The spread of non-lordship teaching on repentance should concern evangelical churches today as it calls many essential New Testament teachings into question. Non-lordship salvation proponents have difficulty making sense of the biblical doctrine of regeneration and its place in salvation as their theology envisions regenerate Christians living altogether pagan lives. Hodges makes this clear when he says “though genuine repentance may precede salvation . . . it need not do so.”[1] Non-lordship teaching on repentance leaves open the possibility that someone could be elect but not regenerate. Hodges “radical disjunction between saving faith and repentance . . . creates a Christian who is hostile to God, who cannot submit to God’s law, and who does not belong to Christ” (contra Rom. 8:1-13).[2]
In addition, Ryrie claims that, “a believer could come to the place of not believing, yet God will not disown him.”[3] Thus, the radical separation between repentance and faith results in little if any criteria for discerning which people in a church are believers. Such teaching would significantly harm the health of a church, specifically in the area of church discipline. It is difficult to make sense of how non-lordship proponents would conduct church discipline. How could a church justify treating one as a “gentile and a tax collector” who the church, according to their theology, believes to be regenerate? Therefore, the lordship position on repentance presents both a more consistent theological front and a healthier view of the church than the non-lordship position.
While non-lordship proponents would make a radical separation of repentance and faith in the ordo salutis (order of salvation), it is clear that Scripture makes no such radical separation as both repentance and faith are inseparably wed together in the gospel call. Furthermore, those in the New Testament who did not exhibit lives marked by repentance are to be treated as unbelievers (Matt. 18:17, 1 Cor. 5:1-2, 1 John 2:19). The necessary connection between repentance and faith together as the human response to the gospel call clearly reflects the biblical data. Neglect of this essential connection reflects departure from biblical soteriology and ecclesiology. The lordship position on repentance must be maintained in order for the gospel to be rightly preached and for the church to rightly reflect the glory of God.
[1]Hodges, Absolutely Free!, 146. It is at this point that Hodges significantly departs from traditional reformed theology as much biblical teaching on salvation is modified to refer to fellowship with God. Hodges cites Calvin in defense of his view that faith apart from repentance is the lone condition for salvation. However Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion wrote, “Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means! But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished . . . repentance and faith though constantly linked together, are only to be united not confounded.” Thus Hodges fails to accurately portray Calvin’s teaching that faith and repentance are inseparably connected. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. The Library of Christian Classics, Vols 21. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1960). III.iii.5.
[2]Nettles, “Review of Absolutely Free!“, 244.
[3]Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 141. Ryrie grounds this on the assertion that “believe” is almost always in the aorist tense.
Drew, this makes me wonder how often our churches are consciously aware of the problem?
What do you think?
Drew,
I thought you might be interested in an electronic edition of this book. It’s currently available for pre-order from Logos Bible Software as part of the Charles Ryrie Collection.
Sorry that I am late to this discussion, but I have a contribution to make.
Before the specific let me say I reject the Lordship Salvation (LS) interpretation of the Gospel including the LS definition of repentance as articulated by LS advocates such as Dr. John MacArthur. Now…
In my reading of various Lordship related books, websites and blogs I discovered a widespread belief that the late Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin and the GES are perceived as the voice of the Free Grace movement. This is a serious misnomer! There was at one time a general sense of unity in the Free Grace movement centered on the GES. That unity began to erode beginning with Hodges’s and Wilkin’s shift on the doctrine of repentance. The disintegration of unity escalated greatly over Hodges’s Crossless Gospel. This is a reductionist assault on the necessary content of saving faith that eclipses any form of the so-called Easy-Believism the NT church has ever been exposed to.
As for repentance, Zane Hodges totally eliminated repentance from the conversion experience. In his book, Harmony With God Hodges took the position that the process of repentance may be a preparatory step in coming to salvation, and should be evident in the life of a believer, but a lost man can be born again apart from repentance by any definition. Hodges also said he no longer held to the “change of mind” view of repentance. Hodges said there is only one answer to the question, “What must I do to be saved?” Hodges emphatically stated that repentance is not part of the answer.
Ironically, Bob Wilkin’s 1985 doctrinal dissertation (DTS) is titled Repentance as a Condition for Salvation in the New Testament. At that time Wilkin held the “change of mind” view and believed repentance was a condition for salvation. The influence of Hodges eventually led Wilkin to abandon the position he defended in his dissertation. At the 1998 Grace Evangelical Society’s National Conference Bob Wilkin revealed he had a “change of mind” about repentance. Hodges and Wilkin defined repentance as “turning from sin” and also announced their view that repentance (by any definition) is not a condition for salvation.
LM
If you want to read any of my articles and/or personal positions on Lordship Salvation, including repentance and the ordo salutis and the GES’s Crossless Gospel you may do so by visiting my blog.
And you people think Mormons are nuts. Hey as a Mormon it is like this: somewhere in the equation is grace, faith, works, repentance, and a host of a lot of other things. Since God is still sovereign over us, however, he will consider our works but when all is said and done it is God’s decision where we end up as he is the boss. As such it is in a way total grace as it is up to God and Christ. My opionion is that God will give us as much grace as we can handle.
Flipper:
Read the other posts and the comments included before you write something like that. Your argument is fallacious and downright silly once you begin to compare what Drew is arguing for with Mormon theology.
Come on dolphin dude. :)
Kevin