Another Chapter of the Book
New Wine for the End Times
Philip B. Brown ( www.newwine.org )

This is another chapter of the book, New Wine for the End Times.  Most of the controversies that have divided the churches are centuries old.  All are solved by the New Wine System.  This chapter is about the controversy over Lordship Salvation, also solved by the New Wine System.    This one is only decades old.  So this chapter includes quotes from the authors on both sides of this very important debate in the Church today.  Please tell others about New Wine for the End Times.

Lordship Salvation vs. Free Grace

The New Wine System solves seven major problems of Scripture that have divided the churches over the centuries.  (See Chapter 4, Part One for a list, or just look at the title page of this book.)  The controversy of lordship salvation vs. free grace is in this list.  All the others in the list have been ongoing controversies for centuries.  The controversy of lordship salvation vs. free grace salvation is much more recent.  It's been raging for just a few decades.

The controversy is about whether or one must be a true disciple of Christ in order to be saved.  Or does simple belief in Christ as Savior suffice?  Both sides have very good arguments of Scripture.  Both sides have their truths.  Both sides have their problems.  And of course the New Wine System clearly resolves the issue without difficult verses.

The Lordship Salvation Side of the Debate

One of the best-known advocates for the lordship salvation side is John Macarthur.  He has published three editions of his book titled The Gospel According to Jesus - What is Authentic Faith?  The third edition of this book is called the "Revised and Expanded Anniversary Edition."  In the preface to the first edition, page 16, Macarthur writes:

Because of the state of the gospel in contemporary evangelicalism, there is no way to teach about salvation without dealing specifically with this issue, which has come to be known as "lordship salvation."  No more serious question faces the church today.  It can be phrased in many ways: What is the gospel?  Must a person accept Jesus as Savior and Lord in order to be saved?  What is saving faith?  How should we invite men and women to Christ?  and What is salvation?

That there is so much controversy over this most foundational subject testifies to the effectiveness of the enemy's work in these latter days.  Several who disagree with my views have said in print that the lordship controversy is a matter of eternal consequence.  Whoever is wrong on this issue is seriously wrong about the most basic of Christian truths.

On that we agree.  I went through a phase of thinking that the whole dispute might be a misunderstanding or semantic argument.  But as I studied the issues, I came to realize that this is a fundamental difference in doctrine.  After many conversations with those who disagree and hours of studying what they are saying, I am now convinced that the two sides in this argument have distinctly different views of salvation.  The average person in the pew is confused, having heard two conflicting messages from the same conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical camp.

Another author on the lordship salvation side is Walter. J. Chantry.  In his book titled, Today's Gospel - authentic or synthetic?, in the introduction on page 4, Chantry writes:

In the central issue of the way of salvation, large segments of Protestantism are engrossed in neo-traditionalism.  We have inherited a system of evangelistic preaching which is unbiblical.  Nor is this tradition very ancient.  Our messages and manner of preaching the gospel cannot be traced back to the Reformers and their creeds.  They are much more recent innovations.  Worse, they cannot be traced to the Scriptures.  They have clearly arisen from superficial exegesis and a careless mixture of twentieth-century reason with God's revelation.

The resulting product is a dangerous conglomerate - just the sort that Satan uses to delude the souls of sinners.  What cult has not learned to use verses of the Bible and half truths to establish their lies?  That has been the devil's strategy from the beginning [Gen. 3:5].  By selling another gospel to our generation, Satan has been employing many sincere men in preaching a dethroned Christ.  The glories of the Saviour are being hidden even from his servants because preachers will not give careful attention to the gospel of God's Word alone.

Later on in his introduction, on page 6, Chantry continues:

All of this is related to the use of a message in evangelism that is unbiblical.  The truth necessary for life has been hidden in a smoke screen of human inventions.  On the shallow ground of man's logic, large numbers have been lead to assume they have a right to everlasting life and have been given an assurance which does not belong to them.  Evangelicals are swelling the ranks of the deluded with a perverted gospel.  Many who have 'made decisions' in modern churches and have been told in the inquiry rooms that their sins have been forgiven, will be as surprised as Tetzel's customers to hear, 'I never knew your; depart from me' [Matt. 7:23].

And later, on page 7 in the introduction, Chantry writes:

Pastors, this is no idle question.  Have you not wondered about those 'converts' who are as carnal as ever?  What about those who have 'decided for Christ' and you cannot tell what they decided?  They are not godly like the Saviour they profess, nor zealous for his cause.  They do not study the Word and do not mind if they are absent when it is preached.  Consequently, you know that they give no evidence of true conversion.  Have you considered the possibility that they were never evangelized at all?  Have your preaching and methods led them to comfort apart from Christ?

The bottom line is that lordship salvation advocates say that countless numbers of Christians believe they are saved, but in fact they will die and go to hell.  Unlike the New Wine System, Lordship salvation does not distinguish salvation from inheriting the kingdom

While writing this chapter, I received an email from a person who had quickly glanced at my web page without carefully reading it.  People have a tendency to assume what you write if it's not what they already believe.  Here is the guy's entire email:

Sanctification is not about or necessity of salvation.  That means a salvation by works.  Paul denies such thing.  Sanctification is for saved people.  They are saved.  How an unsaved person do sanctification?  If you don't believe in eternal security how can you really believe in god's election?  It seems you confuse a lot of things.

Man's holiness?  There is NO such thing apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in believers.  If holiness is required for salvation, what role justification has?  You are very wrong. 

You clearly have a dangerous theology.

This guy starts out by saying that sanctification is not a necessity of salvation.  It's easy to see that churches have been teaching that salvation is basic belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, without Christ's message of holiness and discipleship.  I wondered what on my website made him negatively react and think that I had said  sanctification is necessary for salvation.  (Sanctification is necessary for eternal life, but not for salvation.)  The first paragraph of my "Quick Introduction to the New Wine System" mentions sanctification.  So this is what he probably read:

The gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come (Mat. 24:14).  The gospel (good news) of the kingdom is that anyone can choose to completely overcome sin (all sinful habits), which is to be completely sanctified (1 Thess. 5:23), through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  No one who abides in Christ keeps on sinning (1 John 3:6), because in Christ there is no sin.  No one born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9).

Notice that I never associated salvation with sanctification.  I just said that the gospel (good news) is a message about sanctification.  This guy probably associated salvation with the word "gospel" in his head and immediately concluded that I was talking about salvation.

It would seem that any time you mention the overcoming of sin in our churches today, that you automatically get a negative reaction.  The only thing you really hear about sin in our churches today is, "Nobody is perfect.  We accept you just the way you are."  The gospel has become all about "getting saved" and cannot include anything about holiness.

One might notice that this controversy seems to be only happening in the Protestant circles.  The Roman Catholics do not have this problem of doctrine.  That's because Catholics do not recognize a "decision for Christ" as being a point of salvation.  Catholics would not agree that if one were to die before some moment of "decision for Christ," that they would go to hell.  And anytime after this one "decision for Christ," that they would then be destined for heaven.  The Catholics see salvation as a journey, beginning with infant baptism.

The New Wine System agrees with the Catholics that salvation is a journey.  However, the journey begins at infant birth, not infant baptism.  Therefore everyone is on the path of salvation.  Salvation is a free gift that can be lost or forfeited.  Salvation is not gained with a moment's "decision for Christ."

At the same time, the only way to inherit eternal life is to be a true disciple of Christ, and to overcome all sinful habits through that relationship with Christ.  The decision to follow Christ must be ongoing and every day.  The holiness aspect of salvation goes much further than even the lordship salvation advocates would claim.

Let's take a look at what Macarthur has to say about carnal Christians.  On page 19 of his introduction, again in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, Macarthur writes:

The gospel in vogue today holds forth a false hope to sinners.  It promises them that they can have eternal life yet continue to live in rebellion against God.  Indeed, it encourages people to claim Jesus as Savior yet defer until later the commitment to obey Him as Lord.  It promises salvation from hell but not necessarily freedom from iniquity.  It offers false security to people who revel in the sins of the flesh and spurn the way of holiness.  By separating faith from faithfulness, it teaches that intellectual assent is as valid as wholehearted obedience to the truth.

Thus the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners.  It is not the same message as Jesus proclaimed.

This new gospel has spawned a generation of professing Christians whose behavior is indistinguishable from the rebellion of the unregenerate.  Statistics reveal that 1.6 billion people worldwide are considered Christians.  A well-publicized opinion poll indicated nearly a third of all Americans claim to be born again.  Those figures surely represent millions who are tragically deceived.  Theirs is a damning false assurance.

The church's witness to the world has been sacrificed on the altar of cheap grace.  Shocking forms of open immorality have become commonplace among professing Christians.  And why not?  The promise of eternal life without surrender to divine authority feeds the wretchedness of the unregenerate heart.  Enthusiastic converts to this new gospel believe their behavior has no relationship to their spiritual status - even if they continue wantonly in the grossest kings of sin and expression of human depravity.

It now appears that the church of our generation will be remembered chiefly for a series of hideous scandals that have uncovered the rankest exhibitions of depravity in the lives of some highly visible media evangelists.  Most troubling of all is the painful reality that most Christians continue to view these people as insiders, not as wolves and false shepherds who have crept in among the flock (cf. Matt. 7:15).  Why should we assume that people who live in an unbroken pattern of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, deceit, and every conceivable kind of flagrant excess are truly born again?

Yet that is exactly the assumption Christians of this age have been taught to make.  They have been told that the only criterion for salvation is knowing and believing some basic facts about Christ. They hear from the beginning that obedience is optional.  It follows logically, then, that someone's one-time profession of faith is more valid than the evidence of that person's ongoing lifestyle in determining whether to embrace him or her as a true believer.  The character of the visible church reveals the detestable consequence of this theology. 

Macarthur certainly makes a valid point.  It's very difficult today to tell any real difference between the people in our evangelical churches and unbelievers in the world.  The churches of today have become social groups that pretend to be holy on the outside, but the inside of their cups are filthy.  Churches of today's evil generation are really no different than the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ's evil generation.

In chapter 7, page 80 of his book, Macarthur writes:

Those who argue against lordship salvation have a tendency to identify the object of faith as a basic set of biblical facts.  To them, the gospel is largely an academic issue, historical and doctrinal data about Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  Trusting those things alone constitutes saved faith, they say.  Everything else is peripheral.  Any talk of obedience, submission, or Jesus' right to rule is refuted as adding to the gospel, an illegitimate attempt to turn the pagan into a theologian.

Lest you think I'm unfairly presenting someone else's position, let me quote from an essay written to argue that lordship salvation corrupts the gospel: "This [referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4] is the essential message of the good news that must be believed for salvation.  It contains these facts: (1) man is a sinner, (2) Christ is the Savior, (3) Christ died as man's substitute, and (4) Christ rose from the dead."  The writer then goes on to argue that surrender to Christ's authority has no place in the gospel message: "Everyone who believes in the gospel believes that Jesus is Savior (1 Cor. 12:3).  But not everyone who believes the gospel realizes that the Savor has the right to be sovereign over his life.  The Child of God should also let Christ be sovereign over his life (Rom. 12:1-2), but obedience to that command is not a condition for salvation... All that is required for salvation is believing the gospel message."

(Thomas L. Constable, "The Gospel Message," in Walvoord: A Tribute (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 203-4, 209.)

Of course the position of the New Wine System is that you don't even need to believe that Jesus is Savior in order to be resurrected and live in the millennium.  Christ died for everyone.  Everyone remains on the path of salvation, even after death.  However, Christ must be Lord over one's life in order to inherit the kingdom.  But I would not characterize anyone as "Christian" who is does not consider Christ to be Lord over their life - actively endeavoring to be like Christ.

Let's take a look at the other side of this debate.  What do the free-grace doctrine people have to say about lordship salvation?

The Free Grace Side of the Debate

One of the best-known advocates for the free grace side of the debate is Charles C. Ryrie.  In his book titled, So Great Salvation, page 15, Ryrie writes:

First, grace is unmerited favor.  As a concise definition of grace, this serves well.  More elaborate definitions have their place; but simply stated, grace is unmerited favor.  It is undeserved on the part of the recipient.  It is unearned and unearnable.

Skipping down a few paragraphs, on page 16, Ryrie writes:

Second, grace is not cheap.  Grace is expensive.  It is free to the recipient but costly to the donor. ...  But to use the word cheap in the same breath with the grace of God in salvation seems almost blasphemous.  It cost our Lord Jesus His life.

Skipping down a paragraph, on page 16, Ryrie writes:

Human works are like termites in God's structure of grace.  They start small, but if unchecked, they can bring down the entire structure.  And what are such works?  Anything I can do to gain any amount of merit, little or much.  Water baptism could be one such work if I view it not as an important or even necessary result of being saved, but as a requisite to be saved.  It is a work even if I insist that it is God who gives me the desire to want to be baptized that I might be saved.

The same is true for surrender.  If surrender is something I must do as part of believing, then it is a work, and grace has been diluted to the extent to which I actually do surrender.

On page 23, Ryrie writes:

Most readers of this book will probably agree that baptism and works are words that should not be used in the Gospel message simply because they mean something that is not a part of the Gospel message.  That seems clear enough.

But what about the meaning of a word like repentance?  That does not seem so clear.  Is it part of the Gospel message?  Is it a requirement to be saved?  Is it only a matter of indifference whether one uses the word or not in presenting the Gospel?

Or what about the word Lord?  What does it mean if it is made a part of the Gospel message?  What about Messiah?  God?  Master?

Or what about the word give, as in "Give your heart to Christ"?  Is that actually what has to be done if one is going to be saved?  Is give another way of saying trust?  And if it is, then is it true that in order to be saved, I must trust my heart to Christ?  Or should I say, "Give my life to Christ?"

These are important semantic difference because they give different messages to the Gospel message.  Some give a wrong message; others, an unclear one.  But we must strive to use the words that give a clear witness to the grace of God.  It is not that God cannot use an unclear message; doubtless He does more often that He would prefer to.  But why should He have to?  Why don't we sharpen our understanding of what the Gospel is about so that we can present it as clearly as possible, using the right words to herald the Good News correctly?

Words are crucial.  How terribly important they are in statements like these: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and ... He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).  "These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).

Notice how Ryrie carefully separates salvation from anything that is done on our part.  Discipleship hopefully comes after salvation.  But discipleship is not a requirement for salvation, according to free-grace theologians.

The New Wine System would agree that all our sins were forgiven completely independently from even an intension of becoming a disciple of Christ.  As a matter of fact, the New Wine System says that our sins were forgiven without even believing.  You don't even have to know about Christ's sacrifice.  Our sins are forgiven anyway, because Christ died for us while we were still his enemies.

Romans 5:10  For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life.

The next two chapters of this book are all about the Law vs. Grace from the New Wine System perspective.  Chapter 14 is about grace and being filled with the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.  Then chapter 15 is about Law vs. Grace in the New Testament.  It contains a complete commentary on Romans chapters 2 through 8.

Bottom line is that in the New Wine System we do not have to split hairs between belief and discipleship.  As we will see, grace is all about living a life for Christ, which is discipleship.  Everyone is on the path of salvation, which means that everyone's sins are forgiven and everyone is on a journey back to the Father.

The important points are: (A) don't lose your salvation, and (B) continue your journey of salvation by becoming a believer and a disciple of Christ.  So under the New Wine System, becoming a believer and a disciple is indistinguishable.  It's all a part of the journey.  And yet the New Wine System does not require discipleship in order to be resurrected to live in the millennium.

Some free-grace advocates acknowledge that some amount of fruit of the Spirit will be present in any true believer.  But then they are quick to say that the amount of fruit can be very small, even to the point of being unnoticeable.  The more you get into the need of splitting hairs between discipleship and salvation, the more into trouble you get.  Salvation is a journey in both the Catholic system and the New Wine System.  With salvation being a journey, you don't have to spit hairs between the "decision for Christ" and discipleship.

Next, Ryrie has a good point in that if any aspect of discipleship is associated with salvation, then you cannot say how much discipleship is necessary in order to be saved.  (Of course this assumes there is a single point in time where there is a "decision for Christ," which converts one from being unsaved to being saved.)  On page 43, Ryrie writes:

Those who hold to a lordship/discipleship/mastery salvation viewpoint do not (perhaps it would be more accurate to say "cannot") send an unambiguous message about this matter.  On the one hand, they say that the essence of saving faith is "unconditional surrender, a complete resignation of self and absolute submission."  True faith, we are told, "starts with humility and reaches fruition in obedience."  "Salvation is for those who are willing to forsake everything. ... Saving faith is commitment to leave sin and follow Jesus Christ at all costs.  Jesus takes no one unwilling to come on those terms."  Denying self is essential to salvation: "Eternal life brings immediate death to self. ... Forsaking oneself for Christ's sake is not an optional step of discipleship subsequent to conversion; it is the sine qua non of saving faith.

But what if I do not follow Christ at all costs?  What if later on in life I become unwilling to forsake something?  Suppose I lack full obedience?  What if I take something back that earlier in my experience I had given Him?  How do I quantify the amount of fruit necessary to be sure I truly "believe" in the lordship/mastery sense of the term?  Or how do I quantify the amount of defection that can be tolerated without wondering if I have saving faith or if I in fact lost what I formally had?

The lordship response, in spite of is stringent demands on the nature of what the view calls saving faith, must either say that (1) a disobedient Christian loses his salvation or (2) some leeway exists for disobedience within the Christian life.  Since many lordship people hold to the security of the believer, they opt for the latter.

So we read statements like this: "A moment of failure does not invalidate a disciple's credentials."  My immediate reaction to such a statement is to want to ask if two moments would.  Or a week of defection, or a month, or a year.  Would two years?  How serious a failure and for how long before we must conclude that such a person was in fact not saved?  Lordship teaching recognizes that "no one will obey perfectly," but the crucial question is simply how imperfectly can one obey and yet be sure that he "believed" in the lordship/mastery salvation since?  If "salvation requires total transformation" and I do not meet that requirement, then am I not saved?  Or if my transformation is less than total at any stage of my Christian life, was I not saved in the first place?

A few paragraphs down, on page 45, Ryrie writes:

Frankly, all this relativity would leave me in confusion and uncertainty.  Every defection, especially if it continued, would make me unsure of my salvation.  Any serious sin or unwillingness would do the same.  If I come to a fork in the road of my Christian experience and choose the wrong branch and continue on it, does that mean I was never on the Christian road to begin with?  For who long can I be fruitless without having a lordship advocate conclude that I was never really saved?

A few paragraphs down, on page 45, Ryrie writes:

Should the worker on the college campus insist that a collegian who wants to receive Christ hold off until he or she breaks off an immortal relationship?  Could such a person be saved at the dorm meeting one evening and yet spend that same night in a continuing adulterous relationship?  Or could he or she have two or three days to break off the relationship?  Or two weeks or several months?  In the meantime, is that person born again?

Free grace salvation advocates distinguish as independent from salvation each of the following: discipleship, lordship, mastery, abiding in Christ, surrender, fruitfulness, being spiritual (not carnal), and repentance from sin.  All these things are considered to be aspects of the Christian's growth, but not requirements for salvation. 

On page 89 of his book, Ryrie writes:

To return to the main point of the chapter.  Is repentance a condition for receiving eternal life?  Yes, if it is repentance or changing one's mind about Jesus Christ.  No, if it means to be sorry for sin or even to resolve to turn from sin, for these things will not save.  Is repentance of sin a precondition to faith?  No, though a sense of sin and desire to turn from it may be used by the Spirit to direct someone the Savior and His salvation.  Repentance may prepare the way for faith, but it is faith that saves, not repentance (unless repentance is understood as a synonym for faith or changing one's mind about Christ.)  Or Lord came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luke 19:10) simply because those who are healthy do not need a physician; only those who are sick do (Matthew 9:12).

So it would seem that the spitting of hairs between salvation and discipleship must get down to two different types of repentance.  One wonders if the New Testament authors really had that in mind.

To Enter the Kingdom, You Must Be Born Again

There is another term that the free-grace salvation advocates tend to avoid.  Is discipleship or some level of holiness required in order to "enter the kingdom" as Jesus says, or "inherit the kingdom" as Paul says? Can you be saved and not enter or inherit the kingdom?"  The New Wine System, which views salvation as a journey, says yes.  Inheriting and entering the kingdom is a reward that is given when we complete our journey of salvation.  The kingdom that cannot be entered into by the nations (the foolish group) is the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:14-15).  It will be in orbit around the earth.  That's the only way you can have people who can physically enter the kingdom coexisting with people who can't enter the kingdom.

Of course that's the New Wine System and not traditional Protestant theology.  Lordship salvation advocates would have no problem saying that discipleship is required in order to enter or inherit the kingdom.  But what about free-grace theology advocates?  Would they say that you can be saved without entering or inheriting the kingdom?  Let's take a look at some of the verses that might give free-grace advocates pause:

Matthew 5:20  For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:20-23  Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.  (21)  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  (22)  On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'  (23)  And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Matthew 18:3-4  and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  (4)  Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 9:47  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell.

Acts 14:22  strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10  Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,  (10)  nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.

If entering the kingdom is not to be associated with salvation, then why is the born again verse associated with salvation?  (In the New Wine System, you are not literally born again until you complete your journey.  To be born again is to be born into a new spiritual body.)

John 3:5  Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

As it turns out, most free-grace advocates are also dispensational.  If pressed on this issue, they would probably go to a dispensational argument.  Some free-grace advocates believe that Christ's teaching of the sermon on the mount, and other similar verses, were only directed to the dispensation of law.  This allows them to easily separate Paul's gospel from the preaching of Jesus because they say it was two different messages to two different groups of people in two different dispensations.  They would say that the message of Jesus was for Israel and the message of Paul was for the Church.

A friend of mine, who is a retired pastor, graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary.  This seminary is considered the center for dispensational teaching.  Most of the famous dispensational authors were professors at this seminary.  My friend does not agree with everything that's said by the dispensationalists.  But he is very dispensational in his thinking.  He told me he believes Jesus' message about the holiness that's needed for salvation changed at the cross.

The dispensationalist who holds this view might want to consider Matthew 7:20-23, quoted above, which is a part of the sermon on the mount.  Jesus is saying that those who will preach in his name, and even do mighty works and cast out demons, will hear, "I never knew you."  This verse is clearly in the context of wolves in sheep's clothing, who bear bad fruit.  Surely these preachers believe in Jesus as Savior.  The fault is that they do not do the will of the Father.  If this message of Jesus changed at the cross, then who are these preachers?

Let's go back to John Macarthur's book titled The Gospel According to Jesus.  Remember that Macarthur is the big lordship salvation advocate.  On page 39, Macarthur writes:

In 1918 Lewis Sperry Chafer published He That is Spiritual, articulating the concept that 1 Corinthians 2:15 - 3:3 speaks of two classes of Christians: carnal and spiritual.  Chafer wrote, "The 'carnal' Christian is ... characterized by a 'walk' that is on the same plane as that of the natural [unsaved] man."  That was a foreign concept to most Christians in Dr. Chafer's generation.  Dr. Chafer's doctrine of spirituality, along with some of his other teachings, have become the basis of a whole new way of looking at the gospel.  It is therefore essential to confront what he taught.

Lewis Sperry Chafer was the founder and first president of the Dallas Theological Seminary.  He was highly influential in shaping modern dispensationalism.  Macarthur also considers himself to be a dispensationalist.  But he thinks they have gone too far.  Personally, I believe the validity of any system should be questioned if, when it's carried to its logical, conclusion becomes obviously in error.  In other words, Macarthur should reconsider whether the original premises of dispensationalism are in fact correct if those premises naturally lead to these conclusions.  On page 41, Macarthur continues:

There is a tendency, however, for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they make unbiblical differentiations.  An almost obsessive desire to categorize and contrast related truths has carried various dispensationalist interpretations far beyond the legitimate distinction between Israel and the church.  Many would also draw hard lines between salvation and discipleship, the church and the kingdom, Christ's preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance, and the age of law and the age of grace.

The age-of-law/age-of-grace division in particular has wreaked havoc on dispensationalist theology and contributed to confusion about the doctrine of salvation. [Skipping the rest of the paragraph]

Chafer's view of all Scripture was colored by his desire to maintain a stark distinction between the age of "pure grace" (the church age) and the two ages of "pure law" (the Mosaic era and the millennial kingdom) he saw sandwiching it.  He wrote, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount was part of "the Gospel of the kingdom," the "Manifesto of the King."  He believed its purpose was to declare law, not grace, and concluded it made no reference to either salvation or grace.  "Such a complete omission of any reference to any feature of the present age of grace, is a fact which should be carefully weighed," he wrote.

Other dispensationalist writers did weigh those ideas and went on to state in more explicit terms what Chafer only hinted at: that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount "have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than this."  This lamentable hermeneutic is widely applied in varying degrees to much of our Lord's earthly teaching, emasculating the message of the Gospels.

It is no wonder that the evangelistic message growing out of such a system differs sharply from the gospel according to Jesus  If we begin with the presupposition that much of Christ's message was intended for another age, why should our gospel be the same as the one He preached?

But this is a dangerous and untenable presupposition.  Jesus did not come to proclaim a message that would be invalid until the Tribulation or the Millennium.  He came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10).  He came to call sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13).  He came so that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17).  He proclaimed the saving gospel, not merely a manifesto for some future age.  His gospel is the only message we are to preach.

Dispensationalism, therefore, seems to be the root in the modern-day free-grace sharp-line distinctions between salvation and discipleship.

Let's go back to the original question presented at the first of this section.  Is discipleship or some level of holiness required in order to "enter the kingdom" as Jesus says, or "inherit the kingdom" as Paul says?  Can you be saved and not enter or inherit the kingdom?"  The issue of inheriting the kingdom cannot be simply dismissed as words of Jesus to another dispensation, because Paul talked about inheriting the kingdom and about believers being heirs.

Ryrie seems to have been silent on this question.  There is one free-grace advocate, however, who is not.  In his book titled The Gospel Under Siege, Jane Hodges has a chapter titled "Romans 8: Who are the Heirs?"  Just as Ryrie decided to define two types of repentances, Hodges feels the need to define to types of heirs.  One type of heir, Hodges believes, is for all believers.  The other type of heir is for believers who suffer in fellowship with Christ.  On page 128 of his book, Hodges writes:

The concept of two kinds of heirship is very natural indeed in the light of Old Testament custom.  As is well-known, in a Jewish family all the sons shared equally in their father's inheritance, except for the oldest, or firstborn, son who received a "double portion."  That is, he inherited twice as much as the other sons.

Against this background, Paul can be understood as saying that all of God's children are heirs, simply because they are children.  But those who suffer with Christ have a special "joint heirship" with Christ.  It is of great significance that later in this chapter Chris is actually described as "the firstborn among many brethren" (829).

Skipping down a few paragraphs, on page 129, Hodges writes:

But in Romans 8:17, Paul speaks also of a "co-heirship" that results in "co-glory."  This contrast is a bit easier to see in Greek than it is in English.

In the Greek text, Paul juxtaposes two words for "heir," one of which is the simple word for this, and the other a compound word roughly equal to our word "co-heir."  Likewise, two other compound words in Paul's text expresses the thought of "co-suffering" and "co-glorification."  As Paul's words make clear, such an heirship is dependent on something more than saving faith.  This heirship is contingent on our experience of suffering with Christ.

Romans 8:17 thus confronts us with a double heirship.  One of these is for all believers.  The other is for believers who suffer in fellowship with Christ.

There may be some small amount of truth to what Hodges is saying.  The New Wine System sees salvation as a journey, with the final destination being inheritance of the kingdom.  And yes, there is a definite distinction between the elect who complete this journey during this age, and the nations who must continue the journey during the millennium.  But I don't believe Paul is explicitly taking about two types of inheritances.  The passages does not seem to be comparing two groups, or making a distinction between two groups.  But Paul's words, in their context, can be seen as showing a progression as we suffer in Christ.  Here is the verse that Hodges was talking about in its context.

Romans 8:15-19  For you didn't receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"  (16)  The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God;  (17)  and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified with him.  (18)  For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which will be revealed toward us.  (19)  For the creation waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.

Everybody is on the path of salvation because of Christ's sacrifice.  So everybody is a child of God.  Therefore, everybody is an heir.  But as we suffer with Christ, in our journey back to the Father, we become joint heirs with Christ.  But only if we suffer with Christ.  So again, I see this as more of the progressive nature of being an heir, inheriting greater things as we suffer with Christ.  Our rewards are in heaven.

Hodges continues his discussion of heirs in reference to the "wicked servant."  Read carefully whether or not Hodges believers the wicked servant is destined for hell..

On page 131, Hodges writes:

The "wicked servant" in Jesus' parable failed to engage in his lord's "business" with the mina he had been given.  He was not involved in "serving" his master.  Whether or not he did other commendable things is not the point of the parable.  At least he did not labor for his lord.  As a result, he does not co-reign with his master over even a single city!

That he also went to hell would be an absurd and unfounded deduction from this parable. [emphasis mine.]

All Christians, then, are heirs of God.  But they are not heirs to an equal degree.  Their fidelity to the service of Christ, with all its attendant hardships and sufferings, will be the gauge by which that hardship will be measured out to them.  Not to teach this simple truth is to deprive believers of one of the most powerful motivations to endurance which the Scriptures contain.

How can anyone read this parable and conclude that the wicked servant is not destined for hell, or even that the wicked servant's final destination to hell was not directly related to his lack of service?  Why was the servant called wicked?  It's because the servant rejected Christ's lordship over his life.  This rejection was because the servant despised his Master.  The servant rejected his Master.  The wicked servant lost his salvation because he rejected Christ's lordship over his life after he became a servant and understood who Christ really is.  This is the unpardonable sin.  This parable was also discussed back in Chapter 6, Part Two of this book.  The section title is "The Parable of the Talents."

Matthew 25:26-30  "But his lord answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter.  (27)  You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest.  (28)  Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents.  (29)  For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away.  (30)  Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Hodges does a good job in dealing with 1 Corinthians 6:9,10.  His position is basically the same as the New Wine System with regard to those who do evil.   Those who do evil do not inherit the kingdom, but they are still saved.  This is why Hodges decided to define two types of heirs.  Hodges believes Paul is saying that carnal believers do not inherit the kingdom, in that they are not heirs with Christ.  But they are heirs of God in that they are children of God and are saved.

Then on page 135, Hodges asserts the idea that to inherit the kingdom is not the same as entering the kingdom.  Hodges believers one is a matter of ownership and the other is a matter of dwelling.  In other words, Hodges believes the carnal Christian will live in the kingdom but will not own the kingdom.

Paul never spoke about entering the kingdom.  This was only said by Jesus.  Yet Hodges fails to address any of the verses of Jesus, quoted earlier, that say you must be righteous (Matt. 5:20), doing the Father's will (Matt. 7:20-23), become like children (Matt. 18:3-4), overcome sin (Mark 9:47), and endure many tribulations (Acts 14:22) in order to "enter" the kingdom of heaven.  In other words, Hodges believes carnal Christians can "enter" the kingdom to dwell there, but not to own it.  Yet he fails to show how any of the relevant verses would say this.

A Different Definition for Grace

  Free-grace advocates, and probably even lordship salvation advocates, tend view grace as an age or dispensation.  We are living under grace and not under law.  Being under grace means you are a believer and thus you are saved.

The New Wine System, however, views grace as being filled with the Holy Spirit so that you don't sin.  In other words, Christians can drift back and forth between being under the law and being under grace.  Being under the law is trying to obey the law for self-oriented reasons.  Being under grace is obeying the law purely motivated by the Father's purposes.  In other words, being under grace is equivalent to discipleship/lordship/mastership.  Being under grace is living for Christ, meaning metaphorically it's not you who live but that Christ lives in you.  Obviously, the free-grace advocates would object to this definition.

For this reason, the following two chapters of this book are all about law and grace in relation to being filled with the Holy Spirit.  Paul's teaching about grace is a lot easier to understand from this perspective.  The New Wine System makes all Scripture much easier to understand because it doesn't have any difficult verses.

 

Philip Brown
www.newwine.org