Lordship salvation

Lordship salvation is a doctrine taught by many Evangelical theologians, being associated with popular figures such as John MacArthur, John Piper and R. C. Sproul.^[2][3][4] Lordship salvation teaches that although we are saved by faith alone, saving faith must be accompanied by submission to the Lordship of Christ, which leads to an obedient life as fruit. This doctrine is in stark contrast with Free Grace theology, which sees faith as distinct from a personal decision to turn from one's sins and submit to Jesus.^[4][5][6][7]

The Neonomian doctrines of Richard Baxter have often been compared to Lordship salvation, which caused a controversy with the Marrow Brethren in the 17th century.^[8][9]

The doctrines of Lordship salvation have been debated within Evangelical Christianity since at least the early 20th century, when Lewis Sperry Chafer debated B. B. Warfield the topic. It later developed into the Lordship salvation controversy in the late 1980s and the 1990s, centering around the question on if making Jesus as the "Lord of your life" was necessary for salvation.^[10][11][12]

Modern advocates of Lordship salvation include individuals such as:

• John MacArthur^[4]
• John Piper^[3]
• R. C Sproul^[2]
• John Stott^[13]
• B.B. Warfield^[13]
• Arthur W. Pink^[1]
• John Gerstner^[2]
• Matthew Slick^[14]
• Kenneth Gentry^[15]

John MacArthur describes Lordship salvation as the view that a decision to turn from sin and submit to Jesus must be conjoined with saving faith, leading to a lifetime of fruit, although a person can temporarily fall from obedience.^[4] This view denies a distinction between discipleship and salvation, seeing the gospel as a call to discipleship and submission.^[4][16] Thus, it teaches that salvation should be viewed as costly, not only because of the cost Jesus paid for the salvation of the elect, but also for the cost which the individual will have to pay for it.^[17]: 93 Additionally teaching that assurance of salvation necessitates self-examination.^{[18]: 96–97}

Advocates of Lordship salvation oppose the doctrine of Free Grace theology, criticizing them for viewing repentance as a mere synonym for faith and for denying personal commitment as a part of saving faith.^[4] Lordship salvation advocates such as John Gerstner view Free Grace theology as "Antinomian", arguing that it does not square with the biblical doctrines of grace.^[2]

Some advocates of the doctrine such as John Piper additionally teach, that the fruit in the life of a Christian will be the determining factor for "final salvation". Teaching that although initial justification is by faith alone, good works generated by the Holy Spirit will be the basis of final salvation at the judgement of a Christian after death,^[19] saying that Christians are saved by faith and the fruit they have generated.^[20]

Lordship salvation has gained opposition from some Reformed theologians such as R. Scott Clark,^[21][22] Free Grace theologians such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges^[23][24] along with from those who belong to the so-called "Hyper-Grace" movement such as Andrew Farley.^[25]

Critics of Lordship salvation generally argue that it makes assurance impossible,^[26] often arguing that it is inconsistent with salvation by faith alone.^[25][27] Other critics, such as Ryrie and Hodges, further argue that Lordship salvation is a false gospel, which cannot save, and that the position repeats the Galatian error.^[15]

Reformed critics of Lordship salvation such as R. Scott Clark, who is a Reformed seminary professor at Westminster Seminary California, have argued that the doctrine of Lordship salvation does not accurately reflect the Reformation understanding of justification, claiming that it repeats aspects of the medieval understanding of justification which the Reformers rejected.^[21][22] Although Scott Clark rejects Lordship salvation, he also rejected the Free Grace views held by Hodges, arguing that it is an antinomian reaction to the moralism that has developed in the church.^[28]

• Marrow Controversy
• Neonomianism
• Antinomian controversy