Why is the Free-Grace and Lordship Salvation issue such a big deal? Who cares?

Intro
Since the great commission given to the Disciples by our Lord Jesus was “to make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19), there should be no problem over the issue of discipleship and its relationship to conversion and all believers should be carrying out this command. In reality, a clash over the meaning and purpose of “discipleship” and its relationship to conversion has triggered one of the most heated debates among evangelical Christians. Ironically, churches across the globe are eager to design and implement discipleship programs with the idea that this would encourage spiritual growth, and rightfully so. Yet, church workers who are engaged in the task of “discipling” remain uncertain as to what a disciple is. Dallas Theological Seminary professor Dwight Pentecost and author Bill Hull both observe that men are called to become disciples without clear definition or clarification of the Lord’s requirements.
In the midst of the ruckus, the Lordship Salvation and Free Grace proponents have gained exposure, both submitting what they declare to be bona fide discipleship. And though both sides are convinced of their positions, it is evident that both cannot be correct lest there be contradiction.

Jesus’ conditions for obedience and discipleship present one of the most puzzling concepts in the Gospels. The synoptic gospel accounts present a development of Jesus’ unique form of discipleship that includes elements of self-denial and commitment (cf. Matt. 1:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). Accordingly, disagreements on the implications of Jesus’ words mark one of the great theological battlefields of Scripture between the Lordship Salvation and Free Grace proponents. Since its recent exposure in the late 80’s, it has been a magnet for theological debate. Theological and pastoral questions appear here; namely, what is a disciple? What is the relationship between a Christian and a disciple? What does Jesus mean by “follow me” and “come after me”? Do the strict conditions presented in Jesus’ commands for discipleship constitute a gospel presentation?

Salvation vs. Discipleship
This is in fact the cutting edge that separates the two parties. The Lordship Salvation proponent is content in equating Jesus’ call to discipleship as a call to salvation while the Free Grace believer’s hold to a sharp distinction or separation between salvation and discipleship. And it is the Lordship mentality in this sense captures the majority of Christendom. The fundamental contention behind Lordship Salvation is the notion that submission to Christ’s Lordship is essential for a “true salvation” experience. Their staunch convictions against lackadaisical Christianity or false professions of faith bespeak of their sincere concern for the production of genuine, active, and effective Christians. Kenneth Gentry, a promoter of Lordship Salvation proposes the following definition:

The Lordship view expressly states the necessity of acknowledging Christ as the Lord and Master of one’s life in the act of receiving Him as Savior. These are not two different, sequential acts (or successive steps), but rather one act of pure trusting faith.

Professor Darrel Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary is reluctant to completely reject Lordship Salvation theology. In an article in Bibliotheca Sarca , he appears somewhat cautious of MacArthur’s position as he presents a helpful approach to interpreting his book, The Gospel According to Jesus. Nevertheless, he expresses objectivity seeking to expose the misunderstandings and straw men arguments frequently associated with MacArthur’s theology. In a recent debate entitled, “What is the Gospel,” he labeled his position as “soft-Lordship” for the same reasons mentioned in his review. He says:

"In short, MacArthur’s book is a mixed bag of good observations and significant overstatements. His overemphases tend to underestimate sin in the believer, erode assurance, and challenge the walk of some who are saved as if they are not saved. There are potential dangers in his approach, for it can produce psychologically crippled believers."

Gentry labels the opposing viewpoint, which Zane Hodges adheres to, as “non-Lordship” or in disparaging terminology “easy-believism,” “only believism,” or derogatorily, “cheap grace.” These individuals sum up the Free Grace movement as “evangelism Hodges believes the chief principle in his book, Absolutely Free, is taking God at his Word and thus accepting Jesus Christ as personal Savior. Moreover, he believes this one-time act of faith in Christ saves without any act or acts of repentance, remorse for sin, or penance of any kind. Technically, Gentry and the host of other Lordship Salvation backers are correct in labeling it “easy-believism” because for Free Grace theology, no external effort or work of any kind is required; simply believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. Nevertheless, those in favor of Free Grace prefer the derogatory “easy-believism” label rather than “hard-believism,” an oxymoron and seemingly difficult to swallow. Dr. Charles Bing rejects both terminologies: non-lordship and easy-believism and proposes a neutral view, which will be adopted in this study. In reference to the preferred term, “Free Grace” he comments:

…it represents the emphasis of the freeness of salvation and the simplicity of faith. The choice of this term is somewhat pragmatic; it does not imply there are only two views in the debate. It will simply be used in reference to those who oppose Lordship Salvation and teach the simplicity of faith as unencumbered trust or acceptance of God’s gift of salvation.

In addition, Bing, a proponent of Free Grace theology, offers what he believes to be a legitimate definition:

The Free Grace position holds that salvation is a gift of God realized by man only through the simple response of faith, which is basically defined as “trust, confidence in.”

The comments of The MacArthur Study Bible on James 2:14 demonstrate the contrasting perspective of that of the free grace camp. “Again, the verb’s form describes someone who continually lacks external evidence of the faith he routinely claims.” He goes on to say, “James is not disputing the importance of faith. Rather, he is opposing the notion that saving faith can be a mere intellectual exercise void of a commitment of active obedience.”

It is necessary to note that the Lordship Salvation perspective corresponds with the Free Grace definition mentioned above, but does not stop there. Their definition includes the “works that ‘saving faith’ inevitably produces.” As stated earlier, the Free Grace perspective simply divorces any attempt to link repentance or repentant acts with the presentation of the gospel message.

Conclusion
In sum, the Lordship Salvation and Free-Grace issue is a big deal and any distinctions between salvation and discipleship must be drawn since the issue at hand is a matter of the gospel, salvation (justification) and spiritual growth; this is literally a life and death issue. Dr. Charles Ryrie believes, “No distinction is more vital to theology, more basic to a correct understanding of the New Testament, or more relevant to every believer’s life and witness.”

In the end, the answer, as I see it, will settle somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I am reluctant to introduce myself as “free-gracer,” “Soft-Lordship” or any label simply because dogmatic labels seem to create tension right off the bat. Rather, the student of the scripture will benefit from being open-minded and fair in their assessment of each view. Beware of people who are closed-minded and narrow in their exegesis. Simply take a verse and/or passage and see what it is saying. When you cannot explain a passage or make sense of it, don’t be afraid to admit you do not know what it means. The sign of a person with an agenda is frustration and negative reaction when they are stumped. Happy exegeting.