• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• CHAPTER 1. Perverting the Gospel - The Ultimate Sin Against Humanity
• CHAPTER 2. Salvation by Grace Alone - Part I - Faith and Obedience
• CHAPTER 3. Salvation by Grace Alone - Part II - A Righteous Life by Faith
• CHAPTER 4. Regeneration: God's Creation of the Righteous
• CHAPTER 5. Sanctification and Growing in Righteousness
• CHAPTER 6. The Lordship of Christ in Salvation - Part I
• CHAPTER 7. The Lordship of Christ in Salvation - Part II
• CHAPTER 8. We Walk By Faith Not By Sight - Part I
• CHAPTER 9. We Walk By Faith - Part II - Taking Up Our Cross
• CHAPTER 10. What is a Carnal Christian?
• CHAPTER 11. Bear or Burn: The Fruit of Obedience in the Parables of Christ
• CHAPTER 12. Saint or Sinner?
• CHAPTER 13. Righteousness vs. Self-righteousness
• CHAPTER 14. Can a Christian Backslide?
• CHAPTER 15. Sin and the Misinterpretation of Romans 7
• CHAPTER 16. Examine Yourselves as to Whether You Are in the Faith
• APPENDIX 1. Quotes and Confessions in Church History
• APPENDIX 2. Scriptural Evidence for the Necessity of Obedience in Salvation

Clinging to a Counterfeit Cross

Grk/Heb Fonts

Over 75 Free Online Bible Commentaries

by James P. Shelly

CHAPTER SIX

The Lordship of Christ in Salvation - Part I

Although the counterfeit cross takes on many forms, one of the most insidious errors, which, as we will show, is pervasive within evangelicalism, is a teaching of the gospel which allows for a belief in Christ as Savior while any commitment to Him as Lord is unnecessary. This is a teaching that allows one to become a citizen of the kingdom of God without having to come under the rule and reign of the King; A sheep of the flock of God without having to follow after the Shepherd. It teaches that since Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, the practice of righteousness in our daily lives is optional. Thus lordship, discipleship, and sanctification, although encouraged, are not required in our salvation. In essence, it teaches that we can be justified yet remain our own god. It is reminiscent of the words of the serpent in the garden in that it presents its victim with the option of violating one of the foremost commands, “You shall have no other gods but Me,” with the full assurance that they “will not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). It represents God’s grace as though the forgiveness of sin is its primary objective, while deliverance from sin is secondary and optional. It proclaims that God’s love is actually magnified in allowing a so-called believer the choice of living according to the dictates of his own sinful heart. It is deceptively subtle in that it is a mixture of biblical truth tainted with just enough unbiblical error to eternally destroy its unsuspecting prey. Moreover, it is a departure from the Christian faith as found in the orthodox creeds, confessions, and commentaries scattered throughout church history. A faith that does not result in coming under the lordship of Christ, a regeneration that does not produce the fruit of the Spirit, and a sanctification that is optional, was never an accepted doctrine within the church until relatively recent times. It is inseparably linked with the so-called “carnal Christian” teaching (see Chapter 10,) popularized by men such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, C.I. Scofield, and many since who have followed after them. It is not our intent in these pages to question the sincerity of those who teach such doctrines or to mischievously cast aspersions on their persons. Scripture, however, exhorts us to speak out against error, and love demands that it be so as we believe the eternal life of the soul is at issue here. As we will attempt to show in the following pages, the non-lordship teaching, also referred to as “free grace,” is so diametrically opposed to Scripture that one has to stand back in amazement that it was ever allowed to slither into the church. As stated in Jude 4

I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4, NLT, see Titus 1:16).

If there be any doubt that this teaching is widespread within evangelicalism, we need look no further than the most popular and widely distributed devotional of our day, “My Utmost for His Highest,” by Oswald Chambers, wherein he makes the following statements;

There is nothing easier than getting saved, because it is solely God’s sovereign work — ‘Look to Me, and be saved…’ (Isaiah 45:22). Our Lord never requires the same conditions for discipleship that he requires for salvation. We are condemned to salvation through the Cross of Christ. But discipleship has an option with it— ‘If anyone…’ (Luke 14:26). 2/2

The reason some of us have not entered into the experience of sanctification is that we have not realized the meaning of sanctification from God’s standpoint. Sanctification means being made one with Jesus so that the disposition that ruled Him will rule us. 2/8

Whenever Our Lord talked about discipleship, He always prefaced it with an ‘IF,’ never with an emphatic assertion — ’You must.’ Discipleship carries an option with it. 4/24

‘If any man come to me and hate not…, he cannot be My disciple,’ not—he cannot be good and upright, but—he cannot be one over whom Jesus writes the word ‘Mine.’ Any one of the relationships Our Lord mentions may be a competitive relationship. I may prefer to belong to my mother, or to my wife, or to myself; then says Jesus, you cannot be My disciple. This does not mean I will not be saved, but it does mean that I cannot be [entirely] ‘His.’ 9/4

Luke 14:26 has nothing to do with salvation or sanctification, but with unconditional identification with Jesus Christ. 9/28

Our Lord never insists upon obedience; He tells us very emphatically what we ought to do, but He never takes means to make us do it. We have to obey Him out of a oneness of spirit. That is why whenever Our Lord talked about discipleship, He prefaced it with an IF—you do not need to unless you like. ‘If any man will be My disciple, let him deny himself’; let him give up his right to himself to Me. Our Lord is not talking of eternal positions, but of being of value to Himself in this order of things. 11/2¹ (Emphasis added in all the above).

Chambers is clearly stating that discipleship, as well as sanctification, are optional in our salvation which is a departure from the historic Christian faith. It is a view that produces an elitism in that there are some “over whom Jesus writes the word ‘Mine’” and others over whom Jesus apparently writes “not Mine” yet, they are nevertheless saved.

This teaching is also found, in varying degrees, in the writings of men such as Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, and many so-called church leaders. We read in the words of Dr. Charles Stanley, senior pastor of the 12,000-member First Baptist church of Atlanta,

The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His People is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from his hand.²

Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy.³

Believers who lose or abandon their faith will retain their salvation⁴ (emphasis added).

Charles Ryrie agrees stating, “a believer could come to the place of not believing, yet God will not disown him.”⁵ It is inconceivable, in light of Scripture, how one could teach that a believer who, “for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever” or “those who walk away from the faith” are still in a state of salvation. One would search in vain to find any such words ever being uttered in the history of the Church prior to the latter part of the 19th century. The abysmal fruit of these erroneous teachings is undeniable to anyone with eyes to see, in that since their inception the professing Church has progressively fallen headlong into licentiousness, the leaven of which has indeed infected the whole lump. Nevertheless, despite the devastating effects of this teaching on the soul and the reprehensible dishonor they bring to God and His church, they are met with relatively little resistance.

Stanley in his “Handbook for Christian Living” writes, "A disciple is a follower of Christ." He then says “It is possible to be a child of God and never a disciple of Christ.” In other words, it is possible to be a Christian and never follow Christ. This directly contradicts the words of Christ in John 10:27, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Stanley then states that, “Discipleship has nothing to do with whether you will go to heaven or not.”⁶ How strange that a handbook for Christian living would deny the necessity of having to live a Christian life as defined by Christ. Is it any wonder why there are so many in the Church today that profess to be Christians and yet live like the world?

Another example of the optional discipleship teaching is by Greg Laurie, senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship. He makes the following statements about discipleship:

Let’s look first at the statements of Jesus concerning what is required in order for us to become His disciples. But let me make this doubly clear: These statements are not Jesus’ requirements for salvation.⁷

The requirements of discipleship are different than the requirements of salvation. To be a Christian, you need to believe in Him whom God has sent, and then you will receive eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. It is a gift. To be a disciple is to take up the cross daily and follow Him, making His will your will. It is a commitment. As you are learning, every disciple is a Christian but not every Christian is a disciple.⁸ (all italics added)

He says that since salvation is a gift, becoming a Christian does not require any commitment to follow Christ. To live in obedience to His will, “making His will your will,” is only necessary if one might choose to be His disciple. Again, does it come as any surprise then that multitudes within our churches are professing to be Christians without any commitment to Christ or to doing what He teaches? The world looks at the Church and claims it is filled with hypocrites. However, with this teaching that would be an impossibility as nothing more is required of a Christian than to simply make a profession of faith. There would be nothing to be hypocritical of if, according to this gospel, there is no standard of behavior required of a Christian. It should be clear to the reader, if following Christ and His teachings is indeed required in our salvation, then these false teachings can cost a man the eternal loss of his soul. It would be “a different gospel” than that taught by Christ!

Laurie then says that “every disciple is a Christian but not every Christian is a disciple.” However, when we look to Scripture, we find the opposite to be true. Judas was a disciple of Christ and yet was not a Christian (Matt. 26:14). When Jesus spoke in John 6:53-56 about eating the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking His blood it then follows in v. 66, “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” They were “disciples” but they were not true believers (v. 64). John Gill writes;

Some of the multitude of the disciples, who followed Christ, heard him, and professed to believe in him, and were baptized in his name, but were not true disciples, only nominal ones...they turned their backs on him; and as the words may be literally read, ‘returned to the things that were behind’; to the world, and to their old companions, to Satan and their own hearts lusts; like the dog to its vomit, and the swine to its wallowing in the mire...never more attended on his ministry, or had any intimacy and fellowship with him: and so it commonly is with apostates from the profession of Christ; they seldom or ever return, or are recovered; it is difficult, if not impossible, which is sometimes the case, to renew them again to repentance.⁹

Laurie’s statement that “every disciple is a Christian” is simply not true to Scripture. Likewise, we find no instances in Scripture that would substantiate the claim that “not every Christian is a disciple.” We read of Paul’s persecution of “the disciples of the Lord” in Acts 9;

Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem (emphasis added).

Here, “disciples of the Lord” are synonymous with “any belonging to the Way,” both “men or women.” In v.14 we read that Paul was given authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on the name of Christ, i.e., every believer. In Acts 11:26 we read, “And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.” In other words, prior to the name Christian, all believers, both men and women, were called disciples of the Lord. The Pulpit Commentary states;

Hitherto they had been called among themselves disciples, and brethren, and saints, and, by the Jews, men ‘of the Way’ (Acts 9:2), or ‘Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5), but now they received the name of Christians, as followers of Christ, from the outside world, and accepted it themselves (Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). From the Latin form of the word Christians, i.e. followers of Christ (like Herodians, followers of Herod; Marians, Pompeians, partisans of Marius and Pompey, etc.; Conybeare and Howson, vol. 1:130; Lewin, vol. 1:97), the designation must have been invented by the Gentiles, either by the Roman court or camp at Antioch, or by the Greek population, influenced as they were by Roman forms of speech current amongst them (compare the Greece-Oriental Nestorians, Arians, etc.). We may be sure that Christians, i.e. followers of Messiah, is not a name likely to have been given by Jews. There is no evidence either of its having been given in derision.¹⁰

We find then that the name Christian, as termed in the first century, was used to describe every follower or disciple of Christ. We read in Acts 14:21, “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples...” This passage is not stating that they made many disciples in contrast to others that remained uncommitted Christians, but that all who believed the gospel became disciples of Christ. Christ’s commission was to, “Go therefore and make disciples...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19, 20). Here again we come to understand that the sole aim of the gospel, as authorized by Christ, is to produce followers that learn and practice His teachings. A disciple by definition is “a learner/follower.” How could we possibly receive the gospel, learning to observe all things that He commands us, without a commitment to learning what He commands us? And what would be the purpose of learning what He commands without first having a pre-established commitment to obey what He commands? A gospel without discipleship would be self-contradictory and would undermine its own objective. It would be a “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6) than that commissioned by Christ and therefore a counterfeit gospel. As mentioned previously, the condition of hating one’s own life to become a disciple in Luke 14:26 is also required of those who would receive eternal life in John 12:25; “whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.”

In contrast to this optional discipleship view are the teachings of the most eminent and gifted of men in the exposition of Scripture throughout the centuries. Those who held to the truth with the utmost fervor and consistently opposed any such perversions of the gospel. As an example, Spurgeon, in a sermon he preached in the latter part of the 1800's states;

It is a shameful thing for a man to profess discipleship and yet refuse to learn his Lord’s will upon certain points, or even dare to decline obedience when that will is known. How can a man be a disciple of Christ when he openly lives in disobedience to Him? If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows his Lord’s will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Has not the Lord said, ‘He that taketh not up his cross, and cometh after Me, cannot be My disciple?’ Mistakes as to what the Lord’s will maybe are to be tenderly corrected, but anything like willful disobedience is fatal; to tolerate it would be treason to Him that sent us. Jesus must be received as King as well as Priest; and where there is any hesitancy about this, the foundation of godliness is not yet laid….Do not be in a hurry to count these supposed converts; do not take them into the church too soon; do not be too proud of their enthusiasm if it is not accompanied with some degree of softening and tenderness to show that the Holy Spirit has really been at work within them….Do not number your fishes before they are broiled; nor count your converts before you have tested and tried them.¹¹

In a sermon he preached in 1910 he stated;

There are some who seem willing to accept Christ as Savior who will not receive Him as Lord. They will not often state the case quite as plainly as that, but as actions speak more plainly than words, that is what their conduct practically says. How sad it is that some talk about their faith in Christ, yet their faith is not proved by their works! Some even speak as if they understood what we mean by the Covenant of Grace, yet alas, there is no good evidence of Grace in their lives, but very clear proof of sin (not Grace) abounding. I cannot conceive it possible for anyone to truly receive Christ as Savior and yet not to receive Him as Lord. One of the first instincts of a redeemed soul is to fall at the feet of the Savior and gratefully and adoringly to cry, ‘Blessed Master, bought with Your precious blood, I acknowledge that I am Yours—Yours only, Yours wholly, Yours forever! Lord, what will You have me to do?’...It is not possible for us to accept Christ as our Savior unless he also becomes our King, for a very large part of salvation consists in our being saved from sin’s dominion over us, and the only way in which we can be delivered from the mastery of Satan is by becoming subject to the mastery of Christ....If it were possible for sin to be forgiven, and yet for the sinner to live just as he lived before, he would not really be saved¹² (emphasis added).

In another sermon he preached,

Christ will be master of the heart, and sin must be mortified....Professor! Is sin subdued in you? If your life is unholy, then your heart is unchanged, and you are an unsaved person. The Savior will sanctify His people, renew them, give them a hatred of sin, and a love of holiness. The grace that does not make a man better than others is a worthless counterfeit. Christ saves His people, not IN their sins, but FROM their sins. Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.¹³

These opposing views of the Gospel message are a far more serious and vital issue than most seem to realize. Curtis I. Crenshaw, a lordship advocate, writes,

I’m afraid many will be in hell who thought they had embraced Jesus but were only comfortable with a false faith. Just as Legalism or earning one’s justification is not the Gospel and we rightly classify those who preach such as heretics (Gal. 1:8, 9), so also license or dead faith is not the Gospel (James 2:14ff; 1 John 2:3, 4). We emphasize again that this doctrine of optional holiness in the Christian life is rank heresy, promoting a faith that has no works, and is as much a departure from the Gospel as the doctrine of justification by our works.¹⁴

On the other side of the debate, Charles Ryrie says of the issue,

The importance of this question cannot be overestimated in relation to both salvation and sanctification. The message of faith only, and faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is false and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel.¹⁵

Ryrie rightly understands the seriousness of the issue, however, his statement is misleading. It has been well established in the debate that both views hold to the belief that it is faith alone that saves the soul. The Lordship view is not one of "faith plus the commitment of life," but rather the view that the nature of saving faith is such as cannot be otherwise than committed to Christ. In other words, the faith that receives and responds in obedience to the saving words of Christ, will likewise naturally receive and respond to every word that He spoke (Acts 3:22). Again, what was the gospel according to Christ but to,

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.

Here, Christ states that the Gospel whenever and wherever it is preached is to make disciples; One who learns and observes all of Christ’s commandments. That is to say, the Gospel, the grace that brings salvation to all men, teaches them to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age (Titus 2:12). God says in Mark 9:7, “This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him!” and in Acts 3:22, 23, “Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people,’ ” He is saying in essence, “Believe in My beloved Son by committing yourselves to learn and obey everything He teaches you lest you perish.” The Greek word for listen is this passage is ἀκούω [ak-oo’-o]. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states,

This prevalence of hearing points to an essential feature of biblical religion. It is a religion of the Word, because it is a religion of action, of obedience to the Word. The prophet is the bearer of the Word of Yahweh which demands obedience and fulfilment. Man is not righteous as he seeks to apprehend or perceive God by way of thought and vision, but as he hears the command of God and studies to observe it.…In the New Testament this is always the offering of salvation and ethical demand in one. Hearing, then, is always the reception both of grace and of the call to repentance. This means that the only marks to distinguish true hearing from purely physical hearing are faith (Matt 8:10; 9:2; 17:20 etc.) and action (Matt 7:16,24,26; Rom 2:13 etc.)…NT hearing as reception of the declared will of God always implies affirmation of this will as the willing of salvation and repentance by the man who believes and acts. There thus arises, as the crowning concept of the obedience which consists in faith and the faith which consists in obedience.¹⁶(emphasis added)

This faith which consists in obedience is that by which we are justified, sanctified and initiated into the process whereby our spiritual growth commences. It is not the end of the Christian’s war against sin, but the beginning. It is the beginning of an abhorrence of sin and a love for righteousness, and although we may stumble along the way, our commitment to obedience remains uninterrupted. When a believer is struggling with a particular sin in his or her life, it is not because Christ is not at that time Lord of their life, or that area of their life, as Ryrie and others teach, but rather the sole reason there is a struggle is because Christ is Lord of their life. It is the one who has no struggles with sin that has not yet come under the lordship of Christ. They have yet to be “born of the Spirit” and thus are not at war with the flesh (1 Pet. 2:11). The Lordship of Christ over our life is not determined by the extent to which we have been perfected, but rather or not righteousness is being diligently pursued and progressively attained according to the standard set forth in God’s Word; the process of putting “to death the deeds of the body” (Rom. 8:13) and “purifying ourselves even as He is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). A believer, by definition, is one committed to Christ with their “mind set” and “walk” ever being that of obedience. However, because of the weakness of the flesh, God, through Christ, has made provision for sin within that commitment. Therefore, the Apostle John states that the Christian is one who confesses sin (1 John 1:9), but states as well that it is impossible that he would walk in the way of sin (1 John 3:9). An uncommitted Christian is an oxymoron, and thus we find no place in Scripture where a believer is ever said to recommit or rededicate their life to Christ as it would be contradictory. Those who use the prodigal Son or backslidden Israel as examples fail in that in both cases they were not believers but unregenerate. So then, to teach that one can be a Christian while refusing to submit to the word of God as the standard by which they conduct their lives, is contrary to the entire work of Christ in salvation and a mockery of the gift of the Holy Spirit which dwells in all who are His. Throughout Scripture, faith is ascribed to those who obediently and characteristically submit to God’s words under His rule; Hebrews 11:1ff.

Jesus is the great Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. 13:20). He says in John 10:11, “ I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” We read in 1 Peter 2:25, “For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.” Again, the Church is the “flock of God,” 1 Peter 5:2, and every member a sheep under the guidance and tutelage of the Chief Shepherd. What does Scripture teach as the role of the Shepherd in relationship to the sheep? In 1 Kings 22:17 we read, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master.’” “ We read in Matthew 2:6, speaking of Christ, “For from you [Bethlehem] shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel,’” and in Ezekiel 37:24, “ My servant David [Christ] shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.” In other words, they will receive the gospel which makes disciples or sheep that follow the great Shepherd, and they shall be taught to observe all things which the King has commanded and obey them. This is the gospel of Christ! These verses make it clear that the Shepherd is “Master,” “Ruler,” and “King” over the sheep. Those who profess to be Christian’s who do not follow Christ as His disciples, taking Christ as their Master, Ruler, and King, are not legitimate members of His flock and have no right to claim, “The Lord is My Shepherd” (Ps. 23:1). Those who teach otherwise are aptly described in Scripture as wolves in sheep’s clothing who lead the sheep astray. “My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray” (Jer. 50:6). God says in Ezekiel 34:11, 12,

Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness.’

It is indeed a cloudy and dark day when so-called shepherds are the ones responsible for leading the sheep astray. Paul warns the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31;

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears.

Here, once again, we find Paul weeping over the false teachings coming against the gospel. He says “among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things.” Is it not a twisted thing to teach that one can become a sheep of the flock of God while refusing to follow the Shepherd of the flock? Teaching them that the Shepherd is so “loving” that He rescues His lost sheep only to allow them the choice of leading themselves, leaving them as easy prey for the wolves? Is it not demonstrably obvious that this would be contrary to the very nature and character of a Shepherd sent for the purpose of finding His straying sheep? (Matt. 15:24). They are called lost sheep because they are no longer following after their Shepherd. To tell the lost sheep that it is not required of them to return to the leading, guidance, and rule of the shepherd is equivalent to telling them they can be found while remaining lost. What could be more twisted and deceptive than this? God says in Isaiah 56:9-11, “All you beasts of the field, come to devour—all you beasts in the forest. His watchmen are blind; they are all without knowledge; they are all silent dogs; they cannot bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber....they are shepherds who have no understanding” (Isa. 56:9-11). It should be clear to anyone with ears to hear that these false teachings are contrary to the simple words of Christ, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27) (words in brackets added). They are My disciples.

Paul writes in Titus 2:11-14,

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. (emphasis added).

Here, Paul gives us the gospel in capsulated form; forgiveness, justification, sanctification, and glorification. He says the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation...training us. What does this training teach us about grace in this passage? That it is not required that we turn from our sins? That Christ lived a righteous life in our stead so living righteously ourselves is not necessary? That coming under His lordship, as His disciple, is optional? That sanctification is discretionary? That grace and good works are opposed to one another? No! The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us [discipleship] to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions [repentance], to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age [sanctification], waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ [glorification], being zealous for good works. A grace that excludes any one of these is not the Gospel as commissioned by Christ. Again He says, Go therefore and make disciples, a people committed to following My teaching, of all the nations, for the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age. Therefore, lordship, discipleship, and sanctification are, of necessity, inherent in the gift of salvation, that it might make certain the attainment of its intended purpose and goal of observing all that Christ commands. If grace trains us, it is presupposed that one must become a learner/follower to be trained to do what it teaches. A gospel that would give us the option of refusing to come under the lordship of Christ would be self-contradictory, self-defeating, and wholly ineffectual in accomplishing its stated aim. Therefore, a grace that “trains us” without necessarily becoming a disciple, could be likened to an employer that trains us without necessarily becoming his employee or as a college Professor that could teach us without necessarily becoming a student under their tutelage. In other words, it is nonsensical.

Jesus says in Matthew 6:24 that, “ No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” Jesus is not teaching here that serving a master is optional but that it is not possible to genuinely serve two. We must either choose to serve God with an unreserved commitment to Him as our only Master or, as the passage assumes, we are already committed to serving an opposing master such as mammon, self, and sin. Our love and loyalty will be with one or the other. If we choose Christ as our Master our service to God will be done in the spirit of love, seeking to be loyal and faithful to Him, while despising our prior master, “the old man” with his former conduct and deceitful lusts (Eph. 4:21-23). On the other hand, if mammon, self, and sin is our master, then any service to God will be nothing more than filthy rags (Isa. 64:6), a forced legalistic obedience which will ultimately result in disloyalty and disdain toward God. We cannot be loyal and loving servants of both Christ and sin, for no one can serve two masters.

We find an example of this among the unbelieving Jews who professed to be subjects of the kingdom of God but refused to take Christ as their ruling Master and King. It is written in Luke 19:14, “But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’” Why did they hate Him? Because as loyal servants of their own sinful pride and lusts they necessarily despised Christ, “for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” It then says in v. 27, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” We have no scriptural basis whatsoever to suppose that a professing Christian who does likewise will not suffer the same fate. “For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:11). Those who refuse to come under His reign are not simply “carnal Christians,” as some would suggest, but enemies of the risen Christ. They will not simply lose rewards in the Kingdom, but be brought before Christ and condemned. The promise of salvation is everlasting life in the kingdom of God; that place where Christ has perfect rule and reign over all its inhabitants. Those who want to be saved that they might enter that Kingdom, while at the same time contemplating in their hearts, “We do not want this man to reign over us ” directly contradict themselves. That is to say, “I seek to go to that place where Christ reigns and where sin has no place, but while I remain on earth I want to be my own king, ruling my own life, serving sin as my master.” In other words, “I want to be in the Kingdom but I despise the reigning King and refuse to serve Him.” Such a one reveals that he does not so abhor his sin that he is seeking to be set free from it, longing for the refuge of that place wherein perfect righteousness dwells, but rather he is simply seeking to escape the punishment of sin while remaining enslaved to it. He would prefer a heaven without God if he had the choice. It negates the purpose for which Christ died in that He might set us free from the rule and dominion of sin (John 8:36, Rom. 6:22). “Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). If we reject the Lordship of Christ, we remain under the dominion of sin and the condemnation of the law (Rom. 6:14). In other words, to say we desire salvation while rejecting His Lordship is a contradiction in terms. Those who take Him as Lord in this life, will have Him as Lord in the life to come, but those who reject His lordship in this life, He will reject in the life to come. Again, Christ said it so plainly that it cannot be missed, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.”

To refuse to come under the Lordship of Christ is idolatry. The sin of idolatry is not limited to the worship of carved images, but it is to serve someone, or something, other than the God revealed in Scripture. To serve any master, including self, rather than God, through Christ, is to rebel against and violate the command, “You shall have no other gods but Me,” and we are told in Rev. 21:8 and 22:15, that all idolaters will experience the second death. There are those of whom the Apostle Paul speaks whose god is their appetite (Phil. 3:19). Colossians 3:5 states that serving the flesh by way of fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, is idolatry. According to Scripture then, to teach that Christ can be received as Savior while refusing to come under His lordship, “allowing self to continue to occupy the throne of one’s heart,” is a teaching that is offering “idolatry” as a valid option in salvation. It is, in essence, to tempt the soul to go after other gods; an error which God takes extremely serious as He states in Deut. 13:6-9,

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’...you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.

God says to those of His people, with your own hands you must kill your own brother, your own son or daughter, your own wife, your best friend, if any one of them would entice you away from an unwavering love, commitment, and allegiance to Me. In other words, God demands, in the starkest terms imaginable, an allegiance to the command “You shall have no other gods but Me” for the sake of the well-being of His people. This allegiance is not abrogated in the New Testament as Christ demands this same loyalty;

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matt. 10:37, 38).

Although we are not called in this day to put to death one who would lead us astray, surely this does not diminish the seriousness of any teaching which allows for idolatry among his people, whether it be in the worship and service of a god on the throne of a false religious system, or that of serving the flesh (Col. 3:5); the god of self on the throne of our own heart.

What was the original cause of the fall of man? It was Adam’s rebellion against the authority of God to have absolute rule over his life. What was the consequence? Death—the denial of access to the “tree of life” (Gen. 3:24). How is man restored from his fallen state? By repenting of the sin of rebelling against His authority; receiving forgiveness for the sin of rebelling against His authority; being restored to a right relationship with God by once again coming under His authority, and thereby receiving that which was lost—eternal life—restored access to the “tree of Life” (Rev. 22:14). Salvation is the restoring of that which was lost in the fall of Adam through the second Adam which is Christ (1 Cor. 15:22, 45). Therefore, a salvation that does not consist of renouncing self-governance by submitting to God’s governance, is again, a contradiction in terms. When God says, “I will be their God and they shall be My people” (2 Cor. 6:16, Heb. 8:10), which includes every Christian, He is speaking of a people who have come under His authority as supreme Master and Lord. Adam Clarke writes;

To be God’s people implies that they should give God their whole hearts, serve him with all their light and strength, and have no other object of worship or dependence but himself. Any of these conditions broken, the covenant is rendered null and void, and the other party absolved from his engagement.¹⁷

Matthew Henry writes;

They shall be to him a people, to love, honour, observe, and obey him in all things complying with his cautions, conforming to his commands, comporting with his providences, copying out his example, taking complacency in his favour. This those must do and will do who have God for their God; this they are bound to do as their part of the contract; this they shall do, for God will enable them to do it, as an evidence that he is their God and that they are his people, for it is God himself who first founds the relation, and then fills it up with grace suitable and sufficient, and helps them in their measure to fill it up with love and duty so that God engages both for himself and them.¹⁸

So it is, the true people of God are, by definition, those who have come under His Lordship. Those who profess to be God’s people while rejecting His authority are, in every practical sense, atheists. They may praise God with their lips but if their hearts are far from Him there is no spiritual distinction between them and the fool who says in his heart “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1), and actually places them in a worse state than those who claim no faith at all.

Christ says, Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you (Luke 6:46). He is saying in essence, “Why do you say you believe in Me by claiming to be My servant, and yet you do not serve Me. A servant obeys his master and therefore your actions contradict your profession.” There can be no question, according to this verse, that those who believed in Him were to take Him as their Lord, coming under the authority of His word. Jesus was certainly not addressing a certain elite group that had decided to “make” Him Lord in contradistinction to those who had only received Him as Savior. No, He was addressing all who professed to have faith in Him, who confessed Him as Lord (Rom.10:9), but were not practicing His teachings, and were thereby denying His Lordship, and consequently their faith. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work. (Titus 1:16). William Burkett wrote;

That no sorts of persons are so odious to God, and abominable in his sight, as those who make a profession of his holy name and truth, but walk contrary in their lives to their profession.¹⁹

The Pulpit Commentary states,

There is nothing, perhaps, so morally defiling to the soul as religious hypocrisy. The man who with the lips professes to know God, and who in the life denies him, gets deeper stains upon his soul than the agnostic who professes that he knows nothing about him. What millions in our churches every Sunday publicly, at each service, avow with their lip their belief in God, but in their week-day life ‘he is not in all their thoughts’! Thus souls get deeply dyed in corruption in Christian churches.²⁰

Arthur W. Pink writes;

There are multitudes who believe in Christ who do not put His precepts into practice....And because they ‘believe in Christ’ they suppose that all is well with them and that when they die they will go to heaven. Nor are there many now left on earth who are likely to disillusion them. The great majority of the preachers in this apostate age are only adding to the number of the deceived, by telling them that all God requires of them is to believe in the Gospel and receive Christ as their personal Savior. They quote such passages as John 3:16 and Acts 16:31, which contain the word ‘believe,’ but are guiltily silent on the many verses which insist on repentance, forsaking of sins, denying of self, and which call to obedience.²¹

We read in Ps. 119:136, “My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.” These are not the words of a legalist, but a man after God’s own heart. If the Psalmist would weep as such over a disobedient people, how much more so should the tears of the Christian flow at the thought of a modern day gospel which allows for a salvation without obedience, quenching the very essence of the cause and purpose of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Oh how David would weep if he were in the professing Church today. This was the same heaviness of heart which caused Paul to weep when he said,

Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things (Phil. 3:17-19).

According to the non-lordship advocates, anyone who would preach a Gospel that states that “Christ must be received as Lord to be Savior,” which makes a change in one’s heart that results in turning from his iniquities a necessary aspect of salvation, comes under the curse of preaching a false gospel, the result of which is eternal damnation (Gal. 1:9). If this were true, then it would follow that the early Church fathers as well as every acknowledged Christian leader since the reformation up to the turn of the 19th century, along with those who accept their teachings as truth, preached and believed a false gospel. Calvin, Luther, Knox, Spurgeon, Wesley, Ryle, Whitefield, Bunyan, Edwards, Henry, etc, as well as the Church creeds and confessions throughout her history, held to a Gospel of repentance (a turning from sin), which brings one under the dominion of His Word as the rule of one’s heart and life. All these men held to a salvation by faith alone, but not one held to the view that the nature of saving faith could be of such character as could reject the lordship of Christ. In Luther’s day it would not be labeled as “Lordship salvation” but “Christianity.” Any thought of receiving Christ as Savior and not Lord would be met with fervent refutation and would be considered repugnant and offensive. Luther’s description of faith, as previously expressed, bears this out;

Faith…is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 3); it kills the old Adam and makes altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly…He who does not these works is a faithless man.²² (emphasis added).

We find then that the staunchest advocates of salvation by “faith alone” defined it as that which necessitates a life of “good works.” It “is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly.” To say that any one of these men held to a “non-Lordship” theology is at best unconscionably ignorant, or at worst maliciously deceptive. It is disingenuous, to say the least, for Zane Hodges, a non-lordship advocate, to quote Luther and Calvin in his book “Absolutely Free” as though they would be in agreement with his argument when, in fact, the teaching of Luther and Calvin would be diametrically opposed to Hodges assertions. D. A. Carson wrote, in reference to Hodges book “The Gospel Under Siege,”

Perhaps one of the most intriguing and disturbing features of Zane C. Hodges 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’s interpretation of the passages he treats.²³

J. I. Packer writes;

If, ten years ago, you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one's life, and no perseverance in faith, I would have told you that you were out of your mind. Stark, staring bonkers, is the British phrase I would probably have used. But now the thing has happened. In The Gospel Under Siege (1981) and Absolutely Free! (1989), Zane Hodges, for one, maintains all these positions as essential to the Christian message arguing that without them the Gospel gets lost in legalism. Wow.²⁴

It is important to note, as many seem unaware, Charles Stanley, agrees with much of what Zane Hodges teaches in regards to the gospel and the Lordship of Christ. In his praise of Stanley’s book “Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?” Hodges writes, “Stanley is as far removed as possible from the Lordship Salvation camp.”²⁵ Stanley writes in the book, “Salvation or justification…stands independently of faith. Consequently, God does not require a constant attitude of faith in order to be saved - only an act of faith…You and I are not saved because we have an enduring faith. We are saved because at a moment in time we expressed faith in our enduring Lord” (emphasis added).²⁶ Thus, we are introduced to the novel and appalling teaching of the salvation of an unbelieving believer as quoted earlier.

Hodges states in his book “Absolutely Free” that, “Lordship salvation holds a doctrine of saving faith that is in conflict with that of Luther and Calvin and, most importantly, in conflict with God’s word."²⁷ He then quotes Luther in regards to faith as an example of this conflict;

Faith holds out the hand and the sack and just lets the good be done to it. For as God is the giver who bestows such things in His love, we are the receivers who receive the gift through faith which does nothing. For it is not our doing and cannot be merited by our works. It has already been granted and given. You only need open your mouth, or rather, your heart, and keep still and let yourself be filled.²⁸

In referring to this quote Hodges then says “But lordship theology abandons Reformation thought about the nature of saving faith and thus also abandons biblical thought.”²⁹ This reveals an elementary misunderstanding of Luther’s view of the nature of saving faith as well as that of the Lordship view. The Lordship view is in full agreement with Luther that justifying faith is received with an empty hand, without any merit on our part whatsoever. However, both also agree that what is received by the empty-handed believer’s faith is a “circumcised heart” through the powerful work of the Holy Spirit of God; A heart washed from evil (Jer. 4:14), a heart to know God (Jer. 24:7), a heart wherein the law is written (Jer. 31:33), a heart that fears God (Jer. 32:40) a heart of flesh (Ezek. 11:19) a “new heart” (Ezek 36:26), a pure heart (Matt. 5:8, 1 Tim. 1:5, 2 Tim. 2:22, 1 Peter 1:22), a heart which is naturally “zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). In other words, “Faith holds out the hand and the sack and just lets the good be done to it. For as God is the giver who bestows such things in His love, we are the receivers who receive the gift through faith which does nothing. For it is not our doing and cannot be merited by our works.” But this faith “…brings with it the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly.” According to Luther the “nature of saving faith,” is such that it cannot be otherwise than loving, living, active and productive whereas Hodges view of faith is that it can be unloving, dead, inactive and unproductive, which is precisely that which James opposes in his epistle (James 2:14-26) as does the rest of Scripture. Luther understood that there would be confusion on this matter of faith and works when he stated,

It is not an easy matter to teach faith without works, and still to require works. Unless the ministers of Christ are wise in handling the mysteries of God and rightly divide the word, faith and good works may easily be confused. Both the doctrine of faith and the doctrine of good works must be diligently taught, and yet in such a way that both the doctrines stay within their God-given sphere. If we only teach works, as our opponents do, we shall lose the faith. If we only teach faith people will come to think that good works are superfluous.³⁰

It is only through a proper understanding of the Lordship view of the “nature of faith,” that both the doctrines stay within their God-given sphere. While on the other hand, the non-Lordship view, as well attested to by its widespread influence in the professing Church today, “People will come to think that good works are superfluous,” which is contrary to the Gospel of Christ. A.W. Tozer, over a half a century ago, wrote,

We are under constant temptation these days to substitute another Christ for the Christ of the New Testament. The whole drift of modern religion is toward such a substitution. To avoid this we must hold steadfastly to the concept of Christ as set forth so clearly and plainly in the Scriptures of truth. Though an angel from heaven should preach anything less than the Christ of the apostles let him be forthrightly and fearlessly rejected...Salvation comes not by ‘accepting the finished work’ or ‘deciding for Christ’. It comes by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the whole, living, victorious Lord who, as God and man, fought our fight and won it, accepted our debt as His own and paid it, took our sins and died under them and rose again to set us free. This is the true Christ, and nothing less will do. But something less is among us, nevertheless, and we do well to identify it so that we may repudiate it. That something is a poetic fiction, a product of the romantic imagination and religious fancy. It is a Jesus, gentle, dreamy, shy, sweet, almost effeminate, and marvelously adaptable to whatever society He may find Himself in. He is cooed over by women disappointed in love, patronized by pro tem celebrities and recommended by psychiatrists as a model of a well-integrated personality. He is used to a means to almost any carnal end, but He is never acknowledged as Lord. These quasi Christians follow a quasi Christ. They want His help but not His interference. They will flatter Him but never obey Him.³¹

Scripture defines love to Christ, not as something professed, or as mere sentimental feelings, but as a faithful walk of obedience to His commandments. “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me” (John 14:21). Since, in the non-Lordship view obedience is optional, it must follow, to avoid contradiction, that a Christian’s love for Christ is also optional. So it is that we find Zane Hodges stating, “The scriptural revelation knows nothing of a doctrine in which Christian love for God is guaranteed by the mere fact that one is a Christian.”³² The problem with this statement, however, is that it does indeed directly contradict “The scriptural revelation.” The Apostle Paul says, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed” i.e., doomed to destruction (1 Cor. 16:22, NKJV).” One would be hard-pressed to come up with words that could make it any clearer that every Christian must necessarily love Christ. The Apostle James tells us that the crown of life, i.e., eternal life, is promised only to those who love Christ (James 1:12). In James 2:5 we find that it is only those who love God that will inherit the promise of the Kingdom. Throughout Scripture those who love God are contrasted with the wicked who despise Him, “The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy” (Ps. 145:20). Again, it difficult to conceive of words that could make it any clearer that anyone who does not love God will perish. According to these passages there are only two types of people on the earth; those who love God and those who are wicked—Those who obey Him and those who disobey Him—Those who have come under His Lordship and those who have refused to. There is no middle ground. Scripture allows only one alternative to love and that is hate. The preservation of the soul is promised only to those who love Him while, on the other hand, Scripture assures us that if anyone hates the Lord Jesus Christ they will be condemned. “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light” (Jn. 3:20). Nevertheless, in spite of the clear Scriptural revelation, the non-Lordship view allows one to be in a state of salvation, being at peace with God, in absence of any love for Him. We are warned of this same error in Jeremiah’s day;

Thus says the Lord of hosts, do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. They continually say to those who despise Me [those who do not love the Lord], ‘The Lord has said, You shall have peace’; [rather than as Paul says let him be accursed] And everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart [rejects the lordship of Christ], they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’ [rather than as Paul says, “if you live according to the flesh you will die”]...I have not sent these prophets yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings [they would have repented of their sins](Jer. 23:16-22) (emphasis and brackets added, NKJV).

These verses are descriptive of much of what we hear from the non-Lordship teachers in our day. They counsel the people that in coming to Christ they are not required to turn from the evil of their doings and thus can continue to follow the dictates of their own hearts rather than the dictates of Christ. Therefore coming under His Lordship as His disciple is not necessary. Yet they say to them, “no evil shall come upon you” as your salvation is eternally secure. Here, God admonishes that if anyone would say to those who despise Him by refusing to obey His words and commandments, ‘You shall have peace’, do not listen to their words for they are the flattering words of men and not the words of the Spirit. Teachers that speak comforting words that scratch “itching ears…to suit their own passions” (2 Tim. 4:3). They fail to warn the people that unless they turn from the evil of their ways, they shall perish in their ways. They speak in the “name of the Lord,” while in fact the source of their speech is the counsel of their own hearts. The result of such counsel, as is stated, makes for a “worthless” people; A people who do not live in accordance with God’s will and purpose for which they were created. They worship God in vain, as they follow after the doctrines of men who offer them a false hope with empty promises (Matt. 15:9). Matthew Henry writes;

They tell sinners that it shall be well with them though they persist in their sins, Jeremiah 23:17. See here who those are that they encourage—those that despise God, that slight his authority, and have low and mean thoughts of his institutions, and those that walk after the imagination of their own heart, that are worshippers of idols and slaves to their own lusts those that are devoted to their pleasures put contempt upon their God. Yet see how these prophets caressed and flattered them: they should have been still saying, there is no peace to those that go on in their evil ways—Those that despise God shall be lightly esteemed—Woe, and a thousand woes, to them but they still said, you shall have peace no evil shall come upon you. And, which was worst of all, they told them, God has said so, so making him to patronize sin, and to contradict himself. Note, those that are resolved to go on in their evil ways will justly be given up to believe the strong delusions of those who tell them that they shall have peace though they go on....God disowns all that these false prophets said to sooth people up in their sins....They said to sinners, you shall have peace. If they had stood in my counsel, as they pretend...they would have done all they could to turn people from their evil way in general and from all the particular evil of their doings.…would have made this their scope in all their preaching, to part between men and their sins but it appeared that this was a thing they never aimed at, but, on the contrary, to encourage sinners in their sins.³³

We find in the words of Jeremiah, v. 22, that when God’s word is proclaimed by way of His counsel, sinners are “turned from their evil way and the evil of their doings.” We find throughout Scripture that the primary work of a true prophet is always that of turning people from evil to good. Why would we suppose that the gospel message of Christ the Prophet, indeed the Prophet of all prophets, would be designed by God to have any lesser effect on sinners? Once again this exposes the distortion of non-Lordship advocates in that they claim repentance, in the sense of turning from sin, is not to be joined with the message of salvation. Ryrie says, “Repentance is a ‘false addition to faith.’” We find throughout Scripture that the primary work of a true prophet is always that of turning people from evil to good. Why would we suppose that the gospel message of Christ the Prophet, indeed the Prophet of all prophets, would be designed by God to have any lesser effect on sinners? This exposes the distortion of non-Lordship advocates in their claiming that repentance, in the sense of turning from sin, is not to be joined with the message of salvation. Ryrie says, “Repentance is a ‘false addition to faith.’” ³⁴ Chafer states that, “The New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation.”³⁵ However, he then says elsewhere that, “Repentance, which is a change of mind, is included in believing.” ³⁶ If repentance is included in believing and believing is the condition of salvation, then would it not follow that repentance is indeed a condition for salvation? These contradictory statements can be explained by Chafer’s use of the term repentance as defined in two different ways. That of the traditional view which is a change of mind about sin brought about by the conviction of the Spirit, which he insists is not included in believing, and repentance, as he defines it, which is “a turning from every other confidence (good works, self-effort, a religious system or anyone or anything else)” ³⁷ which “is included in believing.” In other words, the repentance which is included in believing has nothing to do with turning from sin but with what we have confidence in. However, “Any understanding of repentance in the New Testament must first and foremost rest upon its Old Testament foundation.”³⁸ The Hebrew word most commonly used to describe repentance in the Old Testament is bWv, shuwb, [shoov]. We read in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament;

The Bible is rich in idioms describing man’s responsibility in the process of repentance. Such phrases would include the following: “incline your heart unto the Lord your God” (Josh 24:23); “circumcise yourselves to the Lord” (Jer 4:4); “wash your heart from wickedness” (Jer 4:14); “break up your fallow ground” (Hos 10:12) and so forth. All these expressions of man’s penitential activity, however, are subsumed and summarized by this one verb ‎šûb‎. For better than any other verb it combines in itself the two requisites of repentance: to turn from evil and to turn to the good…It should be noted that in a number of places ‎šûb ‎means “to return from exile".… A return from exile was reclamation as much as a return from any form of sin…To be sure, there is no systematic spelling out of the doctrine of repentance in the OT. It is illustrated (Ps 51) more than anything else. Yet the fact that people are called “to turn” either “to” or “away from” implies that sin is not an ineradicable stain, but by turning, a God-given power, a sinner can redirect his destiny. There are two sides in understanding conversion, the free sovereign act of God’s mercy and man’s going beyond contrition and sorrow to a conscious decision of turning to God. The latter includes repudiation of all sin and affirmation of God’s total will for one’s life.³⁹

The word used in the New Testament is metanoe/w, metanoeo [me-taun-i-eh’-o] meaning to change one’s mind. The connection with its Hebrew counterpart would be that of a change of mind which results in a change of direction. Kittle’s states,

metanoe/w [metanoeo] thus approximates to bWv [šûb] for religious and ethical conversion. In the three prophetic passages it also refers not merely to the individual case of penitent change of mind but to an alteration in total attitude, to the relation to God which embraces the whole of life, to a change in nature which results from a reorientation brought about by God….On the basis of the religious concepts of the OT it is thus easy for metanoe/w to take on in the LXX [Septuagint] a religious and ethical sense which, with its connotation of a lasting change, is far removed from the secular understanding…Investigation of the history of the term up to NT days has shown us, however, the only path which may be followed, and exposition of the theological usage of the NT will pursue this to its destination, namely, that metanoe/w [metanoeo] and meta/noia [metanoia] are the forms in which the NT gives new expression to the ancient concept of religious and moral conversion…It demands radical conversion, a transformation of nature, a definitive turning from evil, a resolute turning to God in total obedience (Mark 1:15; Matt 4:17; 18:3). He who does not convert falls under divine judgment (Matt 11:20 ff. par.; Luke 13:3,5; 19:40 ff.; 23:28 ff.). This conversion is once-for-all. There can be no going back, only advance in responsible movement along the way now taken. It affects the whole man, first and basically the centre of personal life, then logically his conduct at all times and in all situations, his thoughts, words and acts (Matt 12:33 ff. par.; 23:26; Mark 7:15 par.). The whole proclamation of Jesus, with its categorical demands for the sake of God’s kingdom (the Sermon on the Mount, the sayings about discipleship), is a proclamation of meta/noia when the term is not used. It is a proclamation of unconditional turning to God, of unconditional turning from all that is against God, not merely that which is downright evil, but that which in a given case makes total turning to God impossible (Matt 5:29 f., 44; 6:19 f.; 7:13 f. par.; 10:32-39 par.; Mark 3:31 ff. par.; Luke 14:33, cf. Mark 10:21 par. etc.,® I, 589 ). As distinct from all forms of eschatological enthusiasm, or moralism, or casuistry, the demand for conversion is the one and only imperative in Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God. It is addressed to all without distinction and presented with unmitigated severity in order to indicate the only way of salvation there is. It calls for total surrender, total commitment to the will of God.⁴⁰

So here we have, from the most comprehensive dictionary of the Greek language ever published, with over 30 Biblical scholars named as contributors, repentance defined as “a definitive turning from evil, a resolute turning to God in total obedience,” “a total surrender and total commitment to the will of God.” This is irreconcilable with, and in stark contrast to, the non-Lordship definition of the term. It refutes as well their argument that since the word metanoia is not found in the Gospel of John it proves that repentance is not to be included in the Gospel message. It fails to recognize the fact that, “The whole proclamation of Jesus, with its demands” which is found throughout John’s Gospel (John 3:19-21, John 12:25, etc.), “is a proclamation of metanoia when the term is not used."

Jeremiah says, “But if they had stood in My counsel then they would have turned them from their evil way.” Which counsel would have such an effect? The counsel that “does not impose repentance [of sin] upon the unsaved” or that of Christ when He says, “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17), which His hearers unquestionably understood as turning from their evil way? He says in Matthew 11:21, “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Sackcloth and ashes symbolizes deep remorse, sorrow, and mourning. Is this the effect produced when one simply has a change of mind about good works, self-effort or who Christ is? No, rather it is the result of a deep, heartfelt, Spirit induced conviction of sin. No one comes to faith in Christ without this convicting work of the Spirit in the heart, whereby they are convinced of their need of Christ and His saving work on their behalf, turning to Him that they might be “set free” from sin. For it is not possible to have a faith in Christ that refuses to receive the blessing for which He was sent, for “God…sent…Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness” (Acts 3:26). Likewise, it is equally impossible to be turned from our wickedness without “a resolute turning to God in total obedience,” coming under the Lordship of Christ. It is not that we must first cease from sin in order to be saved, as some have falsely claimed is the Lordship view, but rather God, by means of His Spirit, through the instrument of the living and active Word of God, which is, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12), cuts deep into the sinners innermost being and reveals the true state of their desperately wicked hearts (Jer. 17:9) and thus with a Spirit provoked conviction he relents of his evil, saying, ‘What have I done?’ (Jer. 8:6) and seeks after reconciliation that he might come into a right relationship with his Maker, with a heartfelt desire that God would be his God with a newfound mindfulness that it ought not ever to have been otherwise. It is not a worldly sorrow that grieves over the consequence of sin, namely God’s wrath, but a godly sorrow that grieves over sin as the cause of such wrath. “Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations” (Ezek. 36:31). The Spirit reveals to the heart sin in its true light which results in a change of mind in regards to it and thus being broken over sin will not do otherwise than cry out for deliverance, turning to Christ, seeking God’s mercy for salvation, which once granted will then immediately enter into the process of sanctification whereby the deliverance from sin comes to fruition. It is only through this conversion that they can then cease to continue in sin (1 Jn. 5:18, etc.) as His divine power grants to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). How odd would it be to the ears of one who has now come to recognize the wretchedness and misery that has befallen them as a consequence of their being their own god to hear that they can remain as such if they so will. It would be like telling a prisoner he has been set free but it is not required of him that he leave his prison cell. The greatest gift and privilege that anyone will ever receive in this life is that of coming under the Lordship of Christ whereby the captive of sin is set free. Those who refuse His Lordship do so because they have not yet received a Spirit wrought loathing of themselves for their sin, and loathe instead the thought of ever having to part with their sin, clinging to it rather than Christ; The mindset of the flesh which the Spirit alone can amend. The very essence of the Gospel message is that of turning men from the evil of their way, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5), to serve the living God (1 Thess. 1:9). God says to Ezekiel, “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand” (Ezek. 3:18). Even so, we would argue, those who preach a Gospel without repentance of sin will indeed have blood on their hands. Spurgeon wrote,

An unholy Church! It is of no use to the world and of no esteem among men...it is an abomination, hell’s laughter, heaven’s abhorrence...the worst evils which have ever come upon the world have been brought upon her by an unholy Church.⁴¹.

An unholy Church is an oxymoron and indeed an abhorrence to God, as well as the mockery of the world, and it is impossible to imagine a more efficacious way of forming it than by a gospel that teaches that living a holy life is optional and submission to Christ's Lordship unnecessary. It is an erroneous church, produced by an erroneous gospel, producing erroneous Christians, clinging to an erroneous cross. (continued in Part II) .