One of the most significant theological debates over the last several decades has been the controversy over “lordship salvation.” Central to this debate is the question of whether or not obedience to God is an inevitable fruit of genuine conversion. In the preface to The Gospel According to Jesus—the 1988 book that brought the lordship controversy to a new level—lordship advocate John MacArthur wrote:

I have never taught that some pre-salvation works of righteousness are necessary to or part of salvation. But I do believe without apology that real salvation cannot, and will not, fail to produce works of righteousness in the life of a true believer. There are no human works in the saving act, but God’s work of salvation includes a change of intent, will, desire, and attitude that inevitably produces the fruit of the Spirit.

This belief that regeneration inevitably results in a spiritually transformed life is one of the main tenets of lordship salvation. In contrast, many opponents of the lordship view have denied that good works are an inevitable result of conversion. For example, according to the late Zane Hodges—founder of the more radical form of non-lordship teaching known as “Free Grace” (hereafter FG)—the idea that “faith inevitably produces good works” is “a theological construct which cannot be established from the Bible.” Elsewhere Hodges writes, “How strange that in our day and time we have been told so often that fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. Certainly we did not get this idea from the Bible.” According to Hodges and other FG teachers, it is hypothetically possible for an individual to believe in Christ and yet show forth absolutely no fruit in terms of obedience to God or love for Christ. Put another way, they believe in a regeneration which may or may not result in a visibly changed life.   Continue Reading…

Does the Bible teach that the nation of Israel has a distinct role in the future plan of God?

Many Christians deny that it does. According to Bruce K. Waltke, “no clear passage [of Scripture] teaches the restoration of national Israel” because “the Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God.” In the words of Herman Ridderbos, “The church . . . as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption.” The words of Waltke and Ridderbos represent well the belief of many—no future for Israel.

One of the many passages which present a problem for this view is Acts 1:6-7. In this passage, just before Jesus ascended into heaven, the eleven disciples asked Him: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) This question is profound, and its meaning unmistakable. In fact, even covenant theologian O. Palmer Robertson—who denies a future restoration of Israel—summarizes it well:   Continue Reading…

All truth is God’s truth, or so the saying goes. The problem with this seemingly axiomatic assertion is not simply its ambiguity, but the way it serves as a means to justify using extra-biblical sources (such as psychology) to deal with spiritual issues. This is especially common among integrationists in the field of Christian counseling. The view of integrationism is that only when Scripture and psychology are integrated—brought together into a unified whole—is one able to engage in a truly effective counseling ministry. This view is really an assault on the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient for spiritual growth.

Psychology as General Revelation

But how exactly does this relate to the idea that all truth is God’s truth? The integrationist argument goes something like this: Because God has made Himself known through two channels—special revelation (the propositional truth recorded in scripture) and general revelation (the non-propositional truth deposited by God in the created order of things)—man has a mandate from his Creator to investigate and discover truths through means such as psychological research, the findings of which should be accepted as having their origin in God. Scripture alone, then, is not sufficient, but rather, as John H. Coe asserts, “Only when all forms of revelation are taken together can we speak of the sufficiency of revelation.” Put simply, all truth is God’s truth and should be embraced as such whether it be found in Scripture (special revelation) or in psychological research (general revelation).

Continue Reading…