Lordship salvation controversy

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The lordship salvation controversy (also called lordship controversy) is a

Evangelical churches in North America at least since the 1980s.[1][2]

The dispute opposes two soteriological visions: "whether it is necessary to accept Christ as Lord in order to have Him as one's

Arthur W. Pink summarises: "No one can receive Christ as His Savior while he rejects Him as Lord. Therefore, those who have not bowed to Christ’s scepter and enthroned Him in their hearts and lives, and yet imagine that they are trusting Him as Savior, are deceived". The second opinion is that of those opposing lordship salvation: that one can accept Jesus Christ as saviour, but does not need to accept the Christ's lordship.[2]

Background

"By

Colossians 2:6, and the receiving-as phraseology in the widely popular NIV of Colossians 2:6, an exegesis based on the NIV, for example, offered an explanation of what manner of receiving this was.[4] John F. MacArthur Jr, in turn, taught that such a receiving was both non-passive toward Christ and actively submissive to Christ, offering this as a way of understanding the English idiom, of what receiving a person "as" Lord, really means.[5]

Yet the "as Lord" language was not the only metaphor for the controversy. In 1959, Eternity featured a twin set of articles[6][7] which ignited the debate[8] and the use of the idiom from the titles: what Christ must "be." This asked what Christ must "be" to the one accepting Christ: must he "be Lord" to "be Savior," both, etc. Ten years later (1969), Charles Ryrie used this idiom in a chapter title, verbatim,[9] quoting exactly the title of the articles in Eternity Magazine, September, 1959. This idiom, what Christ must "be", was used to derive and discuss the implications for salvation associated with what Christ is. One author, Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952), had already associated Christ's Lordship with surrendering to it as a sine qua non at the initial point.[10]

In 1988, John F. MacArthur Jr published the first edition of The Gospel According to Jesus.[11] By defining salvation by what it produces and what salvation will not fail to produce, (not only glorification, but good works, repentance, faith, sanctification, yieldedness, and obedience[3]) the book not only heavily spread the extent of the debate, but the debate expanded in scope, from questions about conversion issues, to questions about what is also necessary, and who it is who does what, throughout the Christian life. Using surrender language in the gospel[12] became another issue.

Free Grace theology became an umbrella term for a variety of opposing or contrasting positions, sometimes arguing that Lordship salvation was legalistic, sometimes more opposed to it than that, for example, faulting it for not being specific about what degree, quality, and current visibility there must be to the necessary obedience.[13]

History of the debate

Precursors

A similar controversy was caused by the Neonomianism of Richard Baxter, to which Lordship salvation has been compared.[14][15]

The Antinomian controversy is the most similar controversy in history to the modern Lordship salvation controversy.[16]

Background

Further information:
History of Calvinist–Arminian debate

Figures of the Reformed tradition and their historical dispute with

Pelagius, gave Reformed scholars and church leaders an intellectual tradition from which to oppose what they considered a false gospel.[17]

An early discussion about the initial conversion aspect of the Lordship salvation issue was in the 1948 systematic theology of

Anglican
theologian.

Modern dispute

The controversy moved to the forefront of the evangelical world in the late 1980s when

John F. MacArthur argued that the one-third of all Americans who claimed to be born again according to a 1980 Gallup poll reflected millions who are deceived, possessing a false, soul-destroying assurance.[21]

There was much-published response, particularly from seminary faculty. For example, an early review of the 1988 edition of The Gospel According to Jesus appeared in a Jan–Mar 1989 Bibliotheca Sacra article by

Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation and Zane C. Hodges published Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. The two 1989 book publications confined the direct debate largely to their authors' footnotes, but the Bock article, in addition to specifically giving points of disagreement and agreement with MacArthur's book, added definitional discussion of terms such as "disciple" and "Lordship," and introduced the consideration of rhetorical devices such as overstatement, into the discussion.[23]

Yet very soon on their heels, in 1992 before the revised edition of MacArthur's work, an anthology of responses from various faculty of reformed seminaries appeared on the subject and include criticisms of both MacArthur and Hodges, especially in Michael Horton's contribution, "Don't Judge a Book by its Cover."[24]

See also

References

  1. ISBN 978-0-664-22464-6
    .
  2. ^
    OCLC 27035129
    .
  3. ^ a b MacArthur 1994, p. 39.
  4. ^ Vaughan, Curtis (1978), "Colossians", Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 11, 2:6
  5. ^ MacArthur 1994, p. 113.
  6. ^ Stott, John R (Sep 1959), "Must Christ Be Lord To Be Saviour?", Eternity, 10: 14–8, 36–7, 48.
  7. ^ Harrison, Everett F (Sep 1959), "Must Christ Be Lord To Be Saviour?", Eternity, 10: 14–8, 36–7, 48.
  8. ^ Stanley, Alan P (2006), Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works, p. 61.
  9. ^ Ryrie, Charles (1969), Balancing the Christian Life, Moody Press, pp. 169–81.
  10. ^ a b Pink, Arthur W, Present Day Evangelism, The highway.
  11. ^ MacArthur, John F Jr (1988), The Gospel According to Jesus, Zondervan Academic.
  12. ^ MacArthur 1994, p. xvii.
  13. ^ Hodges, Zane (1992), The Gospel Under Siege (Revised and Enlarged ed.), p. 2.
  14. ISBN 978-0-8028-6002-6
    . John MacArthur Jr. ... receiving him as Lord ) and the " antinomian " advocates of free grace ( e.g. , dispensationalists at Dallas Seminary ) clearly echoes the issues argued by the Marrow Men and their " neonomian " opponents .
  15. ^ Packer, Timothy Beougher And J. I. (16 December 1991). "'Go Fetch Baxter'". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2022-11-09.
  16. ISBN 978-1-7252-2437-7
    .
  17. ^ Wells, David F (1997), Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Development, Baker Academic, p. 17.
  18. ^ Chafer, Lewis Sperry (1948), Systematic Theology, vol. 3: Soteriology, Dallas Seminary Press, pp. 384–88.
  19. ^ Hogan, William (1958), The Relationship of the Lordship of Christ to Salvation (PhD diss), Wheaton College.
  20. ^ Packer, JI, "Preface", The Gospel According to Jesus (rev & exp ed.), p. ix.
  21. ^ MacArthur 1994, p. xxi.
  22. ^ Bock 1989, pp. 21–40.
  23. ^ Bock 1989, pp. 32–5.
  24. ^ Horton, Michael S (1992), Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation.

Bibliography

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lordship_salvation_controversy&oldid=1179784760"