Five years before the World Wide Web, John MacArthur published a book. His intention was not to be provocative, start a movement, or coin a label. He was writing to 20th-century evangelicals with some long-overdue warnings about the motions they were going through. Nevertheless, The Gospel According to Jesus is often regarded as the birthplace of a controversy that now roams the wild frontiers of social media, treading into comments sections looking for trouble.
Like Paul’s letter to the Galatian church, it had some stylistic dirt on its shoes. It was wordy, repetitive, and restless. Given its habit of contrasting the teachings of Christ with easy believism, I interpret it as a writing applied primarily to the current era, not constructed to be the normative approach for all of Christendom. MacArthur’s thoughts on its reputation as “the book on lordship salvation,” which preceded even its initial release, can be found in his preface to its first edition.
“from the beginning my chief goal was not to merely present my side of an argument, or to grind a favorite ax, but rather to take an honest and in-depth look at Jesus’ gospel and His evangelistic methods. The study has so pricked my own heart and molded my approach to ministry that I am anxious to put it in print. Yet I do so with a certain amount of trepidation, for I know some will misunderstand my intentions.” (p. 15)
And indeed they did. Social media has once again decided that now is a good time to debate lordship salvation, and they’ve found a new way to make it personal. I would counter that now is a good time to reflect upon lordship salvation, but that we should start by revisiting what those words were intended to mean. Both the book and its reception ever since prove that we can’t be too patient when it comes to clarification.
At face value, the term “lordship salvation” sounds fitting. After all, there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12), so which one of the two words would any Christian have a problem with? The same can be said of the doctrine often perceived as its direct antithesis, “free grace.” These two words alone are synonymous with one of the five solas of Protestantism and affirm that grace is a gift (Ephesians 2:8).
The respective dissenters of these doctrines would contend that the terms cannot be divorced from the movements that have come to define them. This is the first notion I’d like to scrutinize. Those objecting to the lordship salvation movement, or telling their story of how they left it, beg the question: who made it a movement? MacArthur popularized the term, but there is no traceable founder. While some teachers apply the label to certain positions they hold, it has no creed, no executives, and no membership. The only people pushing for such are its antagonists who take the liberty to throw the term at anyone who says something convicting.
While the free grace movement has no particular spokesperson, it does have formal organizations, such as Free Grace International, Free Grace Alliance, and Grace Evangelical Society. The campaigns that come from these put an emphasis, if not an obsession, on pushing rebuttals to lordship salvation. If repentance is not discarded, it is recalibrated to mean a mere change of mind to belief in Christ; and Scripture’s positive promise that faith produces fruit is now considered to be a burden on one’s assurance of salvation.
This brings us to examine the accusations made against both respective doctrines. The main accusation made against free grace is that it claims grieving and leaving sin does not necessarily come with saving faith. Those within the movement do not contest this, but embrace it. If the main accusation against lordship salvation were that it teaches the contrary, its proponents would respond the same way.
But the main accusation against lordship salvation is something very different: that it teaches sinless perfection and works-based salvation. This accusation is very much contested by those in its camp. Even in their most prefatory explanations, they often clarify ad nauseum that they do not believe our practical sanctification has any effect on our judicial righteousness before God, nor that our salvation was made possible by contributions from viewers like you.
But just because people insist they don’t teach something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine them. So how should we respond? There are three options. The first is to call them liars. Tell them they do too teach works-based salvation, and that you, an intellectual, will not fall for their denial. The second option is to tell them they’re self-deceived. Maybe they don’t think they teach it, and maybe they don’t even explicitly teach it. But it is the logical conclusion of their views, and they’re just too blind to see it. The third option is to put aside your assumptions and reactionism long enough to listen and understand.
I don’t think we need another lordship salvation book, so I have no intention of trying to cram one into the next few paragraphs. After more than thirty years, people still can’t agree on what it does and does not teach. When this happens, there’s usually a deeper issue at play than words. In this case, I believe the deeper issue is that MacArthur’s book packaged Biblical truths and historic church teachings in a way that served as a warning in an era of antinomianism. This set a tone, but that tone doesn’t apply to all believers—at least not in the same way.
The warning was not meant for Christians who are struggling to overcome sin. It was meant for Christians who aren’t struggling to overcome sin—those who walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, and went back to a devil-may-care life of rebellion. In retrospect, should the teachers have been more careful to acknowledge this, or should the listeners have been more careful not to misinterpret? Having seen plenty of both parties, I say the answer is some of both. No doubt, these are both things to be corrected, but that doesn’t make the teaching itself heretical.
If reading the original material wasn’t enough to distinguish it from heresy, then perhaps what’s needed is a better knowledge of said heresy. Works-based salvation teaches that we are not eternally secure until after death, at which point our works will determine our destiny. Members of such false religions would laugh at lordship salvation, for lordship salvation teaches that we are eternally secure upon conversion, and works are nothing more than fruits as opposed to roots.
John 15:5
I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
It shouldn’t get any more complicated than this: salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). No one could be in a position to take away our guilt, impute to us righteousness, and declare us saved were He not Lord. Even the angel who announced Christ’s birth referred to Him as “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”(Luke 2:11). Christ’s lordship is just as much a part of His nature as His manhood and His deity. Denying this is not just missing out; it’s heresy. Believing you have salvation without lordship is believing you have salvation without Christ.
Philippians 2:9-11
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
In this verse, the Greek word “katachthonios” is used to refer to those under the earth, which is meant literally. The word refers to the subterranean, or the grave, not the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. It’s not saying those in Hell bow. People often quote “every knee should bow… and every tongue should confess” in reference to the Day of Judgment, but no one will be under the earth on that day. Our bodies will be resurrected.
Bowing is a command given on earth as it is in Heaven. The heavenly beings bow, the departed saints bow, and those who live on earth are called to bow. Those who will bow on earth will bow in Heaven, but those who will not bow on earth will not enter Heaven. In response to this, many will tell me it is not bowing, but believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, that saves (Acts 16:31). And I will tell them that believing in your heart cannot be divorced from confessing Jesus as Lord (Romans 10:9). And Jesus makes it clear that confessing Him as Lord from a believing heart is not just lip service.
Romans 10:13
For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Matthew 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
To confess Jesus as Savior but not Lord is a contradiction. You want Him to take lordship over the guilt of your sin, but you want sin to retain lordship over you. If sin has lordship over you, then you do not have a Savior (Romans 6:16). If you want Jesus to be nothing more than your back-end sin-bearer, then you’ve not only denied His lordship over you; you’ve made yourself lord over Him. You don’t want a lord or a savior; you want an imaginary hero to make you feel better. With a testimony like this, it’s no wonder atheists would say you just believe in a “sky daddy.” You do.
Romans 12:15
Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
As we reflect on John MacArthur’s life, we rejoice with him at his entrance into glory, and we weep with the countless brethren who have lost a pastor, mentor, family member, and friend. Those who would rather nitpick his teachings in search of a reason to question his salvation are merely shouting the hypocrisy of their supposed anti-legalism. I had plenty of differences with him (yes, we do win down here); but we have the same Lord and the same Savior. The teaching he left continues to be applicable to an era that only grows more lukewarm and lawless. All people have always needed Christ’s salvation, but our current culture emphasizes the need for His lordship.
Edited by Grace Stauffer