Free Grace Theology vs. Lordship Salvation

[Daniel9v9]

Free Grace vs Lordship Salvation is not something that fits into the Lutheran framework. That would be a tension among Arminian and Calvinistic bodies.

What we Lutherans confess is very simple: Good works is a necessary fruit of salvation, but it does not cause nor sustain salvation, because that is the work of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we trust in. We are saved by faith alone, apart from works, namely, trust in the person and works of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, adoption, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Obedience, then, is a fruit of salvation, not a cause or a sustainer of it.

The best summary in the Bible for how good works and salvation fits together I believe is found in Ephesians 2:8-10 where it reads: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Notice: (1) We are saved by grace, (2) salvation is apprehended by faith, (3) we do not merit grace or conjure up faith, but both grace and faith are God's free gift. It's the work of the Holy Spirit through God's Word. (4) For emphasis, we see that God's grace and faith are not a result of our works. (5) We are created in Christ — we do not work to create ourselves in Christ. (6) We are created for the purpose of good works, which God prepares for us.

Here we see a clear distinction between Justification and Sanctification that cannot be confused. We are Justified, therefore we are Sanctified. Or simply, we are saved, therefore we obey God.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Even though lordship salvation advocates like John MacArthur call themselves Calvinists, John Calvin himself seemed to be closer to the free grace position:

Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit. (Institutes 3.2.7).

Briefly, he alone is truly a believer who, convinced by a firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him, promises himself all things on the basis of his generosity; who, relying upon the promises of divine benevolence toward him, lays hold on an undoubted expectation of salvation. (Institutes 3.2.16).
John Calvin’s Other Writings on Assurance – CPRC

There are also numerous passages of Calvin's writings which show that he taught unlimited atonement, rather than the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Good works is a necessary fruit of salvation, but it does not cause nor sustain salvation, because that is the work of our Lord Jesus Christ, which we trust in.

Would Martin Luther advise us to judge the salvation of others as ungenuine if it doesn't manifest visible fruits? The problem with legalistic teachers is that they are often too willing to judge the fruits of others, rather than leaving God to judge their hearts.

This is what Charles Ryrie wrote about the fruits of saving faith:

Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation.

Having said that, some caveats are in order.

1. This does not mean that a believer will always be fruitful. Certainly we can admit that if there can be hours and days when a believer can be unfruitful, then why may there not also be months and even years when he can be in that same condition? Paul exhorted believers to engage in good works so they would not be unfruitful (Titus 3:14). Peter also exhorted believers to add the qualities of Christian character to their faith lest they be unfruitful (2 Peter 1:8). Obviously, both of those passages indicate that a true believer might be unfruitful. And the simple fact that both Paul and Peter exhort believers to be fruitful shows that believers are not always fruitful.

2. This does not mean that a certain person’s fruit will necessarily be outwardly evident. Even if I know the person and have some regular contact with him, I still may not see his fruit. Indeed, I might even have legitimate grounds for wondering if he is a believer because I have not seen fruit. His fruit may be very private or erratic, but the fact that I do not see it does not mean it is not there.

3. My understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extrabiblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do. Nevertheless, every Christian will bear fruit; otherwise he or she is not a true believer. In speaking about the Judgment Seat of Christ, Paul says unequivocally that every believer will have praise come to him from God (1 Corinthians 4:5).

So Great Salvation, Charles Ryrie, Victor Books, 1989, pp. 45-46
Bearing Fruit | Bible.org

 

[d taylor]

Charles Ryrie was the most well-known advocate of free grace, while John MacArthur was the most well-known advocate of lordship salvation. Nonethless, when MacArthur visited Ryrie's seminary, Ryrie let him borrow his car for a week:

This is someone who didn't believe good works are required for salvation, allowing another person who wrote an entire book attacking his theology borrow his car, worth thousands of dollars, and not expecting anything in return.

Good works are certainly possible when you allow gratitude, rather than fear of punishment, to motivate your Christian life.

Never had heard that about Dr Ryrie

Its hard to even listen to MacArthur, even in this, He still tries little jabs a free grace.

These Lordship people may be using up all their works and applying then to their salvation instead of properly applying them to christian discipleship.

Here is a whole list of videos on the subject

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zane+hodges+free+grace​

 

[Humble_Disciple]

These Lordship people may be using up all their works and applying then to their salvation instead of properly applying them to christian discipleship.

The biggest concern I have about Lordship salvation teachers is how many potential Christians they are turning away from the Gospel, while Jesus taught that His burden was easy and His yoke was light.

Another thing is that, if you are already a Christian and you believe the Lordship salvation teachers are authoritative, you might feel that you have to constantly walk on egg shells, and ultimately fall away from the faith, seeing no point to believing if you'll never measure up anyway.

 

[d taylor]

The biggest concern I have about Lordship salvation teachers is how many potential Christians they are turning away from the Gospel, while Jesus taught that His burden was easy and His yoke was light.

Another thing is that, if you are already a Christian and you believe the Lordship salvation teachers are authoritative, you might feel that you have to constantly walk on egg shells, and ultimately fall away from the faith, seeing no point to believing if you'll never measure up anyway.

That is a real reality, the work load Lordship puts on people/believers, can in many people/believers just confuse what is required for their salvation is it faith, works or faith and works. A lot of times it depends on who is preaching as to what they say the Bible is saying.

I am sure many Lordship followers have a lot of pressure on them. I wonder what it is like being a member of John MacArthur's church.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Would Martin Luther advise us to judge the salvation of others as ungenuine if it doesn't manifest visible fruits? The problem with legalistic teachers is that they are often too willing to judge the fruits of others, rather than leaving God to judge their hearts.

This is what Charles Ryrie wrote about the fruits of saving faith:

No, neither Luther nor our churches are in the business of judging the salvation of others — that belongs to God — but we do call people to repent of their sins. We (all Christians) have the command and call of Jesus to proclaim the Gospel to repentant sinners, but to withhold it and proclaim the Law to unrepentant sinners. So we all need Law and Gospel. God's Word is what both Justifies and Sanctifies; it's what makes us God's people and what moulds us into the image of Christ.

There are perhaps two things I can briefly mention here, and that is that the Bible expresses that as Christians we are sinners and saints at the same time. That is, we are both a new creation in Christ, but we also still sin. In other words, we are sinners clothed in Christ's righteousness, counted as righteous. So that when God looks at our sins, He sees them nailed to the cross. And when He sees our righteousness, He sees the righteousness of His Son, which we have freely inherited. So whoever believes in Jesus are declared righteous before God.

At the same time, Scriptures are also very clear on that salvation WILL produce good fruit, as the Ephesians verses above make clear — that we are created in Christ for the very purpose of good works — or more explicitly, James 2 — "faith without works is dead". But the problem is that some church bodies have a distorted or insufficient understanding of what this faith with good works looks like; what good works means; what it means to love God and love our neighbour in our various vocations or stations in life. Particularly among church bodies who believe that complete sanctification is possible on earth (such as the Holiness bodies and the Roman Catholic Church), where they measure salvation by outward piety, and in doing so, minimise both God's Law and Gospel. But a minimising and confusion of Law and Gospel always leads to two extremes: Either false assurance of faith, or despair. We reject both, which is why we always talk about Justification.

As a summary, if we rightly understand the Biblical distinctions between Justification and Sanctification, Law and Gospel, and what it means to be sinners and saints at the same time, there's really no room for Pelagianism or any kind of works-righteousness on one hand, nor Antinomianism or Universalism on the other. In the Lutheran understanding, grace is neither merited nor cheap. Our Lord redeems us, lost and condemned people, purchased and won us from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that we may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity. This is what we believe and confess.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

That is a real reality, the work load Lordship puts on people/believers, can in many people/believers just confuse what is required for their salvation is it faith, works or faith and works. A lot of times it depends on who is preaching as to what they say the Bible is saying.

I am sure many Lordship followers have a lot of pressure on them. I wonder what it is like being a member of John MacArthur's church.

I don't want to over-speculate, but I think it's possible that teachers like John MacArthur are themselves shame-based, who don't feel that they are good enough for Christ's perfect work on the cross, and therefore envy the joy and assurance of those who hold the free grace view. They would rather bring other people down, even if it costs sinners their potential salvation, than give up their sense of false pride.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The one disagreement I have with free grace theology is its teaching of once saved, always saved. I think that believers can and do apostatize, and thereby forfeit their salvation. I believe that Luther, Calvin, and the other early reformers taught that we can have assurance of salvation, as long as we remain in the faith.

 

[d taylor]

The one disagreement I have with free grace theology is its teaching of once saved, always saved. I think that believers can and do apostatize, and thereby forfeit their salvation. I believe that Luther, Calvin, and the other early reformers taught that we can have assurance of salvation, as long as we remain in the faith.

You must be arminian

 

[Humble_Disciple]

You must be arminian

There are numerous passages of scripture which suggest that we must endure to the end to be saved. As long as we remain in the faith, we can have assurance of salvation. John Wesley was an Arminian, and the main turning point of his life was when he received assurance of salvation, and he remained an Arminian.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Martin Luther taught that Christians can lose their salvation through unbelief:

Even if he [the saint] wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins—so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains—all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself.
Q. Do you consider Martin Luther a Calvinist, since he believed in loss of salvation? | Word of His Grace

 

[d taylor]

There are numerous passages of scripture which suggest that we must endure to the end to be saved. As long as we remain in the faith, we can have assurance of salvation. John Wesley was an Arminian, and the main turning point of his life was when he received assurance of salvation, and he remained an Arminian.

You say there are passages of scripture which say a person must endure to the end to be saved.

What end are you speaking about, does one of those passages say to the end of ones life.

I ask that because this one from Matthew 24:13 (a very popular one used) does not say to the end of ones life. So what end it the context speaking about. and what kind of saving is in view sounds like a saving of ones physical life.

“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

You say there are passages of scripture which say a person must endure to the end to be saved.

Martin Luther taught that Christians can lose their salvation through unbelief:

Even if he [the saint] wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins—so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains—all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself.
Q. Do you consider Martin Luther a Calvinist, since he believed in loss of salvation? | Word of His Grace

Do you know of any Protestant reformers who taught, based on the Bible, that those who fall away from the faith will still have eternal life?

 

[Soyeong]

The free grace vs. Lordship salvation debate largely took place in American Baptist circles, between those who held to dispensationalism (the free grace side) and those who held to Calvinism (the Lordship salvation side).

Lordship salvation controversy - Wikipedia

Which side, Lordship salvation or free grace, is closer to what Martin Luther originally taught? This question is intended for traditional Lutherans, rather than modernists who endorse things like same-sex marriage and universalism.

These quotes from Martin Luther seem to be consistent with the free grace position, that our assurance of salvation should be found in the promises of scripture, rather than whether or not there are visible fruits in our Christian life:





These quotes are from the Augsburg Confession:



This is John Calvin on justification by faith alone:


Instead of denigrating the role of good works in Christian life, free grace advocates insist that good works should result from gratitude for our salvation, rather than fear that we will otherwise be unsaved.

I think that the key issue in this debate is recognizing that there can be reasons for obeying God's other than trying to earn our salvation, especially because God's law was never given as a means of earning our salvation, so verses that speak against that should not be mistaken as speaking against our salvation requiring our obedience to God's law for some other reason, such as faith. Luther taught that we are justified by faith alone, which is true insofar as there are no works that we can do to earn our salvation, however, he also taught along the lines that faith is never alone, which is true insofar as the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to God's law. This is essentially what is being said in Romans 3:28-31, where we are justified by faith apart from works that we can do to earn our salvation, however, our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, which is true insofar as the same faith by which we are justified upholds God's law by being expressed as obedience to it. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so that is what it means to be under grace.

Luther said:

"Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, "In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing," i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, "If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing," is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men."

"The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, "faith" ought to be placed with the word "justifies" and the portion of the sentence "without works justifies" is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word "justifies," not to "faith." In the minor premise, "without works" is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. "Without works" is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works."

 

[Humble_Disciple]

While I lean more toward the free grace position, I also see free grace and Lordship salvation as opposite extremes. Free grace advocates are so insistent on the absolute freeness of salvation, they teach one can apostatize without forfeiting one's salvation. This is not something Martin Luther or any of the Protestant Reformers taught.

 

[d taylor]

Do you know of any Protestant reformers who taught, based on the Bible, that those who fall away from the faith will still have eternal life?

Not sure if this below was ask of me. You quote a post of mine also with your post.

Even if he [the saint] wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins—so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains—all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself.
Q. Do you consider Martin Luther a Calvinist, since he believed in loss of salvation? | Word of His Grace

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Not sure if this below was ask of me. You quote a post of mine also with your post.

Even if he [the saint] wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins—so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains—all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself.
Q. Do you consider Martin Luther a Calvinist, since he believed in loss of salvation? | Word of His Grace

So... What do you think of Martin Luther saying that we can lose our salvation by unbelief? This seems to go against the doctrine of once saved, always saved.

 

[d taylor]

So... What do you think of Martin Luther saying that we can lose our salvation by unbelief? This seems to go against the doctrine of once saved, always saved.

Well one has to remember Martin Luther came out of the Catholic Church. So i see him not being able to shake all of the catholic teaching out of his mind.

So i could see him staying with that belief even though it is not Biblical. He was able to break away from a work salvation but was just not able to completely embrace a free grace soteriology

 

[Daniel9v9]

Reading the above posts, perhaps I can clarify a bit:

(1) Luther is not the Pope of the Lutheran Church. We don't subscribe to everything he believed and taught. We inherited his name as a slur from the Roman Catholic Church, but it's what stuck. So our church is not built upon the teachings of one man, but it consists of a significant body of churches who were Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fides — who believed and still believe that God's Word is the authority in all doctrine. Not Pope, not council, not tradition, not reason, not emotionalism, not mysticism etc.

(2) Lutherans believe that salvation, from beginning to end is from God. And that damnation, from beginning to end is from man. This is a holy mystery apprehended by faith. So we agree with Calvinists that salvation is entirely a gift, but we reject the doctrine that God elects (or passes people over) to damnation, for Scriptures say that the Gospel is truly for all, not only for the elect. And we agree with Arminians that a person can lose his faith and can reject God, but we reject the doctrine that we must choose God, that we make a decision to believe in Jesus, for Scriptures say that we are dead in sin and are made alive by God's grace.

Edit: Just to follow up on the above post — We believe we are saved by faith alone, entirely apart from works. This is radically different from the Roman Catholic understanding. Arminianism is closer to Roman Catholic Doctrine than Lutheran, because both the Roman and the Arminian systems are Synergetic in salvation.