"Where exactly the line falls between a tender, wavering faith and a dead one — God knows.
I do not. That uncertainty keeps me humble about individuals. It does not move me from the position." This is exactly where I stand as well.
Sometimes the evidence of salvation lies dormant in the soul long after the turn to Christ is initiated. I therefore rest in Philippians 1:6 "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus." Lamentably, a segment of Christians is very slow in surrendering to the gift they have been given. (My personal journey is an excellent example.)
Saving faith is guaranteed to those who were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. Calvinism, a term I have come to deeply dislike because it attributes to John Calvin the glory that belongs to the Lord alone, clearly separates out those who are predestined to salvation and written on the palm of God's hand, before the foundation of the world. Isaiah 49: 15-16. We love Him because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19
People who flash their "Jesus Card" because they prayed a prayer and/or were baptized, but never repent of their sins, likely are not truly saved. But it is impossible for us, as mere mortals to know. Only God knows.
To paraphrase RC Sproul: "I treat everyone as a brother or sister in Christ. They may not be saved yet, and I know that most will never be saved, but I don't know who will be redeemed, so I love everyone as if they already are saved, because some will be." That is pure godly wisdom, and it certainly removes us from the Judgment Seat, a place that only the Righteous Judge is worthy of holding.
Agree Lyle. The Spirit does not regenerate a person and then leave them unchanged. That is not how new birth works.
The Free Grace position does not actually dispute this at its best. Ryrie was clear that every genuine believer will bear fruit. The disagreement is narrower than it appears: it is not whether transformation follows regeneration, but whether observable transformation is the right instrument for assessing whether salvation occurred. Their concern is pastoral — that making visible fruit the measure of genuine faith creates a moving target that leaves sincere believers perpetually uncertain.
I land where you do. But understanding what the best Free Grace scholars actually argued, rather than the caricature, makes the Lordship conviction stronger, not weaker.
“Their concern is pastoral — that making visible fruit the measure of genuine faith creates a moving target that leaves sincere believers perpetually uncertain”.
I say… from what I have read, even no fruit whatsoever is acceptable (no Lordship advocates).
If sincere believers are perpetually uncertain, they need lessons on the objective scriptures that speak to regeneration by God and then count on His promises. If overall disobedience is perpetual, then something is terribly wrong.
Understand, I'm just showing counter positions to consider. Again, being able to confront other positions should only make us stronger in our position. Thanks again.
Those three texts carry real weight, and the repetition you note is not accidental.
The Free Grace response is that all three occur within the specific context of the kingdom offer to Israel — a national call requiring national repentance — which they argue is categorically different from individual salvation terms.
Their strongest supporting evidence is actually John's Gospel. Repent never appears, and John tells us explicitly why he wrote — so that readers would believe and have life (John 20:31). Hard to explain that silence if repentance is universally required. Although, I believe it is implied, much like the word Trinity is never stated but is certainly implied in the Great Commission.
Where I cannot follow them is Acts 20:21. Paul summarizes his entire evangelistic ministry to both Jews and Greeks as repentance toward God and faith in Christ. That is not kingdom language. That is the gospel in its fullest form. And Jesus in Luke 13:3 is unambiguous: unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Their argument deserves a careful answer, but the weight of the whole counsel, I think, lands on repentance. Thank you for your comment.
Thanks Thad. Great article. I've read “The Gospel according to Jesus” three times as well as “The Gospel according to the Apostles” and “The Gospel according to Paul.” All excellent and deeply biblical.
Like you, I fall on the Lorship side of the ‘debate’. I will say that assurance is not a big issue for me because when I inevitably sin, which is often, I feel the weight of it. Its not my lifestyle to sin. I go read Romans 7. It's not that we don't fall into sin but our underlying desire is to not sin.
Thanks for your comment, Steven. Like you, I've followed MacArthur for more years than I'd care to confess.
Your point about Romans 7 is the most honest thing a believer can say about the Christian life. Paul did not write that chapter as a warning about others; he wrote it about himself. We all live there more than we would like to admit. The sin boat is crowded and none of us chose a different vessel.
What separates the Lordship position from moralism is exactly what you described: it is not that we do not sin, it is that sin is no longer our address. We visit; we no longer live there. That distinction is everything.
"Where exactly the line falls between a tender, wavering faith and a dead one — God knows.
I do not. That uncertainty keeps me humble about individuals. It does not move me from the position." This is exactly where I stand as well.
Sometimes the evidence of salvation lies dormant in the soul long after the turn to Christ is initiated. I therefore rest in Philippians 1:6 "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work among you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus." Lamentably, a segment of Christians is very slow in surrendering to the gift they have been given. (My personal journey is an excellent example.)
Saving faith is guaranteed to those who were chosen by God before the foundation of the world. Calvinism, a term I have come to deeply dislike because it attributes to John Calvin the glory that belongs to the Lord alone, clearly separates out those who are predestined to salvation and written on the palm of God's hand, before the foundation of the world. Isaiah 49: 15-16. We love Him because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19
People who flash their "Jesus Card" because they prayed a prayer and/or were baptized, but never repent of their sins, likely are not truly saved. But it is impossible for us, as mere mortals to know. Only God knows.
To paraphrase RC Sproul: "I treat everyone as a brother or sister in Christ. They may not be saved yet, and I know that most will never be saved, but I don't know who will be redeemed, so I love everyone as if they already are saved, because some will be." That is pure godly wisdom, and it certainly removes us from the Judgment Seat, a place that only the Righteous Judge is worthy of holding.
No doubt that Lordship Salvation is true. Regenerated people, who have been born again by the spirit, are not left alone to live as they please.
Agree Lyle. The Spirit does not regenerate a person and then leave them unchanged. That is not how new birth works.
The Free Grace position does not actually dispute this at its best. Ryrie was clear that every genuine believer will bear fruit. The disagreement is narrower than it appears: it is not whether transformation follows regeneration, but whether observable transformation is the right instrument for assessing whether salvation occurred. Their concern is pastoral — that making visible fruit the measure of genuine faith creates a moving target that leaves sincere believers perpetually uncertain.
I land where you do. But understanding what the best Free Grace scholars actually argued, rather than the caricature, makes the Lordship conviction stronger, not weaker.
In response to this line of yours,
“Their concern is pastoral — that making visible fruit the measure of genuine faith creates a moving target that leaves sincere believers perpetually uncertain”.
I say… from what I have read, even no fruit whatsoever is acceptable (no Lordship advocates).
If sincere believers are perpetually uncertain, they need lessons on the objective scriptures that speak to regeneration by God and then count on His promises. If overall disobedience is perpetual, then something is terribly wrong.
Understand, I'm just showing counter positions to consider. Again, being able to confront other positions should only make us stronger in our position. Thanks again.
Agreed.
I have all of JMacs books related to this.
He quotes their arguments and then refutes them one by one.
When something is repeated in Scripture, it is important...
John the Baptist said, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" Matthew 3:2
Jesus said, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" Matthew 4:17
Peter said, "Repent and be baptized" Acts 2:38
Those three texts carry real weight, and the repetition you note is not accidental.
The Free Grace response is that all three occur within the specific context of the kingdom offer to Israel — a national call requiring national repentance — which they argue is categorically different from individual salvation terms.
Their strongest supporting evidence is actually John's Gospel. Repent never appears, and John tells us explicitly why he wrote — so that readers would believe and have life (John 20:31). Hard to explain that silence if repentance is universally required. Although, I believe it is implied, much like the word Trinity is never stated but is certainly implied in the Great Commission.
Where I cannot follow them is Acts 20:21. Paul summarizes his entire evangelistic ministry to both Jews and Greeks as repentance toward God and faith in Christ. That is not kingdom language. That is the gospel in its fullest form. And Jesus in Luke 13:3 is unambiguous: unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Their argument deserves a careful answer, but the weight of the whole counsel, I think, lands on repentance. Thank you for your comment.
Thanks Thad. Great article. I've read “The Gospel according to Jesus” three times as well as “The Gospel according to the Apostles” and “The Gospel according to Paul.” All excellent and deeply biblical.
Like you, I fall on the Lorship side of the ‘debate’. I will say that assurance is not a big issue for me because when I inevitably sin, which is often, I feel the weight of it. Its not my lifestyle to sin. I go read Romans 7. It's not that we don't fall into sin but our underlying desire is to not sin.
Thanks for your comment, Steven. Like you, I've followed MacArthur for more years than I'd care to confess.
Your point about Romans 7 is the most honest thing a believer can say about the Christian life. Paul did not write that chapter as a warning about others; he wrote it about himself. We all live there more than we would like to admit. The sin boat is crowded and none of us chose a different vessel.
What separates the Lordship position from moralism is exactly what you described: it is not that we do not sin, it is that sin is no longer our address. We visit; we no longer live there. That distinction is everything.
I could not agree more