|
|
Though historic Evangelicalism has been unified and monolithic in its understanding of sola fide and of the connection between faith and works, that unity was ruptured in the final quarter of the twentieth century. It appeared as an outbreak within the ranks of dispensationalism, the “Lordship salvation” controversy. This controversy was carried on chiefly between John MacArthur on one side and Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie on the other.
Advocates of “Lordship salvation” argue that saving faith involves embracing Christ as both Savior and Lord and that true faith inevitably, necessarily, and immediately begins to display the fruit of obedience. That is, the process of sanctification by which we are conformed to the image of Christ begins certainly and immediately upon our justification. This process of sanctification is neither perfect in this life nor is it in any way the ground of our justification. This ground remains exclusively the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by faith alone. But the justified person is manifestly a changed person who is regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He acknowledges, embraces, and to some degree submits to Christ as Lord.
The non-Lordship camp acknowledges that every Christian should embrace the Lordship of Christ and manifest the fruit of faith. The fruit of faith, however, has no necessary connection to justification. It is possible to be a “carnal Christian”: saving faith may be present without any subsequent manifestation of it through works. It is possible, though not desirable, for a person to receive Jesus as Savior without in any way embracing him as Lord. Neither repentance nor submission to Christ’s Lordship is a necessary element of saving faith. To make it necessary is legalism and a tacit denial of the free grace of the gospel. It is no accident that Zane Hodges’s book on the subject is entitled Absolutely Free! Hodges and Ryrie are convinced they are defending the purity of the gospel of grace. MacArthur and the Lordship camp are convinced they are defending the biblical gospel from anti nomianism.
The chief question in dispute was whether a person can be saved by embracing Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. At issue were the necessary conditions or requirements for justification. The debate centered on faith and works. Does saving faith necessarily produce the works of obedience? MacArthur insists that true saving faith must necessarily and inevitably yield works of obedience. Ryrie and Hodges insist that though faith should immediately produce works of obedience, it does not always do so. The “carnal Christian” is one who receives Jesus as Savior but may die without ever embracing him as Lord.
MacArthur protests that this is a blatant form of antinomianism and a departure from both the biblical view of justification and the historic Protestant view. Ryrie and Hodges say MacArthur is teaching a form of neonomianism or legalism, by which works are added to faith as a necessary condition for justification. Each side argues that the other preaches a gospel different from the biblical gospel and hence a “different gospel,” which places them under the anathema declared by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1.
As this intramural debate among dispensationalists spilled over into the broader evangelical community, leaders from Lutheran and Reformed communities became involved. James Boice, Michael Horton, J. I. Packer, Rod Rosenbladt, and others entered the debate, basically siding with MacArthur. John Gerstner did the same, though he added another crucial dimension. He argued that, not only are works of obedience necessary and inevitable results of true faith, but they begin to be manifest immediately, being inseparable from faith.
The point in dispute here is not the inevitability of spiritual fruit, but when it will appear. The Reformed position argues that fruit begins immediately, because a justified person is a regenerate person and a regenerate person is a changed person. He is also a repentant person whose “change of mind” is integral to saving faith.
Neither Ryrie nor Hodges wants to see repentance or fruit as requirements of salvation. Hodges says: “If we keep this fact firmly in mind, we will never make the mistake of thinking that repentance is a condition for eternal salvation.”
Hodges appeals to Calvin’s rejection of the identification of repentance and faith, citing Calvin’s comment: “For to include faith in repentance, is repugnant to what Paul says in Acts [20:21] . . . where he mentions faith and repentance, as two things totally distinct.”
Calvin indeed distinguishes between faith and repentance and argues strenuously that faith is not produced by repentance. Yet Calvin will not separate or disconnect repentance from faith. Calvin says: “That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy. . . . It is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without betaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path and making it his whole study to practise repentance.”
Earlier Calvin says: “The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meagre and defective, and indeed almost useless.”
That Calvin was jealous to distinguish faith and repentance without separating them is made crystal clear when he writes: “Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means. But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished. As there is no faith without hope, and yet faith and hope are different, so repentance and faith, though constantly linked together, are only to be united, not confounded. I am not unaware that under the term repentance is comprehended the whole work of turning to God, of which not the least important part is faith. . . .” Calvin will not allow for a repentance without faith. Neither will he allow for a faith without repentance.
Hodges insists that repentance is necessary for fellowship with God, but not for salvation:
It is an extremely serious matter when the biblical distinction between faith and repentance is collapsed and when repentance is thus made a condition for eternal life. For under this perception of things the New Testament doctrine of faith is radically rewritten and held hostage to the demand for repentance. . . . though genuine repentance may precede salvation. . . , it need not do so. And because it is not essential to the saving transaction as such, it is in no sense a condition for that transaction. But the fact still remains that God demands repentance from all and He conditions their fellowship with Him on that.
Hodges acknowledges that God requires repentance as a condition for fellowship with him, yet insists that God does not require it for eternal salvation. Does this mean that the impenitent can and will inherit eternal life? Does it mean a believer can be justified and saved without having fellowship with God? I can hardly believe Hodges means what he says. This is antinomianism with a vengeance.
To be sure, Calvin vigorously opposed the sacrament of penance as a requirement or necessary condition of salvation. This is not to say that he opposed repentance as a requirement for salvation.
But what is meant by requirement or condition? Both Ryrie and Hodges are deeply concerned that repentance not be the ground of our justification. They fear this would obscure the true ground, the righteousness of Christ, and make repentance a work that destroys sola fide.
Calvin treats repentance in a manner similar to works. Works are not the ground of our justification or our salvation, but there will be no salvation without them. As one cannot have true faith without it yielding works, so one cannot have true faith without simultaneously having repentance. In that sense repentance is necessary for salvation. If there is no repentance, there is not only no fellowship with God but also no salvation, precisely because the lack of repentance proves that there is no genuine faith.
None on the Lordship side regards works as contributing anything to the grounds of our justification. They insist that the works of Christ alone furnish the grounds for our justification. The issue is this: What constitutes saving faith? Is it possible for a person to have true faith and not have works?
The Reformers insisted that true faith necessarily, inevitably, and immediately yields the fruit of works. They argued that though justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.
Lurking behind the scenes of this debate is a crucial difference in what happens in regeneration. Is the person who exercises saving faith a changed person or not?
All who are regenerated are changed. Reformed theology views regeneration as the immediate supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that effects the change of the soul’s disposition. Before regeneration the sinner is in the grips of original sin, by which he is totally disinclined toward God. He is in willing bondage to sin and has no desire for Christ. Faith is a fruit of regeneration. The believer is a changed person. He is still a sinner but is in a process of spiritual reversal that has, by the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit, already begun.
The necessity, inevitability, and immediacy of good works are linked to the work of regeneration. Also at and with justification the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and this indwelling initiates the work of sanctification.
An excellent explanation of the difference can be found at the following site:
http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1991/91may2.html
An excellent series of articles can be found at the following site:
http://www.founders.org/FJ16/article2.html |
|
|
|
|
|