers affirm the necessity of His Lordship in salvation but adopt a very shallow understanding of what that means.

What does the Bible teach about this matter?

First: Jesus is Lord.

Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

In order to be saved, a person must receive Jesus Christ as Lord. What does this entail?

Second: Lord means “Master.”

The word “Lord” (kurios) can mean several things depending upon the context in which it is found, but when used of Christ it most certainly includes at least two things:

1. He is God

2. He is Master

While the free grace position affirms the first definition, they sometimes waffle on the second. But the Bible is abundantly clear that Jesus’ lordship entails the meaning “master.” Consider two other points:

1. Jesus Himself asked rhetorically, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). His question clearly reveals that part of what it means to call Him “Lord” is a willingness to do what He says.

2. The word “lord” (kurios) in the NT is often coupled with the term “slave” (doulos). See John 15:14-15 for an example of this. In the cultural context in which the NT was written, every slave had a master. The New Testament borrows this concept and applies it to Christianity. Every believer is a slave of Christ (1 Cor. 6:19-20) and Jesus Christ is the master of every believer (1 Cor. 1:2; Jude 4).

John MacArthur sums up:

“True Christianity is not about adding Jesus to my life. Instead, it is about devoting myself completely to Him – submitting wholly to His will and seeking to please Him above all else. It demands dying to self and following the Master, no matter the cost. In other words, to be a Christian is to be Christ’s slave.” (From his new book Slave, 22).

3. The sinner never makes Jesus Lord—He is Lord! Peter said on the day of Pentecost that “God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Furthermore, as Bruce Demarest points out, Jesus’ words in John 5:24 clearly indicate the nature of Jesus’ Lordship. Demarest offers a paraphrase of the verse in order to get across the shades of meaning in the Greek: “Anyone here who believes what I am saying right now and aligns himself with the Father, who has in fact put me in charge, has at this very moment the real, lasting life and is no longer condemned to be an outsider.” Demarest concludes, “Obedience to Christ’s lordship is an intrinsic aspect of saving faith.”

(See his excellent discussion of this whole matter in The Cross and Salvation pages 265-75. What I cited came from page 269).

The New Testament no where entertains the idea that a person can legitimately trust in Christ for salvation and yet give lip service to His Lordship. The whole “accept Jesus as Savior but not as Lord” paradigm suggested by free grace theology is patently false. Kenneth L. Gentry, in one of the best lexical examinations of the term “Lord” in the NT, concludes, “The proper presentation of Christ as Savior involves His proclamation as Lord and Savior. Overwhelmingly the New Testament emphasizes His Lordship…when Christ is believed ‘upon’ or believed ‘into,’ He Himself is accepted for salvation. Thus Christ, being Lord, comes into the heart of the believer as Lord and Master. To omit Christ’s office of Lord in evangelistic preaching is to divide Christ and splinter the gospel message” (Lord of the Saved, 64-5).

What is Faith?

Last time we looked at the nature of repentance in discussing the biblical evidence against free grace theology and noted that biblically the word “repentance” should be understood as “a turning away from sin.” In this post I want to look at another subject often misconstrued by the no-lordship camp: the nature of faith. On the surface, most Christians understand what the word “faith” (or the term “believe”) means. Free grace teachers take advantage of this general consensus and argue that faith simply means “trust” and nothing more or nothing less. Bob Wilkin, a staunch free grace adherent, shockingly says:

“Faith doesn’t need dressing up in any way. Tell people that all who simply believe in Jesus have everlasting life and will never die spiritually. If they think you are saying that our works after the new birth are in no way part of saving faith, and that a person might gain eternal life and then live in a manner that is not pleasing to God, then you should rejoice, for they understand the saving message” (From his article “Does Faith Need Dressing Up?”).

This seems to be the exact opposite of Paul’s conclusion to the one who argued that because God’s grace increased where sin abounded we should use grace as a license to sin. Paul emphatically stated, “May it never be!” (Rom. 6:1-2).

While many in the free grace camp would deny it, their understanding of faith often comes across as nothing more than mental assent. I have spoken to free grace advocates about this before and every time they adamantly tell me that their understanding of faith is not mental assent. I find this hard to believe, though, especially when the implications of the no-lordship position are considered. While they may say that “faith” is a “confidence, trust, and reliance” upon Christ, they undermine this definition by supposing that a person “trusting” in Christ can consistently disobey Christ, deny His Lordship, live a carnal life of sin, and even stop believing in Christ and still be saved! How is that legitimately trusting in Christ? Call me naïve, but it seems to me that a person who is unwilling to acknowledge Christ’s Lordship and yield their life to Him is also someone who is unwilling to honestly trust Him with their life.

John MacArthur, in his classic book Faith Works: the Gospel According to the Apostles, observes Charles Ryrie making the same kind of claim about faith—that it is simple trust but is not mental assent—and he comments, “Some advocates of the no-lordship view resent the accusation that they see faith as mere mental activity. But they consistently fail to define believing as anything more than a cognitive function. Many use the word trust, but when they define it, they actually describe assent” (33).

With all that said, what can be understood about faith? A couple of things are relevant to our discussion.

First of all, faith is an act of commitment and obedience to Christ.

Bruce Demarest, in his excellent book The Cross and Salvation, writes, “Saving faith is an act of commitment to Christ and in some sense an act of grateful obedience…observe how often Scripture juxtaposes faith and obedience. John wrote, ‘Whoever believes [pisteuon] in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys [apeithon] the Son will not see life, but must endure God’s wrath” (John 3:36, NRSV). In Scripture disobedience clearly is failure to believe (Rom. 11:30; Eph. 2:2; Tit. 3:3; Heb. 4:6). Conversely, believing is an act of obedience. Luke observed that in Jerusalem ‘the word of God spread…and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith’ (Acts 6:7)” (268).

Demarest continues,

“In the Romans doxology the apostle longed that the Gospel, now proclaimed to Gentiles, might, ‘bring about the obedience of faith’ [Rom. 16:26]…Obedience to God, therefore, is virtually a synonym for faith, as many texts indicate (Matt. 19:17; Acts 5:32; Rom. 15:18; 2 Thess. 1:8; 1 Pet. 1:2; 4:17).” (268).

I encourage my readers to examine every verse cited by Demarest in the parenthesis. You will discover the overwhelming number of times that obedience in linked with faith. I will let Charles Spurgeon have the last word on this point:

“The only trust that saves is that practical trust which obeys Jesus Christ. Faith that does not obey is dead faith—nominal faith. It is the outside of faith, the bark of faith, but it is not the vital core of faith” (quoted by Demarest, 268).

Secondly, the faith that justifies is also the faith that sanctifies.

John Piper, in his book Future Grace, discusses at length the nature of faith. His meditation on this topic is marvelous and refreshingly biblical. Listen to Piper’s wonderful definition of faith:

“…the essence of saving faith is being satisfied with all that God is for us in Jesus. Another text in John that leads me to this conviction is John 6:35, ‘I am the Bread of Life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.’ This text points to the fact that believing in Jesus is a feeding and drinking from all that Jesus is. It goes so far as to say that our soul-thirst in satisfied with Jesus, so that we don’t thirst anymore. He is the end of our quest for satisfaction. When we trust in Jesus the way John intends for us to, the presence and promise of Jesus is so satisfying that we are not dominated by the alluring pleasures of sin (cf. Romans 6:14). This accounts for why such faith in Jesus nullifies the power of sin and enables obedience” (213-14).

Elsewhere Piper says, “One of the important implications of this conclusion is that the faith that justifies and the faith that sanctifies are not two different kinds of faith. ‘Sanctify’ simply means to make holy, or to transform into Christlikeness…Paul makes [the] connection between faith and sanctification explicit, not only in Galatians 2:20 [where he says] (‘I live by faith’), but also in 2 Thessalonians 2:13: ‘God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.’ Sanctification is by the Spirit and by faith” (193, Piper’s emphasis).

The obvious conclusion is that because true faith makes one a believer, then one who believes in Jesus will also be sanctified (progressively becoming more holy).

Conclusion:

Contrary to free grace theology’s claims, faith is not a casual mental acquiescence of facts that does not affect a person’s moral constitution. In the Bible, faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). It is a faith that works (all throughout Hebrews 11 we see that faith is manifested in what a person does. “By faith Abraham…obeyed…” v. 8). Biblical faith is one that “does not waver in unbelief” (Rom. 4:20); it is a faith that “expresses itself through love” (Gal. 5:6). Faith is an active trust in Christ that leads a believer to obey and honor Him by growing in sanctification.

Jonathan Edwards concludes:

“Faith is a sensibleness of what is real in the work of redemption; and the soul that believes doth entirely depend on God for all salvation, in its own sense and act. Faith abases men, and exalts God; it gives all the glory of redemption to him alone. It is necessary in order to saving faith, that man should be emptied of himself, be sensible that he is ‘wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’ Humility is a great ingredient of true faith: he that truly receives redemption, receives it as a little child… ‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, he shall not enter therein.’ It is the delight of a believing soul to abase itself and exalt God alone…” (From his sermon God Glorified in Man’s Dependence).

What is Repentance?

To wrap up my series on free grace theology, I want to post a few entries on specific biblical issues that tend to get misinterpreted by free grace advocates. The first of these, the issue of repentance, is perhaps the main issue separating free grace theology from Lordship salvation. It is often claimed by free grace teachers that the term “repentance” (metanoia) means simply, “to change one’s mind.” In a previous post I noted the reasons behind why they define the word this way and pointed out that “repentance” is composed of two Greek words that literally mean “after-thought,” or “to change the mind.” However, such a definition, while partially true, is insufficient for several reasons.

The main reason why the proposed definition (offered by the no-lordship side) is a poor definition is because it fails to point out that in almost every instance in which the word is used in the Bible it always is connected with a change of behavior. In fact, the NT distinguishes between true and false repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:10), and the main difference between the two is that the former results in a change of behavior while the latter does not. Thus to define “repentance” as a mere “change of mind” can be dangerously misleading since the Bible teaches that there is no genuine repentance where there is not also “a change in behavior.”

As it turns out, free grace advocates have an agenda behind their push for the proposed meaning of “repentance.” Because of their presupposition that the Gospel makes absolutely no demands on the sinner other than to simply “believe,” free grace proponents are forced to reinterpret and redefine the word “repentance.” If “repentance” means something more than “to change one’s mind” (which it surely does) then the whole free grace enterprise is in danger. As a result, there is a wholesale denial by no-lordship teachers that repentance means “to turn from sin,” otherwise (according to them) salvation would not be free since it would require the sinner to do something other than believe in order to be saved (in this case, they would have to “forsake sin”).

What are we to make of this? What is repentance? In order to answer this question, I want to address three related questions. First, what is the meaning of repentance? Second, is repentance necessary to be saved? Thirdly, does the command to repent conflict with the freeness of the Gospel offer?

1. The meaning of repentance:

“Repentance” (metanoia) literally means “to change one’s mind” but encompasses so much more than this. Because the term is found in contexts in which sin is being discussed, the term has the idea of “changing one’s mind about sin,” and so is typically defined as “turning from sin.” Consider two passages that indicate that repentance is tantamount to forsaking sin:

Matthew 3:1-12. John the Baptist prepared the way of Christ by proclaiming, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (v. 1). John reveals what true repentance consists of when he urges his listener’s to “bear fruit worthy of repentance” (v. 8). Basically John was saying, “If you claim to have repented (“changed your mind”), then let’s see it in your actions!” But does this mean that the “fruit,” the change of life that results from repentance, is optional? Definitely not. The clincher to this passage is that John goes on to say that, “the ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire” (v. 10). Repentance that does not produce fruit will result in damnation.

Since true repentance is inseparable from fruit bearing, the best way to define repentance is “turning from sin.” To leave it at simply “change your mind” is misleading and damning since there can be no legitimate change of mind where there is not also a change in behavior.

Luke 15: This passage gives us significant insight into what the term “repentance” was understood to mean in Jesus’s day. In this passage, Jesus tells a series of parables that all illustrate what repentance looks like. Three stories are told in which something is lost—in the first, a sheep; in the second, a coin; and, in the third, a son. In each account, the person who lost the object seeks out the missing possession until it is found, which leads them to rejoicing and celebration. After presenting each of the parables, Jesus gives the same conclusion: “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents…” (v. 7, 10, 24, 32).

When we look at the details of the stories, it becomes clear that the “repentance” Jesus describes is a lot more developed than a mere “change of mind.” In both the first and last stories (the lost sheep and lost son), both the missing sheep and son are “straying,” with the obvious idea of actively running from their owner/father. Eventually, both the sheep and the son are “found,” with an added element in the story of the lost son—the son “comes to his senses” (v. 17) before he is found by his father. In these cases, then, it is clear that what is being “repented” of—what the change of mind is entailing—is an active rebellious departure from the one to whom they belong.

So it is clear from the above passages (and many others could be cited) that saving repentance is “a change of mind that always results in a change of behavior” or “a turning from sin.”

2. Is repentance necessary to be saved?

Absolutely. Multiple passages are abundantly clear that in order to be saved, a person must repent of their sin.

Mark 1:15—Jesus said, “Repent and believe the Gospel!”

Luke 13:5—Jesus said, “Unless you repent, you will all perish.”

Acts 3:19—Peter told his hearers what they must do to be saved: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.”

Acts 26:20—Paul said, “I preached [to the Gentiles] that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds”

2 Cor. 7:10—Paul wrote, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.”

2 Peter 3:9—Peter wrote, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

So, yes, repentance is necessary to be saved. And the only repentance that truly saves is the repentance that turns from sin.

3. Since repentance is necessary for salvation, does this compromise the Bible’s clear teaching that we are saved by grace?

Regardless of what free grace theology claims, the necessity of repentance does not diminish the freeness of the Gospel offer, for several reasons. First of all, since the Bible itself sees no conflict between the necessity of repentance and the necessity of faith (as the above passages show), then we should not either. Secondly, while the Bible teaches that repentance is necessary to be saved, it equally teaches that repentance is a divinely bestowed gift from God:

Acts 5:31 “God exalted [Jesus] to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.”

Acts 11:18, “When they heard [of the Gentile’s conversion], they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

2 Timothy 2:25: “Those who oppose…must [be] gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”

God grants repentance to those whom He has chosen. It cannot be seen as a work, then, for the simple reason that no one has the ability to truly repent unless God enables him to do it.

Certainly much more could be said concerning this issue. What has been said is sufficient to show that repentance is, first of all, a change of mind that results in a change of direction (and so means “to turn from sin”); secondly, it is necessary to be saved; and, thirdly, is a divinely bestowed gift.

Theological Objections to Free Grace Theology

Last time we examined the historical case against the free grace position and noted that it represents a recent theological development in history. Today I want to make a few comments regarding the theological/philosophical objections that I have to the system.

Objection #1: The "second blessing" model of salvation promoted by free grace theology. Andy Naselli, in his book Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology, traces the theological roots of the no-lordship position showing how it is part of a tradition that teaches a two-tiered approach to salvation. The website promoting the book distills the thesis of the book as follows:

Keswick theology—one of the most significant strands of second-blessing theology—assumes that Christians experience two “blessings.” The first is getting “saved,” and the second is getting serious. The change is dramatic: from a defeated life to a victorious life, from a lower life to a higher life, from a shallow life to a deeper life, from a fruitless life to a more abundant life, from being “carnal” to being “spiritual,” from merely having Jesus as your Savior to making Jesus your Master. So how do people experience this second blessing? Through surrender and faith: “Let go and let God.”

You can learn more about the book here. Naselli carefully critiques this view of salvation and offers a biblically satisfying alternative. The free grace understanding that there are two "classes" of Christians-- those who are carnal and those who are committed (or those who simply believe and those who are disciples)-- is foreign to Scripture. The Bible only recognizes two categories of people: unbelievers and believers. This is consistent all the from Psalm 1 (those who are "righteous" and those who are "wicked") to Matthew 7 (those who are on the "narrow road" and those who are on the "broad road"). There are not two kinds of Christians, but only one kind-- those who turn from their sin and trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior. And this one kind of Christian stands in stark contrast to the non-Christian individual.

Denny Burk has some good things to say about this issue on his blog.

Objection #2: The many false dichotomies found in free-grace theology. One of the things I have noticed in reading free grace writers is that they often create false dilemmas by insisting that something cannot be both/and but must be either/or. One particular example that comes immediately to mind is the argument (used by free-grace advocates) that salvation cannot be both free to the sinner and yet costly to the sinner.

D.A. Carson, in his book Exegetical Fallacies (a manual of what not to do when interpreting the Bible), discusses a fallacy similar to false dichotomies and points out how frequent Zane Hodges, the late free-grace teacher, commits these. He begins by quoting from Hodges’ book Absolutely Free, where Hodges writes,

“It is an interpretive mistake of the first magnitude to confuse the terms of discipleship with the offer of eternal life…”

Carson comments with these words:

“…Hodges has assumed that there is a disjunction between grace and demand. He never wrestles with the possibility (in my view, the dead certainty) that in spiritual matters grace and demand are not necessarily mutually incompatible: everything depends on their relations, purposes, and functions. The result of the assumed disjunction in Hodge’s thought is not only what is in my judgment a false thesis—that the Bible teaches that a person may be eternally saved even though there is not a scrap of evidence for it in his or her life—but also an array of exegetical and historical judgments that are extremely problematic.” (91-92).

I will write about the historical and biblical connection (that is inseparable!) between belief and discipleship in a later post but for now, note that the heart of the free grace problem is a failure to see that Jesus’ call to discipleship was a call to salvation. Luke 14:25-35 is one place where Jesus calls for people to be His disciples in which nonbelievers are present! It would be unthinkable to imagine that Jesus was calling these unbelieving crowds to follow Him without also calling them to believe in Him. One entails the other. They are not contradictory, contrary to the claims of no-lordship teachers. Furthermore, in our Lord’s Great Commission, He tells us to “preach the Gospel” (Mark 15:16), part of which is to “make disciples…” (Matt. 28:19). The call to preach the Gospel is the call to make disciples. Again, I will have more on this later.

Objection #3. A tendency toward eisegesis. Because free grace proponents have a priori assumptions about the Gospel (assuming that it is simply a call to casually believe, rather than a call to forsake sin and follow Christ), they tend to override any passage of Scripture or verse that seems to teach (or in fact DOES teach!) that perseverance or good works are the inevitable and necessary result of believing. So, for instance, we find Bob Wilkin, a rigorous opponent of Lordship salvation, making the astounding (and novel) claim that when James says that faith without works cannot save (James 2:14-26), he actually means that it can save! James was not speaking of eternal life, Wilkin claims, even though he uses words like “faith,” “save,” “justified,” and others that are found in other NT contexts that clearly speak of eternal salvation! Wilkin and the free grace teachers turn James 2:14-26 on its head in order to maintain their assumption that Christians do not have to persevere in holiness in order to be saved. See Wilkin's article here.

This last point leads naturally to the next, and final one.

Objection #4: A reductionistic understanding of the Gospel. As a result of their presuppositions (mentioned in point 3), the no-lordship teachers often reduce biblical terms and concepts to their bare minimum, leaving out critical elements. For example, when dealing with the word “repentance,” Michael Cocoris is adamant that

“Repentance is a change of mind—period. A change of mind should result in a change in behavior, but the word repent looks at the change of belief, not the change in behavior. Repentance is the root; change in behavior is the fruit.”

Cocoris denies that the word “repentance” (or “repent”) ever should be defined as “a turning from sin,” as the vast majority of commentators and theologians define it. But in so doing, Cocoris is guilty of what has been called “the root fallacy”—defining a word by its root composites (in this case “meta”—meaning “after,” and “noia”—meaning “thought,” thus meaning “to change one’s mind”). Cocoris completely ignores the fact that the Bible distinguishes between true repentance and false repentance (2 Cor. 7:8-10). The former always leads to a change of behavior, while the latter does not. Therefore, to define the term repentance as “a change of mind” and nothing else is misleading. A true change of mind is always expressed in a change of behavior.

Cocoris separates “change of behavior” from “change of mind” and thus presents a partial definition of “repentance” because he does not like the implications. If repent means more than a change of mind—which it surely does—then the requirements of the Gospel are more demanding. This the free-grace proponents simply cannot have. See Cocoris's article here.

I have sought to demonstrate that the theological methods of the no-lordship position are flawed on at least four counts: first, they adopt a two-tiered understanding of salvation; secondly, they introduce various dilemmas and distinctions where none truly exist; thirdly, they often import foreign interpretations into the biblical text; and, lastly, they have a reductionistic understanding of biblical terms and teaching.

The (a)historical roots of free grace theology

Perhaps one of the most devastating arguments against the no-lordship position is the appeal to antiquity. While some of the free grace teachers would deny it, the fact is that there is not one significant figure in the history of the church before the twentieth century who affirmed their position. With the exception of certain strands of antinomianism, there is not really any other theological position akin to free grace theology in the history of the church before the 1900’s. This fact alone should be enough to convince any Christian of free grace theology’s falsity.

In contrast to the no-lordship position, Lordship salvation has a long and steady line of tradition going back to the days of the Apostles. (Note: of course I realize such a statement may be seen as anachronistic; however, the essential element of Lordship teaching—the perseverance of the saints—can be seen in church doctrine throughout history even though it may not have been labeled “Lordship salvation” until recently). Consider the following research that supports my arguments above:

As to the lack of historical foundation for the free grace opinion, D.A. Carson, in his Exegetical Fallacies, points out numerous instances where Zane Hodges, in the cause of free-grace theology, makes exegetically unwarranted interpretations and mistakes. One particular criticism he lodges against Zane Hodges (and other free-grace teachers) is the absolutely bizarre and novel interpretations they give for very clear passages of Scripture in the Bible. Carson says of Hodges’s work on James 2,

“Perhaps one of the most intriguing—and disturbing—features of Zane C. Hodges's book... is that to the best of my knowledge not one significant interpreter of Scripture in the entire history of the church has held to Hodges' interpretation of the passage he treats. That does not necessarily mean Hodges is wrong; but it certainly means he is probably wrong…” (137).

Dr. Michael Horton and his colleagues at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, CA wrote a book a number of years ago entitled Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation in which they analyzed the Lordship salvation debate. Although the writers had critiques of both positions, the overwhelming number of objections were leveled at the no-lordship position. Perhaps the greatest objection to the free grace position was its novelty. Michael Horton wrote,

“…James Boice, J.I. Packer, and others have argued in their works [that] no respected, mainstream Christian thinker, writer, or preacher has ever held such extreme and unusual views concerning the nature of the gospel and saving grace as Zane Hodges [and his free grace counterparts].”

Furthermore he said,

“In our estimation, there is not the slightest support for Hodges and Ryrie to claim the reformers’ [like Luther's and Calvin's] favor for their novel views” (11).

Dr. Thomas Schreiner also notes the novelty of the free-grace (“loss-of-rewards”) view of salvation in his book The Race Set Before Us. See his comments on pages 28, 184, and 188.

While the free grace position is ahistorical and a theological innovation, the Lordship position has a firm historical foundation. Consider just a few pieces of information:

John MacArthur, in an appendix to his book Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, furnishes an abundance of historical material that clearly shows that Lordship salvation has been the consistent witness of the church throughout history. See pages 221-37.

Wayne Grudem, when discussing this issue in his Systematic Theology, writes,

“It is misleading to brand 'Lordship salvation' as if it were some new doctrine, or as if it were any other kind of salvation—MacArthur [a lordship teacher] is teaching what has been the historic position of Christian orthodoxy on this matter…” (715).

Much more could be said on this issue. But what has been shown is sufficient to support my contention that the free grace position is a Johnny-come-lately theological movement while the Lordship salvation camp stands on solid historical ground.

For more information about this here are a few resources to consult:

1. See my previous post about the historical validity of Calvinism and the resources I mention there since the Lordship position simply represents the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.

2. See Phil Johnson’s excellent article on antinomianism here.

3. Andy Naselli has written a recent book that convincingly shows that the free grace position stems from Keswick theology which was started around the early half of the twentieth century. Get Naselli’s book here.

A Defense of Lordship Salvation

I want to quickly address one more thing before I specifically respond to free-grace theology. The position I advocate (against free-grace theology) is sometimes labeled “lordship salvation.” Because of some misunderstanding (and sometimes misrepresentation by free-grace advocates), I want to define what it is that I (along with the vast majority of biblical scholars and teachers) hold to.

First of all, let me state what Lordship salvation is not. It is not an attempt to mingle works with grace (as in Roman Catholicism) and somehow allow for good works to be the basis of salvation. Every Lordship advocate I know of affirms that salvation is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Lordship salvation does not believe that a person is saved by good works at any point—whether at the beginning, middle, or end of salvation. We believe that salvation is by grace from start to finish.

So what do we believe?

In essence, Lordship salvation teaches that a person is saved by grace through faith in Christ, but that the grace that saves is a transforming grace (leading a person to walk in the way of holiness, Tit. 2:11-14), the faith that saves is a working faith (Js. 2:14-26), and the Christ that saves is Lord and Ruler of the one being saved (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9-10).

One of the best definitions of Lordship salvation I have ever heard is provided by Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur’s personal assistant:

“The lordship position teaches that salvation occurs at the moment of conversion, and that conversion includes a change of heart such that those who were enemies of Christ now love Him.”

Busenitz expands upon his definition with irrefutable logic:

“Lordship teaches that true Christians love Jesus. And that those who do not love Jesus are not true Christians. After all, Jesus said, “If God were your Father, you would love Me” (John 8:42). Paul said that anyone who does not love Jesus is accursed (1 Cor. 16:22). And Peter described the belief of his readers in these terms: “Though you have not seen Him, you love Him” (1 Pet. 1:8). And what does love for Christ look like? He Himself tells us in John 14:15—“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” That is pretty straightforward: Love for Christ is a willingness to keep His commands.”

See the rest of his thoughts here.

This is the substance of Lordship salvation and, it seems clear, is the point of departure from free-grace theology (which I wrote about in my last post). Again, the differences between free-grace theology and Lordship salvation is not over how we are saved. Both sides agree that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The issue is over what being saved looks like. The issue is over the nature of salvation. Are those who believe transformed in such a way that they inevitably produce fruit and persevere in loving [read: practically obeying] Christ throughout their lives? To this question both sides give different answers—free grace theology says no; Lordship salvation says yes. In this is the point of departure.

Free-Grace Theology: Is It Biblical?

I am going to be doing a series of posts on a theological issue that I have followed for a number of years now. The issue I want to address is sometimes labeled “free-grace” theology (or “non-lordship salvation”), and this particular system of theology is one that I consider to be very unbiblical and dangerous. In this first post, I want to briefly define the issue I have with this system of thought and in subsequent posts will address this system from historical, theological, and biblical angles.

Free-grace theology (also known as “consistent grace” or “non-lordship salvation”), maintains, along with historic Protestantism, that good works play no part in obtaining salvation but that a person is saved by faith alone in Christ alone. However, free-grace theology denies, against historic Christianity, that good works are the necessary consequence of salvation. Representative of historic biblical Christianity, the Westminster Confession states that,

“Faith…receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.”

Against this, Free-grace theology would affirm only the first half of this definition given by the Westminster divines—that faith alone justifies, but it would deny the second half—that the faith that justifies is never alone but is always accompanied by good works. The Grace Theological Society, for instance, states that

“obedience to the Word of God, while not necessary for obtaining everlasting life, is the essential responsibility of each Christian…However, the Bible does not teach that this obedience will be manifested in all believers” (from their website)

In contrast, the Bible clearly says that genuine faith always produces good works (Js. 2:14-26) and is marked by perseverance and holiness (Matt. 10:22; Col. 1:22-23; Heb. 2:14; 12:14).

This then, is my real dispute with free grace theology: it is over the nature of saving faith. But, as I will show in future posts, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Historical Basis of Calvinism

I am excited to see that Dr. Steven J. Lawson’s new book has just come out that confirms the historical rootedness of Calvinism. He in the process of writing a series of books that trace the doctrines of grace through history. In his first book (released a few years ago) entitled Foundations of Grace, Lawson shows that from the first book of Scripture to the last—or from Moses to John—the Bible teaches the five points of Calvinism. Now, in his second book called Pillars of Grace, Lawson shows that the doctrines of grace were upheld by the men who followed after the Apostles—from Clement of Rome all the way through to the Reformation leaders. His last three books will continue “the long line of godly men” all the way to the present day through men such as John Piper and John MacArthur. So, essentially, Lawson makes a compelling case that Calvinism is a very rooted and grounded truth spanning from Moses to MacArthur.

I encourage all of my readers to check out Lawson’s series of books starting with Foundations of Grace. You can learn more about his second book Pillars of Grace here.

By the way, Dr. Lawson's thesis is not a new one. Although some have tried to accuse Calvinism of being absent from the early centuries of the church (and the product of Augustine's mind), there is substantial evidence that reveals a steady strand of pre-Calvinists or pre-Augustinians in the early church. Several writers have attempted to show this in the past besides Lawson including:

John Owen in an appendix to his excellent The Death of Death in the Death of Christ

John Gill in The Cause of God and Truth

Michael Horton in his popular Putting Amazing Back Into Grace has an appendix that catalogues Patristic quotations that support the doctrines of grace.