"Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" | 1959 Eternity Magazine

1959 Eternity magazine article.

When a man is born again, is it necessary for him to submit to Christ as Lord as well as trust in Christ as Savior? Here is one of the most important questions facing the Church today, discussed ably and carefully by John R. Stott and Everett F. Harrison.

* * *

Everett F. Harrison states that if we make submission to the Lordship of Christ essential to salvation we make our salvation to be by works, we negate the believer's security and we run counter to clear scriptural teaching.

NO

WHEN THE Revised Version was made, an important gospel text experienced drastic change. In the King James Version, the condition of salvation is to confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in the heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9). This was altered in the revision to read, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord . . . thou shalt be saved." The change was necessary in order to render properly the original.[1] 

     

This passage of Scripture, more than any other, has become the basis of the contention that one cannot simply receive Christ as Savior. Rather, he must also at the same time receive Him as Lord and turn over the control of his life to Him. If this is not done, the sinner cannot be saved.

     

There is good reason for the growing popularity of this view. Far too many people have responded to the gospel invitation without experiencing a change of life. They have simply believed, we are told, but have not made the Savior their Master. So in time they have drifted away.

     

But we might well raise the question whether the faith of such people is saving faith at all. In several places in John's Gospel people are said to believe, yet almost immediately they have to be regarded as unbelievers (2:23-25; 8:31; and probably 12:42, 43).[2] On the other hand, some believed and entered into life. Wherein lay the difference? Clearly the former group had something capable of being called faith. There was a drawing to Jesus either on account of His miracles or His teaching. But there was no repose of faith on His person. At no point does the text suggest that the second group was differentiated by having made Jesus the Lord of their lives. Rather, they had saving faith. They had the root of the matter in them.

     

The real strength of the viewpoint we are examining lies in the teaching of Jesus on discipleship. A man must hate his family and his own life also if he would be Jesus' follower (Luke 14:26). He must bear the cross (Luke 14:27). He must renounce all that he has (Luke 14:33). It would appear, then, that to the scores of passages which assign only faith as the condition of salvation we must add the several which require one to pay a certain price.

     

Before concluding that the Scripture is at variance with itself, we must note several things about the demands of discipleship.

     

First, they were in part a warning to would-be-followers. Jesus was not impressed with the fact that thousands milled around Him and sought to attach themselves to Him. Only followers who meant business counted with Him.

     

Second, The Twelve did not have these conditions of discipleship presented to them. In fact, on occasion some of them demonstrated that they had not responded to these conditions. How can they be said to have denied self when they strove with one another over who was to be accounted greatest in the kingdom? Peter emphatically rejected the whole cross-idea for the Master, and by implication also for the disciple (Matt. 16:22-26).

     

Third, we should observe that discipleship brings reward. The man who follows Christ at the cost of family, houses, and lands will be recompensed many times over in this life as well as in the life to come (Mart 10:29, 30). Salvation is a gift. It does not depend upon our works. It does not come to us as a reward for faithfulness.

     

Certainly, discipleship is a most important aspect of our relation to Christ, but it belongs to the sphere of Christian life rather than the entrance upon that life. The word disciple answers to Teacher, not Savior. One does not become a disciple in order to become a Christian, but because he has become a Christian by faith in the Savior, it is fitting that he embark upon a life of discipleship.

     

The whole subject is complicated by the fact that disciple is used in two senses in the New Testament. In the book of Acts and in the great commission of Matthew 28:19 the word is equivalent to convert or Christian; in Luke 14 it is used of one who demonstrates the reality of his allegiance to Christ by his readiness to make sacrifices for Him.[3]

     

Strong reasons exist for rejecting the notion that one must make Jesus his Lord as well as his Savior to be truly redeemed.

     

1) this position is unsupported by the examples of gospel preaching in the book of Acts. The invitation at Pentecost was to repent and be baptized (2:38). Peter assured Cornelius and his company that everyone who believes in Christ receives forgiveness of sins (10:43). Paul's invitation is similarly put (13:38, 39). A faithful reading of the entire book of Acts fails to reveal a single passage where people are pressed to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their personal Lord in order to be saved. Does this book have nothing to offer us by way of guidance today? Can we safely ignore it in our presentation of the gospel?

     

2) the view we are considering is contrary to the experience of outstanding Christians in the apostolic age. We have already noted Peter's antagonism to Christ recorded in Matthew 16. The servant was trying to teach the Master. Again, in Acts 10:14, this same Peter contradicted, daring to say, "not so, Lord." Whatever Peter's profession may have been, he certainly was not making Christ Lord on these occasions.

     

Furthermore, who would claim that all God's servants down through the centuries have done so? F. B. Meyer describes his experience of complete dedication to Christ. He gave to the Lord, as it were, the iron ring of his will with all the keys of his life on it, all except one. But the Lord insisted on having that too, and only when complete surrender was made did the blessing come upon His servant's life and ministry. This event marked his coming to terms with Christ's lordship, but who would claim that Meyer was not a Christian prior to that time?

     

3) the ground of assurance of salvation is endangered if surrender to Christ's lordship is a part of that ground. Instead of looking to the sufficiency of Christ and His work of redemption, one is compelled to look within to see if he has yielded himself to the Son of God. If he is conscious of times in his life when he has denied the lordship of the Master (and who has not?) then he must logically question his standing before God. What a wretched condition of uncertainty would then rule instead of the settled peace which is ours when we know that we are Christ's because He died to make us His.

     

4) the view we are considering rules out the necessity for large portions of the practical teaching of the epistles. If the readers are truly Christians (and they are constantly treated as such, being called brethren and saints) then it must be assumed, on the view in question, that they have yielded themselves to Christ as Lord of their lives. But how can this be, in the light of Romans 6 and 12:1, to mention only a few passages of exhortation to the yielded life?

     

5) to adopt this view involves the introduction of a subtle form of legalism. We reject the teaching that we can be saved by works. The Word of God is emphatic on this (Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5). Why then bring works in by the side door by asserting that unless we do whatever is necessary to the acknowledging of the lordship of Christ in our lives, we are not saved?

     

It is time to retrace our steps and examine again the teaching of Romans 10:9. The text here asserts that in order to be saved one must confess Jesus as Lord [literally "Lord Jesus"] and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead.[4] The lordship of Christ is a matter of confession with the mouth, based on a heart belief as to what God did in the resurrection. It is simply an admission of fact. In the resurrection the lordship was declared and made obvious (Acts 2:36). Clearly no one can be saved if Christ did not rise from the dead (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). When the convert proclaimed with his lips, "Jesus is Lord" [in the sense of deity, i.e. "Jesus is God"], he was subscribing to the gospel announcement that a living Lord attests an efficacious death (Rom. 4:25). This is the objective aspect of Jesus' lordship. We find it again in such passages as 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Philippians 2:11. But in the view we are considering the lordship of Jesus in a subjective sense has been insisted on. The difference between the two should be made very clear.[5] 

     

Most of the boys in America are familiar with the name of Roy Rogers. They have heard him on radio or seen him on television. His reputation as a glamorous cowboy is secure. But if some boy were to meet him in person and be given a pat on the head and some memento of the occasion, Roy Rogers would be from that time on his personal hero. The lad would have a subjective relation, not simply a recognition of his objective standing as a popular man.

     

The order is the same in the spiritual realm. Christ is Lord by virtue of resurrection whether anyone acknowledges it personally or not. It is this factual lordship which must be confessed if one would be saved. 

     

Then as we come to know Him for ourselves, we make him Lord in a personal sense.

     

Let's be consistent. Christ is Teacher as well as Lord. Must we therefore insist that the sinner accept Him as Teacher in order to be saved? The same is true of His position as Judge. And so one could go on. 

     

When faith is genuine, it will lead to a desire to know the Lord's will for the life. The acceptance of His control [should not or] will not be refused. But this is not the issue in salvation, and it is both unfair and confusing to the sinner to introduce the issue of what he is to do for Christ before God's grace can be made operative in his life and lead him from darkness to light.

     

There is a cross to be borne if we would be Christ's disciples, but let us not lay it on the sinner while his is contemplating the cross of Calvary where Christ die for his sins. Moule has sensed the difference between the two crosses. "The cross we carry is our cross of trial, the cross where self is crucified. The cross which carries us is the Lord's cross of complete salvation."

     

We are not pleading for an easy, soft salvation or a superficial preaching. We are far from advocating any neglect of the dedicated life. We are pleading only that salvation be preserved for what it is—God's free gift.

          Nothing in my hands I bring,

          Simply to thy cross I cling.

As we come to Christ, our hands must be empty to receive His gifts. He does not expect them to be filled with counter gifts as though to anticipate that, after all, we must do something to be saved.

     

When we thus come to Him, simply as receiving, the blessed Spirit comes into the heart to create those impulses of live and devotion which will make us desire above everything else to acknowledge Christ as our personal Lord and in all things to be conformed to Him. This may take place when we are saved, as it did with Saul of Tarsus, but if it lingers and comes slowly, we can still say with glad and humble hearts that we are His and He is ours.

John R. Stott says that a faith that does not include submission to the Lordship of Christ is an incomplete faith. When any man comes to Christ for rest, he must also take Christ's yoke, for this is what Scripture teaches.

YES

"WHAT MUST I do to be saved?" is a question of vital importance to the witnessing Christian as well as to the sinner. As the sinner needs to know what conditions must be fulfilled, the witnessing Christian needs to know what conditions must be demanded. But what answer shall we give?[6] 

     

Evangelical Christians are not agreed. Some evangelists are content to say "only believe," and consider that surrender to the Lordship of Christ is a later stage belonging not to conversion but to discipleship. Others take the view that it is impossible to divorce the Saviorhood from the Lordship of Christ, that He who gives all asks all, and that evangelistic preaching is total demand as well as total offer.

     

Those who object to this latter view argue that it is inconsistent with the doctrine of grace and that it allows "merit" to raise its arrogant head. It "brings works in by the side door," to use Dr. Everett F. Harrison's phrase.

     

In venturing to dissent from the conclusions reached by Dr. Harrison, I wholeheartedly agree with him that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.[7]  If I thought that to insist on surrender to Christ as Lord was to encourage a sinner to rely on good works for salvation, I would abandon such an insistence immediately.

     

But does it? What saith the Scripture? Salvation is sola fide, but some modern evangelical preaching and teaching evacuate faith of some of its essential and distinctive New Testament elements. It is a misunderstanding of the nature of saving faith which lies at the root of this desire to separate Christ as Savior from Christ as Lord, and I think Dr. Harrison will agree with this.[8] 

     

1) Saving faith presupposes repentance. Saving faith is inconceivable without repentance. Every man must to some extent become a penitent before he becomes a believer, and be concerned about his sins before he can be introduced to the Savior.[9] Only when he has renounced sin can he receive Christ. Only when the Law has done its work of exposure and condemnation, can the gospel bring relief and justification. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin [the particular sin of unbelief in Christ] before He testifies to Christ (John 16:8; 15:26).

     

Thus "repentance and faith" form an indissoluble pair. True, sometimes repentance occurs alone (Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 24:17) and sometimes faith, (John 3:15, 16; 5:24; 6:47 etc.). Similarly, Peter told the crowds to "repent", while a little later those who did so are termed "believers" (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 4:32). Again, Paul urged the Athenian philosophers to repent and the Philippian jailer to believe (Acts 17:30; 16:31). But commonly repentance and faith are together.

     

The first recorded words of our Lord's public ministry, after announcing the fulfillment of the time and the imminent nearness of the Kingdom, were "repent and believe the good news". Paul describes his ministry in Ephesus by saying that he had faithfully testified "both to Jews and to Greeks repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ", and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews states that "repentance from dead works and faith towards God" belong to "the elementary doctrines of Christ" (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1).

     

Repentance and faith are in fact the constituent elements of conversion, when viewed from the standpoint of man's experience. For what is conversion but "turning", and what is "to be converted" but "to turn"? The Greek verb is often used in the New Testament in secular, non-theological contexts to describe someone's action in turning round from one direction to another or returning from one place to another. When used in more technical, theological passages the verb has the same meaning. "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God." "You were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Pet. 2:25).  

     

Conversion therefore involves a twofold turn, a turn from idols and from sin [the particular sin of unbelief in Christ (John 16:8-9); but it appears that Stott means all sin] on the one hand, and a turn to the living God and to the Savior or Shepherd of souls on the other. The "turn away" the New Testament calls repentance; the "turn toward" the New Testament calls faith. So repentance plus faith equals conversion, and no man dare say he is converted who has not repented as well as believed.

     

All evangelicals will agree with this. We must therefore go further and insist that repentance looks forward to the new life that is embraced as well as to the old life which is renounced. True, metanoia means literally "a change of mind," but it describes such a change of mind as involves a change of attitude, direction and behavior.[10] Can a man say he has repented if he does not "bring forth fruits meet for repentance" (Luke 3:8)?[11] No, the prodigal left the far country with its swine and its harlots and walked home.[12] The illustrations Jesus gave of "one sinner that repents" were of a stray sheep rescued from its wanderings, and a mislaid coin picked up from some dark and dirty corner. To claim to have repented and to be saved while remaining in the far country, in the wilderness or on the muddy floor is to be guilty of self-contradiction.[13] 

     

To say that repentance is as much a condition of salvation as faith is not to ascribe "merit" to repentance any more than to faith. Some evangelicals talk as if faith saved us. The popular expression "saving faith" seems to encourage such an idea. Yet we know that only God saves, and that by His sheer and utter grace. Faith does not save. Nor does repentance. Nor is there merit in either. Both are gifts of God. God "grants" repentance just as much as He give faith (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8). And if men only "believe through grace," it is only the goodness of God which leads them to repentance (Acts 18:27; Rom. 2:4).

     

2) Saving faith includes obedience. In saying that saving faith includes obedience, I mean that in true faith there is an element of submission. Faith is directed towards a Person. It is in fact a complete commitment to this Person involving not only an acceptance of what is offered but a humble surrender to what is or may be demanded. The bent knee is as much a part of saving faith as the open hand.[14] It is impossible to come to Christ with words like "Nothing in my hand I bring" and at the same time deliberately to withhold one's personal allegiance.[15] Our Lord Jesus Christ fills many roles but is one Person, and faith is commitment to Him as a whole Person, not in a particular role. Faith may not choose to be committed to Him in the role of Savior and not in the role of Lord. 

     

This is not "a subtle form of legalism." If it seems dangerous to talk about obedience as an element of faith, lest salvation appears to be partly by works, it is striking that it is in the great manifesto of grace and faith, the Epistle to the Romans, that this element of faith is mentioned by the Apostle. Twice he tells us, in the first and last chapters, that the purpose of his apostleship and of the preaching of the gospel was "unto (R.S.V. "to bring about") obedience of faith" (1:5; 16:26).[16] 

     

It may be tempting to say that this phrase ["obedience of faith"] refers to the Christian obedience which issues from saving faith and is not a description of saving faith itself. Some evangelicals will point to Hebrews 11:8 as an example of this, where it is written "By faith Abraham obeyed." But there are objections to such a view. To begin with, the context in both passages in Romans is concerned with the proclamation of the gospel to the heathen nations. The phrase "obedience of faith" indicates the response for which the Christian missionary asks. Included among those nations, adds Paul, are "yourselves, who are called to belong to Jesus Christ" ([Rom.] 1:6 R.S.V.). The call of God in the gospel is not just to receive Jesus Christ, but to belong to Him, not just to believe in Him, but to obey Him.[17] 

     

Secondly, the Greek phrase is very compact. Neither noun ("obedience" and "faith") has an article, which we should expect if a distinction was being drawn between them and one were to be conceived as the result of the other. Instead, "obedience of faith" appears to be the one response desired by the evangelist, a personal abandonment of obedience-and-faith or, if you prefer, "obedient faith."

     

Thirdly, mention of obedience is not restricted in the Epistle to the Romans to these two passages. In chapter 6 the Apostle describes the conversion of his readers in these remarkable words (v. 17 literally, "Thanks be to God that you who were slaves of sin obeyed from the heart the form of teaching to which you were committed."[18] The verb "obeyed" is in the aorist tense and refers to their conversion.[19] That conversion is described as an act of obedience not now to Christ or God (although they are called "slaves of God" in verse 22) but to the gospel message they had heard. They had exchanged one slavery for another. Their conversion was not just a liberation from the slavery of sin, but an acceptance of the slavery of righteousness (v. 18). Their Redeemer had become their Lord.[20] 

     

What the apostle thus expounds in the Epistle to the Romans we find illustrated in the evangelistic preaching of our Lord Himself and of His apostles. It is not accurate to suggest that the message of Jesus was simply an offer with no demands.[21] 

     

Perhaps Matthew 11:28-30 gives us the clearest gospel invitation issued by Him. Too many evangelical preachers have taken this text as if it were confined to verse 28, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." But to preach the gospel from this text only and to ignore verse 29 is to handle the word of God deceitfully.[22] Jesus continues: "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me. . . ." Here is the true balance of the gospel. Jesus offers us both rest and a yoke.[23] 

     

When we come to Him, He lifts our burden, and replaces it with His. He eases our yoke, and then fits His.[24] True, we are "heavy laden", while His burden is "light", and we "labor" under our yoke, while His is "easy", but nevertheless we cannot expect to lose our yoke and our burden if we are not prepared to receive His in their place.[25] And what is His "yoke"? The yoke was the transverse wooden bar which held two oxen together. It is used as a symbol of servitude in Scripture. To take His yoke is to become His slave, and to "learn" of Him.[26] The verb is an aorist imperative. It indicates the decisive step of becoming a disciple, of entering His school, of acknowledging Him as our Teacher and Lord.[27]

     

No man can take such a step without due thought. That is why our Lord urged His would-be followers to "sit down first and count the cost." He discourage irresponsible enthusiasts from committing themselves to Him before they had weighed the implications. "Follow me" was His repeated command. But there could be no following without a forsaking, a renunciation (in principle if not in literal fact) of competing loyalties, of family relationships, of personal ambitions, of material possessions (Luke 14:25-33). Before a man could follow Jesus, he must "deny himself and take up his cross" (Mark 8:34).[28] That is, he must repudiate himself and his right to organize his own life as utterly as when Peter denied his Lord (the same verb is used), and he must put himself "into the position of a condemned criminal on his way to execution" (Professor Swete's explanation of "Taking up the cross").

"TAKE MY YOKE"

Thus, taking upon us His yoke and His cross are involved in receiving His rest.[29] The former do not of course merit the latter as a reward. God forbid! But the one is impossible without the other. If I would be a Barabbas and escape the cross, I must be a Simon of Cyrene and carry the cross. Viewed as a penalty for sin, He bore it instead of me. Viewed as a symbol of self-denial, I must bear it after Him.

     

The early apostolic preaching continued the same message. I cannot agree with Dr. Harrison that "this position is unsupported by the examples of gospel preaching in the book of Acts". Why did the apostles lay such stress not only on the resurrection but on the exaltation of Jesus? "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ" (2:36).[30] "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince (R.S.V. "Leader") and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins" (5:31). The Savior offers remission; the Prince demands repentance.[31] Besides, Peter adds, God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (v. 32).[32] God has highly exalted Him that every knee should bow to Him and every tongue confess Him Lord (Phil. 2:9-11).[33]

     

Again, why is baptism so commonly described in the Acts as being simply "into Christ" or "into the name of Christ"? Christian believers are baptized into Christ as the redeemed Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), because baptism symbolizes (among other things) not only the new life we have received bu the new allegiance in which we are involved. Why does Paul tell the Philippian jailor that he must believe in "the Lord Jesus Christ" to be saved if he must only believe in Him as Savior (16:31, cf. 11:17)? And why does Peter, when announcing to Cornelius the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, immediately add in a parenthesis, "He is Lord of all" (10:36)?[34]

     

To confess Jesus as Lord, which in Romans 10:9 is so clearly made a condition of salvation, means more than "subscribing to the gospel announcement that a living Lord attests an efficacious death." It is that. It is also an acknowledgement of the deity of Jesus. But it implies as much that Jesus is "my Lord" as that He is "the Lord". It was in comparison with "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord" that St. Paul counted everything else but loss (Phil. 3:8).[35]

The earliest known Christian Creed is the two words "Kurios Iesous." "Jesus is Lord." No man can say this, affirms the Apostle, except through the illumination of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). but once the confession has been made, the convert may be baptized—baptized into the allegiance of the Lord whom he has professed. To say that only a confession of "factual lordship" is necessary to salvation, without any subjective submission to His as Lord, is to encourage and endorse a faith without works, as dead and sterile as that rejected by James in his epistle.[36]

3) Saving faith issues in newness of life. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1). One may be forgiven if one ventures to rephrase this ancient question in more modern language: "Shall we continue to reject Christ as Lord if we may continue to have Christ as Savior?" Surely the apostle would again retort: "God forbid!"[37]

Saving faith is living faith; it issues in good works. Spurious faith is dead faith. it is alone; it is barren; it has no progeny. Moreover, the works which result from true faith begin to appear immediately. No interim period may be envisaged between the exercise of faith and the performance of works.[38]

Paul teaches the same truth. Faith does not just receive salvation or eternal life; it receives Christ. Faith has no merit in itself; its only value is that it unites the soul to Christ. Thus united to Christ, we are one with Him in His death and resurrection which are signified in our baptism. It is impossible to share the benefits of His death without sharing the power of His resurrection. It is inconceivable that we should die with Him to sin (thus escaping its penalty) without rising with Him to newness of life (Rom. 6:1-11).[39] Similarly, just as a woman may remarry if her husband dies, so we who "have died to the law through the body of Christ" now find ourselves married to Him who has been raised from the dead (Rom. 7:1-4). But it is impossible to escape bondage to the one without contracting marriage to the other!

Indeed, the ultimate purpose of the Father's election and the Son's death is seen to be not our forgiveness but our holiness. "He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." "Our Savior Jesus Christ . . . gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." He "bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should [not: must] live unto righteousness," "that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve Him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life" (Eph. 1:4; Tit. 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:24; Luke 1:74-75).[40]

How can we accept the immediate purpose of our Savior's death (forgiveness) and reject the ultimate purpose (holiness)? We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate.[41] If Christ's person is one, His work is one also. To accept Him as Savior is to cry to Him for a salvation which is as full as it is free; and to cast ourselves upon Him for rescue from all the ugly aspects and consequences of sin, from its tyranny (through His living Lordship) as well as from its penalty (through His atoning work). To divorce His Lordship from His Saviorhood is to cut up our salvation in an unwarrantable fashion.[42]

To say this does not mean that every born-again Christian is perfect or that he never disobeys Christ. He may even experience periods of rebellion and have to renew his surrender in penitence and humility. Nor as Dr. Harrison argues, does it "rule out the necessity for large portions of the practical teaching of the epistles." The great ethical sections of the New Testament are an exhortation to Christians to "be what they are", to live out in practice what they already are in position. "Do you not know . . . ?" asks St. Paul again and again, implying that if only his readers knew what they had become in Christ, they would live in conformity to their Christian standing.

I am suggesting, therefore, that it is as unbiblical as it is unrealistic to divorce the Lordship from the Saviorhood of Jesus Christ. He is "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," and saving faith is commitment to Him who is both Son of God and Savior of men.

To me, the Scriptures require from the sinner such a total and unconditional response as not only presupposes repentance and include obedience but [ . . . ] grace of God, inevitably in a newness of life which is lived unto God and unto righteousness.[43]

Used by permission, Eternity Magazine, published by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Eternity Magazine, September 1959.

FREE GRACE NOTES:

[1] The original Greek says Kurion Iēsoun or "Lord Jesus". The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson affirms that the correct translation is "Jesus is Lord" — in the sense of deity: "No Jew would do this [confess that Jesus is Lord] who had not really trusted Christ, for Kurio in the LXX is used of God....Faith precedes confession, of course." (See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 1123; Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on Romans 10:9.)

[2] Many Free Grace advocates understand John 8:31 and John 12:42-43 to be referring to genuine believers.

[3] In the book of Acts (cf. Acts 9:1-2, 19:9, 19:23, 19:30, 20:30, 24:14) and in the great commission of Matthew 28:19-20 the word disciple is used in the sense of follower.

[4] The actual chronological order is clarified in Romans 10:10: first believe unto righteousness, then confession is made unto salvation. (See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on Romans 10:9. Also see Dr. Constable's Expository Notes on Romans 10:9-10.)

[5] Everett Harrison expounds on these thoughts further in his commentary on Romans in The Expositor's Bible Commentary edited by Frank E. Gaebelien. Harrison writes: "Paul's statement in vv. 9, 10 is misunderstood when it is made to support the claim that one cannot be saved unless he makes Jesus the Lord of his life by a personal commitment. Such a commitment is most important; however, in this passage, Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, which is the very cornerstone for faith, something without which no one could be saved. Intimately connected as it was with the resurrection, which in turn validated the saving death, it proclaimed something that was true no matter whether or not a single soul believed it and built his life on it." (Harrison, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976], 12 Vol., Vol. 10, p. 112.)

[6] The apostle Paul gives the answer plainly: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). Commenting on this verse, Dr. Charles Bing writes: "The acclamation of Jesus as Lord is an acclamation of His sovereign position as God over all and not a demand for individual submission. The objective truth must be distinguished from the subjective requirement." (Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition [Xulon Press: 2010], p. 108.)

[7] Stott redefines faith so as to include works, which he claims are not works. In his view these things are part of true saving faith.

[8] "Dr. Harrison will agree with this" because this is not what he is advocating. In other words, Harrison has no desire to separate Christ as Savior from Christ as Lord.

[9] The word "penitent" means feeling or showing sorrow for having done wrong. But repentance in the Bible means a change of mind, sorrow may or may not accompany it. 

[10] Does repentance involve a change of behavior? Stott says yes, but it would be more accurate to say that repentance leads to a change of behavior. Stott fails to properly distinguish between repentance and the fruit of repentance (cf. Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:3; Acts 26:20). 

[11] Yes, because according to the Bible, repentance is to be distinguished from the fruit of repentance (see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). 

[12] That was the fruit of repentance. The prodigal repented when he "came to his senses" (Luke 15:17), i.e. he repented when he had a change of mind. 

[13] It is not a contradiction to properly distinguish between repentance and the fruit of repentance.

[14] But the bent knee is doing a good work, whereas the open hand is receiving or accepting the work of another (cf. Jn. 1:12).

[15] But the Bible says that salvation is a "free gift" (Rom. 6:23, R.S.V.), no strings attached and no obligations to fulfill other than simply receiving the gift (Jn. 1:12, 3:16-17, etc.). 

[16] Charles Bing in his book Lordship Salvation (pp. 21-24), which is written from a Free Grace perspective, directly interacts with Stott's understanding of the phrase "obedience of faith". Bing writes: "Stott is occupied with arguing against the view that "obedience of faith" refers to sanctifying obedience which comes after saving faith. He does not address an alternative interpretation that faith is the obedient response of sinners to the Gospel." Bing concludes by saying "that 'the obedience of faith' spoken of in Romans 1:5 and 16:26 is obedience to the command to believe the gospel." Another Free Grace author similarly points out that "Rom. 1:5 is properly 'the obedience which is faith' and not the obedience resulting from faith." (See Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 274.) After this statement in Dillow's book, there is a footnote in which Dillow quotes William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 11) when they say: "Faith is the act of assent by which the gospel is appropriated." Additionally, Dr. Constable in his "Expository Notes on Romans 1:5" gives the following helpful commentary on the phrase "obedience of faith". Dr. Constable writes: "Faith is obedience to God because God commands everyone to believe in Christ (cf. John 6:29; Acts 17:30-31). This verse is not teaching that saving faith always results in ongoing obedience to God, though that is normally its effect. [Note: See Robert N. Wilkin, "Obedience to the Faith: Romans 1:5," Grace in Focus 10:6 (November-December 1995): 2-4.]" William R. Newell also has a helpful comment on this verse in his classic evangelical commentary Romans Verse-By-Verse. Commenting on the phrase "obedience of faith" in Romans 1:5, Newell writes: "To obey God's good news, is simply to believe it." All in all, the Bible makes it clear that sinners must obey the command to believe, or as Leon Morris puts it in his commentary on Romans (p. 50), "the way to obey is to believe." (Also see: Jn. 3:36, 6:28-29; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16-17, 5:1, 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8-10.) 

[17] When sinners believe in Him, they are obeying Him. He commands them to believe.

[18] Romans chapters 6-8 have to do with the Christian life. Romans 6:17 is referring to their initial commitment after salvation (cf. Rom. 1:8, 1:12). For more information and further discussion see the comments by Charles Bing in his book Lordship Salvation, p. 24. 

[19] Just because the verb is in the aorist tense does not necessarily mean that it refers to their conversion.

[20] But in Romans 6:18 the apostle Paul is describing what happened to the Roman converts after their initial salvation: "you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Dr. Constable in his commentary on Romans 6:18 is correct to point out: "'Righteousness' here is the result of following Christian teaching, and it is the equivalent of godly living. It is righteous character and conduct. Paul did not say that every believer takes advantage of his or her freedom from sin's tyranny to become a slave of God. He said his readers had done, and in this he rejoiced. Dedication to God is voluntary, not automatic for the Christian (cf. Romans 6:13; Romans 12:1). If a believer does not truly dedicate himself or herself to God, he or she will continue to practice sin to a greater extent than he will if he does present himself to God (Romans 6:16)."

[21] Jesus had more than one message. Which "message of Jesus" does Stott have in mind? He mentions "the Epistle to the Romans" but even in the Epistle to the Romans the apostle Paul writes about justification in chapters 1-5, sanctification in chapters 6-8, dispensations in chapters 9-11, and various exhortations in chapters 12-16. So in regards to determining "the message of Jesus" in any given context, it's good to keep in mind John Wycliff's Golden Rule of Interpretation: "It shall greatly help thee to understand Scripture, if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after." These are key questions to ask and key distinctions to be made when interpreting the Bible.  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). 

[22] The Ryrie Study Bible (written from a Free Grace perspective) has a note on Matthew 11:28-30 that is very good. It says: “The great invitation, extended to all, is threefold: (1) to come and receive salvation; (2) to learn in discipleship; and (3) to serve in yoke with the Lord. The yoke involves instruction under discipline. Yet, in contrast to the teaching of the scribes, Jesus’ yoke is easy. Through the ages these verses have been among the most beloved in the New Testament.” Here Ryrie draws attention to the biblical distinction between salvation (in Matthew 11:28) and discipleship (in Matthew 11:29-30). Stott would do well to also recognize this biblical distinction, but unfortunately he does not.

[23] Commenting on the words of Jesus in Matthew 11:28-30, Charles Bing writes: "To Lordship Salvation teachers, this is exclusively an invitation to discipleship-salvation. Both Stott and MacArthur claim that this is Christ's summary gospel presentation. Both focus on the metaphor of the 'yoke,' which they claim signifies servitude and submission, and the imperative 'learn' (mathētē) which indicates discipleship. . . . But salvation and discipleship can be distinguished: 'Come' is separated from 'take...and learn' in the text in a logical progression (one must come to Christ before one can take something from Him) which shows the sequence of salvation before the submission to discipleship." (Bing, Lordship Salvation, pp. 150-153, ellipsis added.)

[24] Only after salvation does Jesus burden us with the demands of discipleship. 

[25] Why not? Isn't salvation a "free gift" (Rom. 6:23, R.S.V.)? It's not free if demands are attached to it in order to receive it (Rom. 4:4-5, 11:6).

[26] This is discipleship, not salvation. Commenting on Matthew 11:28-30, Dr. Barnhouse affirms: "I believe that this goes much further than salvation. 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light' (Matt. 11:28-30). It's well to note that the word rest is found twice here. Two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote the hymn, 'Let us all in thee inherit, Let us find the second rest. Take away our love of sinning, Alpha and Omega be.' This was a declaration of the two kinds of rest. And what Wesley was singing was, 'Let us find the second rest.' Jesus said, 'Come . . . and I will give you rest. Take my yoke . . . and ye shall find rest.' They are quite different. The one is peace with God; the other is the peace of God. One is a rest that is given; the other is a rest that is found. 'Come unto me . . . and I will give you rest' is the rest of security and the 'take my yoke' is the rest of surrender. The first is a sign that the war is over and you can enter into peace, the second lets you enjoy the peace." (Donald Grey Barnhouse, The Love Life: A Study of the Gospel of John [Glendale, CA: Regal Books Division, G/L Publications, 1973], pp. 316-317, emphasis and ellipsis his.)

[27] Yes, these are the demands of discipleship, not salvation. We need to recognize this distinction in order to "rightly divide [accurately handle] the Word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

[28] By applying these commands to unbelievers and requiring unbelievers to fulfill these demands in order to get saved, Stott is teaching a works-based system of salvation.

[29] According to Matthew 11:28-30, receiving God's rest comes first (i.e. when Jesus says in Matthew 11:28, "I will give you rest") and only after the sinner receives God's rest, that is, becomes a Christian, is he encouraged to take Christ's yoke of discipleship. As Dr. Barnhouse noted above (see footnote 26), the word rest is used twice in Matthew 11:28-30. The first rest refers to salvation; the second rest refers to discipleship, i.e. the believer's rest of Hebrews chapter 4.

[30] Stott asks the question: "Why did the apostles lay such stress not only on the resurrection but on the exaltation of Jesus?" The answer is because in order to be born again, sinners need to believe that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16-18; cf. John 20:30-31; Acts 9:20-22). The preaching in the book of Acts stressing the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus emphasizes His deity.

[31] Stott says, "the Prince demands repentance." Yes, and what is repentance? Not what Stott says it is, but simply a change of mind or a change of heart. 

[32] Citing Acts 5:32, Stott says that "God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (v. 32)." Yes, the command to believe is a command to obey (Acts 16:31; 2 Thess. 1:8-10, etc.); obey the command to believe! Trust Christ and be saved!

[33] The context of Philippians chapter 2 is not salvation, but Christian service (Phil. 2:1-7). This occurs after initial salvation (Phil. 2:12-13).

[34] Harrison already answered these questions when he said, "When the convert proclaimed with his lips, 'Jesus is Lord' [in the sense of deity, i.e. 'Jesus is God'], he was subscribing to the gospel announcement that a living Lord attests an efficacious death (Rom. 4:25). This is the objective aspect of Jesus' lordship. We find it again in such passages as 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Philippians 2:11. But in the view we are considering the lordship of Jesus in a subjective sense has been insisted on. The difference between the two should be made very clear." The title Lord is a reference to the fact that Jesus is God. It is His objective title. The response commanded is simply to believe in Him, not make Him Lord — He is Lord! Believe in Him!

[35] Stott is again confusing Christian life truth with salvation truth. In Philippians 3:8, the apostle Paul is referring to his experience as a Christian and talking about the Christian life. Paul is not talking about how to get saved.

[36] James in his epistle is talking about justification before men and being saved from a barren and unproductive Christian life. Furthermore, if a "subjective submission to [Jesus] as Lord" is necessary to salvation (as Stott argues), why does the apostle Paul in Acts 16:31 not tell the Philippian jailor to submit to Jesus as Lord? Instead, Paul says to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." As Dr. Harrison noted, "The difference between the two should be made very clear." 

[37] Many Free Grace advocates agree that saving faith issues in newness of life. For example, Robert Lightner in his book Sin, Salvation, and the Savior writes on page 208 that "true faith really will express itself in good works. They may not always be seen by others at all times, but life cannot be hidden forever." Quoting Charles Ryrie from his book So Great Salvation, Lightner goes on to write (p. 208): "'So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or in heaven) sometime (especially and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately).'" So Free Grace advocates would generally agree with Stott that "Saving faith issues in newness of life." However, Stott is incorrect to imply that Free Grace advocates like Harrison are saying to outright "reject Christ as Lord" but not as Savior. Once again, Stott fails to distinguish between the objective Lordship of Christ and submitting to Him as Lord in the subjective sense. Additionally, I want to make one last comment in regards to when Stott rephrases Romans 6:1 and asks: "Shall we continue to reject Christ as Lord if we may continue to have Christ as Savior?" Why would the apostle Paul ask such a question if it's not even a real possibility? That wouldn't make any sense. So although "to reject Christ as Lord" (in the subjective sense) would be a tragic misuse of grace, it is nonetheless a real possibility! Thus Stott unwittingly admits that it's possible to reject Christ as Lord of one's life in the subjective sense and still have Christ as Savior!

[38] But surely the example of the carnal believers in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 3:1-3) disproves Stott's statements! I also think of the example of the seed that fell on rocky soil in Luke 8:13. According to Jesus in Luke 8:6, this seed initially "grew up" — in other words, there was life! Maybe there was no good works, but there was life! Jesus explains that "those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear ["the word" of the gospel, v. 12], they receive the word with joy [a "fruit of the Spirit," Gal. 5:22]; and these have no firm root [they have a "root", but it's not "firm"]; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away" (Lk. 8:13). The context is clearly "believe" unto salvation (see Luke 8:12), so these believers in Luke 8:13 are "saved" (Lk. 8:12). Furthermore, as another example, I also think of the religious leaders in John 12:42 who believed in Jesus but were not openly confessing their faith because of their fear of the Jews. These three examples disprove Stott's statements when he says that saving faith always issues in good works and good works begin to appear immediately. I would say (and many Free Grace advocates would say) that good works will not necessarily appear immediately in the life of a believer, but they "should" appear inevitably: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10, NKJV).

[39] Right, but how this new life manifests itself — or doesn't manifest itself as it should, due to one grieving (Eph. 4:30) and/or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19) — is different for each Christian.

[40] All these Scriptures are written to already saved people! Furthermore, when 1 Peter 2:24 says "we...should live unto righteousness," it's in the subjunctive mood in Greek. The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility, not certainty. In other words, it's not a guarantee that every Christian will "live unto righteousness". Indeed, "we...should" as 1 Peter 2:24 says, but this is much different than saying "we must" or "we will".

[41] Stott says: "We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate." I would ask Stott: Are they benefits or requirements? Stott is turning the benefits given us at salvation into legalistic requirements that one must commit to in order to be saved! I like the following statements by Dr. J. Vernon McGee on this topic. Commenting on Ephesians 1:7, McGee writes: "We looked at the Greek words for redemption and saw that it involved the paying of a price which was the blood of Christ: we can have forgiveness because He paid the price. We know that God went into the marketplace where we were sold on the slave block of sin and He bought us, all of us. He is going to use us for Himself — He establishes a personal relationship. We saw also that He bought us in order to set us free. Now somebody will ask, 'Doesn't that upset the hymn that says, 'I gave, I gave My life for thee. What hast thou done for Me?'?' My friend, it surely does. The very word for redemption in verse seven, apolutrosis, means that God never asks you what you have done for Him. That is the glorious thing about grace: when God saves you by grace, it doesn't put you in debt to Him. He bought you in order to set you free. Someone else will ask, 'But aren't we supposed to serve Him?' Certainly. But it is on another basis, a new relationship — the relationship now is love. The Lord Jesus said, 'If ye love me, keep my commandments' (John 14:15). He didn't say, 'Because I'm dying for you, you are to keep My commandments.' He said, 'If you love Me.' Today, if you love Him, He wants your service. If you don't love Him, then forget about this business of service. One hears so much today about commitment to Christ. Friend, you and I have very little to commit to Him. We are to respond in love to Him, and that is a different basis altogether. We love Him because He first loved us. . . . He paid a price for you. He gave Himself and shed His blood so that you could have forgiveness of sins. This is all yours if you are willing to come to Him and accept Him as your Savior."

[42] Stott says: "To divorce His Lordship from His Saviorhood is to cut up our salvation in an unwarrantable fashion." Free Grace advocates like Dr. Harrison do not divorce Christ's Lordship from His Saviorhood. Even Wayne Grudem, a Calvinist and Reformed theologian, admits on page 23 of his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of Lordship Salvation]: "The Free Grace supporters...still affirm strongly that Jesus is in fact Lord over the entire universe and over all of our lives, even though we imperfectly submit to his lordship. And those on the non-Free Grace side, all agree that our submission to Christ's lordship is imperfect in this life. So both sides agree that Jesus is Lord of our lives in some sense and is not fully Lord of our lives in another sense." I might add that Free Grace advocates also understand Christ's title of Lord in the sense of deity and as a designation that He is God.

[43] It appears there is some missing text in the last paragraph of the article (which I have indicated with ellipsis in brackets).