“They shall be My People, and I will be their God”

How is repentance an affirmation of lordship? Jeremiah 32 helps provide a picture of this from God’s perspective. Before getting to that point, several questions have come up since Drew began posting on repentance and the lordship controversy. Perhaps this will help the direction of the conversation. When affirming lordship salvation, it is important that we understand that no aspect of biblical conversion robs God of his glory in election, the Holy Spirit’s effectual ‘cut to the heart,’ or Christ’s supremacy in it all by calling any aspect of those things something that we do apart from God’s work. With that in mind, Jer. 32 explains how God intends to keep his people by his sustaining grace in a way that also affirms his lordship.

Before continuing, read Jer. 32:36-44, or the whole chapter for context. In the second half of verse 40, God tells them, “And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.” In the context of chapter 32, the city has been given over to Babylon and to famine and pestilence according to the people. The sword, famine, and pestilence they are facing are, ultimately, a result of their rejection of God’s lordship in Jerusalem (v. 23, “But they did not obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them.”). Then, in v. 37, God says he will gather his people from all the countries to which he drove them in his wrath and judgment, and will bring them back to a place of safety. But how does he say he will sustain them?

Verse 38 begins the progression: “They shall be my people, and I will be their God.” Then in v. 39, he declares, “I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever.” At that point, he promises to give them a heart different than what they currently have. Why does he promise that? “For their own good and the good of their children after them” (v. 39b).

After v. 39, we see the lasting impact of God’s promise here and how it transcends the current strife of the people of Israel to the church. Verse 40 says, “I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them.” God’s promise here is made apart from conditions and merit, and therefore is by grace alone. Then, at the end of v. 40, he explains how this relates to lordship and a restoration of what we were made for. He says, “And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.” At this point, and in the context of this discussion, there should be a fairly obvious correlation between God’s sovereign sustaining grace and our submission to his lordship. In this everlasting covenant, God will “put the fear of [himself] in [our] hearts, that [we] may not turn from [him].” This means that we will affirm his lordship by having an upright fear of God in a manner in which he is glorified by our joy in him, “that [he] may not turn away from doing good to [us].”

Finally, v. 41 takes it to its furthest extent: “I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.” So, God will rejoice with all his heart and soul in doing good to his children, who fear him and submit to his lordship in an upright manner. Therefore, in the context of these verses, lordship is set in place in order that God’s children would be restored to their position of man created to glorify God by enjoying him forever. We see here that in lordship, or having “the fear of God in our hearts,” we may not turn from him; therefore, God will rejoice in doing those who fear him good, and will plant them in his land of faithfulness, with all his heart and all his soul.

I include this in this series because we must see that an affirmation of lordship is absolutely necessary to salvation in its cosmic sense. With that in mind, an affirmation of the lordship of Christ begins in, and is sustained by, God’s sovereign grace for us in salvation. Repentance is a necessary fruit of the new birth in view of the everlasting covenant, and it is manifest both by contrition and a volitional turn from sin to the lordship of Christ. Therefore, every child of God called to salvation will also be called to and affirm Christ’s lordship, and it is to those who the fear of God is maintained and secured, is a gift that God will “not turn away from doing them good.”

Hopefully that, at least somewhat, clearly shows how lordship and repentance go together for salvation from God’s perspective. “Let thy goodness, like a fetter, bind my wandering heart to thee.”

Book Review: The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins

Philip Jenkins is currently Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Humanities at Pennsylvania State University. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity originally went to press in 2001. The Next Christendom is a winner of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association’s Gold Medallion Award, and named a top religion book of 2002 by USA Today.

Summary of The Next Christendom

Christianity of the West and Islam of the Middle East have become one of the central concerns for many of the world’s current issues. Jenkins believes tensions are high between the two regions partly because of the globalization of the public square, and also because of a major religious shift that is occurring in these regions, including the growing fact that Christianity is increasingly moving south and back to where it began (p. 14).

In The Next Christendom, Jenkins provides a short overview of Western Christianity, saying that it found its Western niche during the post-Constantine days of Rome, and soon after became a part of European culture. But before that, he points out that Christianity was a new faith that was partly Jewish and partly Greek. Shortly after Christ’s ascension, the gospel spread throughout the Roman provinces east to China and India, north and west to Europe, and south to Africa.

Following that, Jenkins then describes how militant Islam swept across Africa and western Asia and caused the church to eventually lose most of its grip in Africa and the Middle East, especially (pp. 25-38). With that being a major factor, Jenkins also suggests that other religious traditions competed with Christianity in Africa and Asia.

Though the book is not long, it is expansive in its scope. He covers the expansion of Christianity through colonialism and modern missionary efforts, suggesting that though Christianity has been largely defined by its Western believers, there were still Catholic and Protestant churches being planted outside of European Christendom (see p. 50, for example).

In chapter four, Jenkins then suggests that the dramatic secularization of Western Europe has changed the face of Christendom. At the same time, he points out that there are now nearly 50 million Protestant believers and over 400 million Catholics in South America (p. 57). More importantly, Jenkins makes the point that these churches-though their buildings often look Western-their congregations have developed indigenous nuances (including political, charismatic, and syncretistic) to go with the gospel message (pp. 39-53; 74-78).

From there, Jenkins suggests that the shift of Christianity from the West to the South and East is happening for several reasons. Among these, first, Western nations have largely developed an engrossment with tolerance and materialism. Second, Western populations are growing at a slower rate than developing nations. Though this does not mean other major religions are not growing in the South also, the point is: Christianity is growing at a phenomenal rate in the Southern hemisphere and in China, therefore making a profound impact on the global look of Christianity (pp. 81-85; 94-105).

If such trends continue, Jenkins claims Christianity will inevitably become increasingly Southern in style, culture, philosophy, and academics, and less Western over time. So the question remains: what will Christianity look like when it is no longer culturally European or Western? Will it still be Christianity? As the church population explodes in developing nations and becomes more indigenous to those cultures, will there be a conflict of orthodoxy and heresy like in the early church? Will the church become increasingly poor, libertarian, or spiritual? (see pp. 108-17; 145-56).

Critical Evaluation of The Next Christendom

I remember watching the news one night and hearing a Saudi Muslim complaining of the “American Christian Zionists” and their out-and-out lack of respect for Islam. This kind of thing will likely continue to wedge a rift between Western Christian ideology and missions and the non-Western world. Jenkins’ projections do look as if they are better than conjecture here. Not only will the current Western and Islamic conflict have a profound impact on the global public square, it will also affect church planting and evangelism in Africa and Central Asia, especially in the 10/40 window.

Jenkins’ book does provide helpful information. But, I do have a few issues with the book. For example, in a smaller part of the book, Jenkins describes the coming of the new global Christendom with a categorical applied definition of Christianity that is too broad. I think this should be addressed in order to make an appropriate assessment of the value of Jenkins’ book. What is his applied definition of a Christian, according to the book? “A Christian is someone who describes himself or herself as a Christian” (p. 88). Later, he clarifies that “the term ‘Christian’ could be used only for someone who had experienced a personal born-again conversion” (100). To be fair, Jenkins’ does explain why he chooses to use such a broad definition. He makes note of the evangelical tendency to unfairly deflate Christian numbers or ignore whether Catholics are to be included. Then he also admits that some groups make larger-than-life claims. So what definition can be better?

But such a definition is problematic. Overly syncretistic churches in Africa with a skewed view of the gospel of Jesus Christ and an unhealthy mix of traditional animism are not Christian churches. Jenkins’ definition is broad enough to include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Should those numbers be counted as Christian just because they consider themselves to be followers of Jesus? Though it is not useful to be excessively narrow, it does not help missionaries to accept that a people group is evangelized according to such a broad definition of a Christian. Be that as it may, as the newer Southern and Eastern churches continue to grow, they will begin to look less and less like a Western church and more like an indigenous church. The question is the book leaves is: what will they look like? Will they really be Christian? And, how will we know?

Conclusion

What should we think about Jenkins’ book? For one, just as there is a growing secularization in Europe, North America is also a part of that trend (cf. pp. 166-67). What will believers in North America do about it? Join it? Or, reaffirm their commitment to the Great Commission and preach the gospel at home also? In summary, Jenkins’ book can be both helpful and average at best. For that, I recommend The Next Christendom with only some reservation for missions or general reading.

• Read Terry Delaney’s review at Said @ Southern.
• Buy The Next Christendom @ Amazon.

Repentance (Lordship and Non-lordship Definitions)

In my last two posts, I have sought to reveal the biblical data which clearly establishes that the repentance is inseparably tied to faith and both are central to the New Testament’s teaching on conversion. However, in order to properly understand the place of repentnce in salvation, the biblical definition of repentance should also be established.

Chafer defined metanoia (Greek word for repentence) as “a change of mind,” noting that “reading into this word the thought of heart-anguish is responsible for much confusion in the area of soteriology.”^[1]  Ryrie, also understands metanoia to refer to a change of mind apart from sorrow over sin.  According to Ryrie, “the only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ.”^[2] 

Hodges even claims that “the standard Greek-English dictionary does not list any New Testament passage where the meaning ‘to change one’s mind’ actually occurs.”^[3]  He is content to allow metanoia to be interpreted as a turning from sin, only repentance has no bearing on salvation, rather only on “fellowship with [God].”^[4]  He makes the important point that repentance must be determined contextually, however, he seems to consistently misinterpret its context. 

Lordship advocates work to gather all the biblical data on repentance and define it as “a turning to God from sin that involves a change of heart and purpose inevitably resulting in a change of behavior.”^[5]  MacArthur agrees that repentance is not “merely shame or sorrow for sin, although genuine repentance always involves an element of remorse” (Rom. 2:3-4).^[6]  This sorrowful repentance is not merely a human work, “it is, like every element of redemption, a sovereignly bestowed gift of God.”^[7]  This clearly reflects the force of Acts 11:18, “then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”  This statement follows the conversion of Cornelius and its “context clearly indicates that the Jews rejoiced that the Gentiles were forgiven and justified (10:43)” such that “repentance unto life” appears “to be used as a virtual synonym for ‘believed in the Lord Jesus Christ’ in verse 17.”^[8] 

In addition, 2 Timothy 2:25-26 speaks of God granting “repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” to Timothy’s “opponents” with the result that those repenting “may escape the snare of the devil, being captured by him to do his will.”  These “opponents” must be unbelievers and this text simply gives no indication that repentance has fellowship with God in view. 

Thus, it has been established that God is the one who grants repentance and repentance is clearly tied to conversion.  MacArthur says the call to repent is “a command to recognize one’s lawlessness and hate it, to turn one’s back on it and flee to Christ, embracing him with wholehearted devotion.”^[9]  As a result, biblical repentance contains three essential elements: intellectual (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32; 15:7, 10), emotional (Matt. 21:29-32), and volitional (Matt. 13:15; Luke 17:4; 22:32).^[10] 

Intellectually, repentance begins with recognition of sin, not simply recognition of who Jesus is (Luke 18:13), often the verb metanaeo (Luke 15:7) is used to denote intellectual repentance.  Although remorse may not reflect true repentance, emotionally genuine repentance involves “a sense of anguish at having sinned against God” (2 Cor. 7:10).^[11]  This fits with the repentance portrayed in the Old Testament, “with sackcloth and ashes, the symbols of mourning (cf. Job 42:6; Jonah 3:5-6).”^[12] 

Volitionally, true repentance is marked “by a change of the will . . . that will inevitably result in change of behavior.”^[13]  In the New Testament “epistrepho” is used to denote volitional repentance.^[14] This change of behavior is not what saves, but should be understood as the fruit of true repentance. Therefore, it can be seen that repentance in the New Testament certainly denotes more than sorrow for sin but certainly not less. Furthermore repentance takes on a fuller meaning than non-lordship proponents give it and as such it is intricately tied to faith and ultimately salvation. 

---

^[1]Chafer, Systematic, 373.

^[2]Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 92, 94.  Such a narrow definition does not necessarily fit the broader lexical range of “metanoia.” Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines “meta,noia” as “the change of mind of those who have begun to abhor their errors and misdeeds, and have determined to enter upon a better course of life, so that it embraces both a recognition of sin and sorrow for it and hearty amendment.”  Joseph Henry Thayer, trans., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962) 406.  Ryrie’s definition of repentance essentially makes repentance and faith the same thing, repentance clearly has a broader meaning.

^[3]Hodges, Absolutely Free!, 146.

^[4]Ibid.  

^[5]Gleason, “The Lordship Salvation Debate,” 61.

^[6]MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 179.

^[7]Ibid.

^[8]Thomas J. Nettles, “Review of Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation,” Trinity Journal   

^[9]Ibid. 179.

^[10]Ibid. 180.

^[11]Ibid. 

^[12]Ibid. Unfortunately, for the sake of space this analysis has limited itself to assessing repentance in the New Testament.  The repentance demanded by God of his people in the Old Testament clearly demands both a change of  behavior and a turning of the heart toward God (cf. 1 Kings 8:47-48; 2 Chron 6:37-38; Deut 30:1-3).  In addition, the command to repent in the Old Testament is often accompanied by warnings of eschatological judgment (cf. Isa 1:27-28; Ezek 18:30-32).  In order to rightly understand repentance in the New Testament, the commands to repent in the Old Testament should be addressed-it is worth noting that non-lordship proponents see much more discontinuity between the Testaments in the area of repentance (c.f. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 377-378). 

^[13]Ibid.  

^[14]Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 201.  Here the verb epistrepho means to “turn back morally, to reform.”

Repentance in the New Testament Epistles

I have established that the overall pattern of Jesus’ preaching in gospels and the apostles’ preaching in Acts is clearly marked by the call to repent. This is because repentance in part and parcel of the gospel message. Thus, the New Testament simply does not envision believers who have not yet repented. Repentance is inseparable from faith in the call of the gospel and it is the necessary fruit of true conversion. In this short post, I intend to show that in addition to the gospels and Acts, the New Testament epistles also echo Christ’s command to repent and believe.

It is clear that Christ’s message was one of repentance and his disciples were faithful to retain Jesus’ pattern of preaching as their teaching prominently features repentance as well. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:10, “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.” Thus, Paul clearly believed that repentance is intricately tied to salvation.^[1]

Peter’s second epistle also clearly ties repentance to the fulfillment of God’s promises in salvation: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). It is extremely difficult to make sense of these passages if repentance is understood to be something that takes place after conversion. Faith and repentance, if rightly understood, should be placed together as the biblically commanded human response to the gospel call. Repentance is a work of God and man–sinners must repent to receive salvation, yet God enables them to do so (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). The Gospels, Acts, and the New Testament epistles clearly tie repentance to conversion–a great deal must be read into these texts in order to see repentance as applying only to sanctification.

In my next post, I will discuss the Greek words used for repentance and how both lordship and non-lordship proppnents understand them. I will argue that non-lordship teaching incorrectly defines “repentance” to the detriment of the church.

---

^[1]Other key Pauline texts on repentance include 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Romans 2:3-4.

Repentance in the Gospels and Acts

In this post, I will address the centrality of repentance in the gospel call in Acts and the Gospels. In posts to follow I will address repentance in the New Testament epistles and develop a brief theology of repentance. I hope to set forth the place of repentance in Salvation. I want to argue that “salvation” devoid of repentance is no salvation at all because the gospel call to salvation in Scripture is to repentance and faith.

Mark 1:14-15, serving as a summary statement concerning Jesus’ preaching, says, “Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel.” Therefore, for Jesus, the gospel message demands its adherents to both repent and believe—no member of the kingdom of God may choose one and not the other. In “God’s salvation, faith and repentance are inseparable.”^[1] Non-lordship proponents, however, object, claiming that “there are one hundred and fifteen passages at least wherein the word ‘believe’ is used alone and apart from every other condition as the one way to salvation.”^[2] Chafer also claims that of the one hundred and fifty portions of Scripture that address human responsibility in salvation, none of them “make any reference to repentance as a separate act.”^[3] The New Testament data, however, reveals that repentance is a foundational part of the gospel message to be preached to those who do not believe. While the Bible does, at times, speak of salvation by faith without mention of repentance, it should be noted that the Bible also gives commands to repent without making mention of faith (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:10; 2 Tim. 2:25).^[4] Thus, the New Testament’s teaching on the gospel call does include the call to repent.

The call to repentance must be adequately addressed for the gospel to be rightly preached. In Christ’s final command to his disciples, he tells them “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in [Jesus'] name to all nations” (Luke 24:47). Thus, Ernest C. Reisinger rightly notes that Jesus “both began and closed His ministry on the subject of repentance,” signifying its essential place in the gospel.^[5] Luke 24:47 reveals that Jesus himself clearly tied remission of sins to repentance. John the Baptist’s message was one of repentance: “John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’” and John continues by quoting Isaiah saying, “the voice of the one calling in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight” (Matt. 3:1-3). Therefore, “repentance makes the path straight between the Lord and the repenting person.”^[6] The preaching that served to prepare for the coming of the messiah was preaching centered on repentance. Furthermore, when Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, “they went out and proclaimed that people should repent” (Mark 6:12).

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost set forth the call to repentance, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”^[7] Paul’s preaching in Acts reflects a similar formula to that of Peter, in his famous sermon on Mars Hill, he boldly claims that “the times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Thus, Paul sees Christ as inaugurating a new age where all men (i.e. people from every nation) are commanded to repent.^[8]

---

^[1]Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord and Christ (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994) 64.

^[2]Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation (Philadelphia, PA: Sunday School Times Company, 1919) 49.

^[3]Chafer, Systematic, 376. Chafer’s argument here represents a dangerous hermeneutic where the majority of texts are placed over and against the minority. Chafer doesn’t address the fact that repentance continues to show up in summary statements of the gospel, nor does he address whether or not these texts rule out repentance.

^[4]Randall Gleason, “The Lordship Salvation Debate,” Evangelical Review of Theology 27.1(2003) 62.

^[5]Reisinger, Lord and Christ, 60.

^[6]Roberts, Repentance, 25. Roberts further discusses John the Baptist’s message of repentance in Mark 1:4, “John the Baptist appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Roberts claims that here, “one follows the other: repentance must precede forgiveness; forgiveness does follow repentance. There is something grossly unwise in supposing that a person can enjoy the forgiveness of sin while resisting or merely remaining ignorant of repentance.”

^[7]Peter’s preaching in Acts continually reflects Christ’s message of repentance and faith (see also Acts 3:19; 5:30-32).

^[8]See also Acts 20:20-21 where Paul summarizes his past ministry to the Elders at Ephesus, saying, “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Furthermore, Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa in Acts 26 clearly contains the call to repentance, “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with repentance” (Acts 26:20).

More from the Jones/Hansen dialogue

I wrote over the weekend about the dialogue on Christianity Today’s website between Tony Jones and Collin Hansen. The dialogue has continued and it’s been alright, though most of the questions being asked are going unanswered in what increasingly looks like nothing more than a good example of charity in conversation between “emergents” and “non-emergents” (if you’ll excuse my categorization).  I wanted further clarity on Jones’ view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, which has been a murky phrase in theological circles, especially in the past two centuries.

So on Wednesday, Jones had the following to say: 

I’ve been reading some of the young, Reformed bloggers write about our conversation, and one sentiment has stood out. Several have written that my affirmation of God’s sovereignty, the inspiration of Scripture, and the Atonement is not good enough. “What does he really mean?” they ask. “I don’t think he really means what I mean!” So, I ask you, do you think that any affirmation of the historic, creedal beliefs of Christianity by an Emergent will be good enough for the young, restless Reformeds?

I’m not concerned with being appeased. I don’t harbor ill will against Jones and I appreciate his call for epistemic humility to a certain extent. Far too often, both the Reformed and the non-Reformed will attack one another’s positions viciously and it becomes a caricature of what brotherly Christian dialogue should look like. You really see this a lot with the language used in the polemics between Calvinists and Arminians (”they don’t believe in the sovereignty of God,” or “they don’t believe in prayer and evangelism,” etc.).

But simple definition of terms is never too much to ask, especially when you make it a point to be so ambiguous about a great many things and associate with people like Brian McLaren who have some ‘different’ takes on the gospel.  

Nor is it too much to ask for clarification if he intends to use that phrase, “the inspiration and authority of Scripture.”  The history of the doctrine of inerrancy in the 19th and 20th centuries illustrates this point well.

Many sought to do away with inerrancy, claiming that it was nothing but an overreaction to biblical criticism by American theologians like B.B. Warfield and A.A. Hodge.  The late-nineteenth century trial of Charles Briggs by the General Assembly of the PCUSA and the outlandish Rogers/McKim proposal are two cases of this history.  What was recognized as ridiculous in the 19th century became established liberal Protestantism’s creed in the late 20th century. They would (and many do today) espouse the “inspiration and authority of Scripture” but they held to bastardized views of inspiration and authority.

As Charles Hodge said in response to Darwinism, “When a drama is introduced in a theatre and universally condemned, and a little while afterward, with little change . . . it is received with rapturous applause, the natural conclusion is, that the change is in the audience and not in the drama.”  

Such is the case with modern views against inerrancy and the sufficiency and authority of Scripture.  This is important to remember today as the emergent crowd consistently promotes “new” ideas.  In reality, many of these views are often re-painted 19th and 20th century liberalism.

So no, Tony Jones. I’m not asking you to affirm any creeds (nor should anyone else for that matter). You can affirm creeds all day long and reserve different interpretations of those creeds. All I’m asking is that you define your terms like any good theologian should.  I’m not waiting here to denounce you as a heretic and pounce on any point I see as aberrant. You can hold to whatever view of Scripture you please, just be forthcoming. That’s all.  

Epistemic humility? Certainly, but with a dose of conviction please. Clarity must characterize these interactions if there is to any genuine dialogue occurring. I’d like to see genuine dialogue.

For more information on the subjects discussed in this post, read this (where the quotes come from), this, and this. Or you can read a little bit about some of these things here.

An Evangelical Manifesto

I have a couple of comments and questions to make about whether the Evangelical Manifesto set to be released today at a news conference in Washington DC will provide any sort of consensus to salvage the term Evangelical “before its character is obscured and its importance is lost.” Before getting to that, the article in USA today by Cathy Grossman sets the scene.

Grossman writes, “The manifesto condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible.” Therefore, when faith loses its independence from the public square, the manifesto claims, “Christians become useful idiots for politicians.” According to A. Larry Ross, a spokesman for the group, the public will be invited to discuss the document and sign on in agreement, adding that “more than 80 influential Christians” have already signed it. “The goal is to lay down lines on the turf and go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical before its character is obscured and its importance is lost,” he said.

Some influential Evangelicals have expressed concern about the manifesto. Frank Page, president of the SBC, says he is concerned it will be “spun to conclude that Christians should hold back from speaking out on public policy.” Ed Stetzer, who has not seen the manifesto, goes on to say in Grossman’s article, “Christians need to speak prophetically to all parties, not be beholden to one. Evangelicals need to be known for what we are for: showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only what we are against on public policy.” Al Mohler, James Dobson and Richard Land are among others named that have not signed on.

Now, I would like to add a few comments:

1. If this Evangelical Manifesto is actually going to be useful, the primary point that Christians should express political views with a regard of the truth of the Bible needs to be made clear. This is where Stetzer’s comment is helpful.
2. However, if it is spun to conclude that Christians should hold back from speaking out on public policy, then it will not be helpful.
3. Besides, IMO attempting to save a term from the misfortune of other words like fundamentalism is entirely secondary to truly pressing matters of public policy (e.g. abortion, being careful not to turn the immigration issue into a racial one, not allowing education to be taken away from the family).
4. Whether the manifesto gains widespread support or not, Christians should know they can only speak intelligently concerning issues in the public square if they first regard the truth of the Bible in a way that honors the supremacy and good news of Christ, “not only what we are against in public policy.”

What do you think? Can an Evangelical Manifesto help Christians focus properly on their role in the public square “to speak prophetically to all parties . . . showing and sharing the good news of Christ, not only what we are against in public policy,” with the clear teachings and principles of Scripture guiding us? Can it actually save the term evangelical? Do you have any concerns about this?

Update: Interestingly, unlike the USA Today article suggests, the document only deals with the issue of Evangelicals and the public square in part of the document. The manifesto attempts to reclaim the term evangelical and to express how Christians should engage public policy issues, the culture we live in, and the globalization of the public square in the Internet Age. I certainly recommend you read it.

History of the Lordship Salvation Controversy

It could be argued that the Lordship Salvation Controversy has been around for ages–ever since repentance lost its rightful place in the church’s gospel preaching. In this post, however, I will briefly trace the clear development of non-lordship theology from its early 20th century beginnings to its present form.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy can be traced back to the interaction of two early 20^th century theologians, Lewis Sperry Chafer and Benjamin B. Warfield. Warfield was concerned about Chafer’s soteriology, claiming, “in [Chafer] we hear of two kinds of Christians whom he designates respectively ‘carnal men’ and ’spiritual men’” (B.B. Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He That is Spiritual,” 324). Chafer grounded his belief in two types of Christians on his commitment to Sola Fide, claiming that, “the eternal glories which are wrought in sovereign grace are conditioned, on the human side, by faith alone”  (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, 371). Chafer claimed that repentance and faith are essentially the same thing, thus Chafer could affirm both that “repentance is essential to salvation and that none could be saved apart from repentance,” and that “it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation” (373, 76). Chafer directly addresses how his theology should influence preaching of the gospel, claiming that, “in all gospel preaching every reference to the life lived beyond regeneration should be avoided as far as possible.”

Thus, according to Chafer, the gospel preacher is to call sinners to believe but not explicitly to repent and believe. Hence, Chafer saw two great spiritual changes taking place in Christian’s lives: “the change from the ‘natural man’ to the saved man, and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the spiritual man” (He that is Spiritual, 8). Chafer claimed that what many evangelicals termed “repentance” and placed alongside faith should actually be placed after conversion in an act of adjustment toward the Holy Spirit. Chafer’s theology reflects the movement of removing repentance from the gospel call and placing it in the arena of sanctification. (Randall Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40.2, 250). Warfield, seeing “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15) as unitary call unto salvation, claimed that “these things [repentance and faith], cannot be separated, and it is a grievous error to teach that a true believer in Christ can stop short in ‘carnality,’ though having the Spirit with him and in him” (Warfield, “A Review of Lewis Sperry Chafer’s He that is Spiritual,” 326). Warfield thus saw Chafer as teaching that Christians could be justified without experiencing the Spirit’s progressive work of regeneration.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy was later taken up in Eternity Magazine through a brief exchange between Everett F. Harrison and John R. W. Stott. Harrison, effectively workng out Chafer’s theology, placed repentance in the realm of discipleship (Everett F. Harrison, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? NO!” Eternity, 14). Stott, arguing that Jesus Christ must be accepted as Lord and savior, emphasized the inseparable connection between saving faith and repentance (Stott, “Must Christ be Lord to be Savior? YES!” Eternity, 17-18). In recent years, Charles C. Ryrie and Zane C. Hodges, both opponents of the lordship position, wrote books in response to John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, a major work representing the lordship position. Ryrie, much like Chafer, argues that repentance should be understood simply to mean “changing one’s mind about Jesus,” whereas repentance that denotes a conscious turning from sin should be practiced by believers for the purpose of restoring “fellowship with our Father and His family” (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 100). Hodges takes Chaferian theology to its logical conclusion claiming that “faith represents the call to salvation” while “the call to repentance is the call to enter into harmonious relations with God” (Hodges, Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, 146). Hodges represents bold and significant departure from the traditional reformed position on the doctrine of repentance by clearly placing repentance in the realm of sanctification. In so doing, Hodges establishes his belief in two kinds of Christians.

MacArthur, however, claims that “repentance is a critical element of conversion” and “not simply another word for believing” (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 178). Therefore, while Lordship and non-lordship proponents have debated over regeneration, justification, and sanctification, it has been shown that at the heart of the lordship salvation controversy is a fundamental disagreement on the biblical doctrine of repentance. In posts to follow I will set forth a brief biblical theology of repentance and answer a number of non-lordship objections.

Repent and Believe (Repentance and the Lordship Salvation Controversy)

Mark 1:14-15 reports that “Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” According to Jesus’ statement in Mark 1, repentance and faith are essential to the gospel message that Jesus preached. Biblical repentance, however is not present in much preaching today—“the word repentance is still in our vocabulary today, it is nonetheless a tragically misunderstood and carelessly disregarded term” (Richard Owen Roberts, Repentance: The First Word of the Gospel, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002, 16). Thus, the question arises—how does repentance relate to salvation? Are sinners saved only by faith apart from repentance or are repentance and faith intricately connected? Proponents of what has been termed “lordship salvation” have long held that true saving faith is faith that is inseparably joined to repentance. Proponents of what may be termed the “non-Lordship” position claim that salvation is by faith alone and repentance comes after faith as a result of growing in likeness to Christ. Such divergent claims reveal the need for a thorough biblical theology of repentance and its tie to salvation.

In a series of posts to follow, I will discuss the history and the key tenants of both sides of the Lordship Salvation Controversy while revealing the Bible’s clear teaching on repentance. It will be shown that the non-lordship position fails to do justice to the biblical data, misunderstands the place of repentance in the work of redemption, and does harm to the church which Christ died to redeem.

Although the theology of “non-lordship” theologians is no longer holds the same influence it once did, its affects upon the evangelical church are widespread. In fact, I think much of today’s poor preaching on conversion is likely tied in some way, shape, or form to non-lordship teaching. I hope these posts are helpful to you and establish clearly in your mind that repentance and faith are the necessary response to the gospel!

Next Post: Brief History of the Lordship Salvation Controversy.

Laying Up Treasure

¹⁹“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, ²⁰but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. ²¹For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)

You have heard the common adage that Jesus taught more on wealth than any other social issue, right? If not–there you go–its true, Jesus has a lot to say about money. However, it is interesting to note that in these verses, Jesus does not warn against laying up treasure. Instead Jesus warns against laying up a certain kind of treasure. Jesus doesn’t categorically condemn storing up treasure altogether. Jesus warns against laying up treasures on earth, i.e. treasures that will not last beyond this earthly existence.

This is not a categorical “ban on savings or financial planning or ownership of property” (Daniel Doriani, The Sermon on the Mount, 156; c.f. Gen. 41, Prov. 6:6-10; 2 Cor. 12:14). Work is part of God’s ordering of creation (Gen. 1:28-29, 2:15) and Paul even tells the Thessalonians, “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Th. 3:10).

It should also be noted that Jesus’ warning is specifically do not lay up treasures “for yourselves.” In other words this is a warning against selfishness. The treasures we are to lay up are treasures that last. Treasures invested invested in the kingdom of God and the people of the kingdom!

This is nothing less than a radical reorienting of our priorities and our work. Jesus doesn’t denounce storing up treasure. Oh how the Lord loves when his Children store up treasure in heaven! That is why the prayer of the disciple is “your kingdom come!” This teaching here in Matthew 6:19-21 isn’t really all that different from the Lord’s prayer–it is another reminder that as those who have been brought into the Kingdom of God through Christ, we now live for Christ’s kingdom and not our own!

But how do we go about storing up treasures in heaven? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Invest in the members of the Kingdom of God. In other words disciple other believers. i.e. Pour yourself into other believers, pray for them, encourage them, invite them into your life to observe the way that you serve the Lord day in and day out. Let them observe your successes and failures, and how you respond failures. Let them hear you confess sin and turn from it. We store up treasure in heaven when we disciple other believers. Discipleship is an eternal investment.
2. Invite those outside the kingdom into the kingdom. In other words, share the gospel. Develop relationships with the lost people around. Talk to your neighbor, go get lunch once a week at the same place and get to know the people who work there. If you like to play soccer, join a recreational soccer league and seek to develop relationships for the gospel with your teammates. Tell these people about Jesus and share the gospel with them.
3. Give those rusty, moth-eaten treasures away! Any of those treasure you have that will not last for eternity, be willing to give them up so that you might have true, lasting, satisfying treasures in heaven! In other words give money, resources, shelter for the spreading of the gospel and for the good of other believers.

“What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1 Cor. 4:7).