Tuesday, June 09, 2009

The Lordship Controversey Lesson 1

These are the notes from the first presentation on the Lordship Controversy given at Grace Bible Church, Olive Branch MS on May 31 and June 6, 2009.

The Presentation File is here

Lesson 1 Introduction to the Lordship controversy

1. Who here has heard of the Lordship Controversy? Some of you have and that’s good. I’ve prepared 4 lessons covering the Lordship Controversy, the first lesson is a basic overview and introduction, the second deals with faith, the third Repentance and for the fourth lesson we will look at a couple of passages of scripture and study how those passages would be understood by No-Lordship theologians and Lordship theologians.
2. That is the basic outline of what I have prepared, the plan is to be done in four weeks but we are in no hurry and if it takes longer then that’s fine
3. The Lordship Controversy deals mainly with that segment of theology that deals with salvation or Soteriology. This word is made up from two Greek words, Soterion meaning deliverance and logos or logia meaning to study or to talk about. You may recall the ancient successor kings of Alexander’s Empire that adopted the name Soter, like Ptolemy soter and Antiochus soter. Soter can be translated as Savior or Deliverer, In the early church the word Soter was also used in reference to Christ, such as in the Ichthys (ikthus) or fish symbol. Iota for Iesous, Chi for Khristos, Theta for Theos, Upsilon for huios (son) and Sigma for soter.
4. In order to have a controversy you have to have two different or opposite opinions, in the Lordship controversy there are two opposing views on Salvation. On one side there is Lordship Salvation (or theology) and Free Grace Theology (we will refer to it as no-lordship salvation as the term Free Grace is most commonly used to describe reformed theology). The names imply what the different doctrines promote, in other words Lordship Salvation generally implies that Jesus is Lord over the believer and conversely No-Lordship implies the opposite, that Jesus is not necessarily Lord over the believer.
5. The issue seems fairly easy to decide on the surface, and when you lay the no-lordship theology bare it becomes easy to identify as error. What I want to do in this class is to look closely at both sides of the argument, examine the issues critically and in light of scripture. We will try to understand where this error came from and how it has been widely circulated in American Christian churches.

1. For this study I used several different sources and I like to review them in case you wanted to follow up with your own study on these issues.
2. The Gospel According to Jesus by John Macarthur, this is the definitive work on the Lordship controversy, it was written about 15 years ago and when it was released it was like throwing fat on the fire (according to Ernest Reisinger) the issues addressed in this book had been simmering below the surface for many years and this book forced many scholars/theologians to expose views on the Lordship issue.
3. A Series of Articles by Ernest Reisinger, written for the Founder Journal, details all the issues affected by the Lordship Controversy. This is the same series of articles I’ve sent out on email.
4. Absolutely Free by Zane Hodges, Zane Hodges was a principle proponent of no-lordship salvation and he wrote this book in response to MacArthur’s Gospel According to Jesus. It is not considered the best defense of no-lordship theology but it is written by one of the main advocates of no lordship theology. The title is a bit misleading as the book actually cost 8 dollars
5. Various Debates, the transcripts of several debates between no lordship and lordship advocates can be found on the Grace Evangelical Society’s website. These were valuable in detailing the no lordship position.
6. Discourses of Our Lord Jesus Christ by John Brown, this book was written in 1856 by a Scottish preacher so you know it’s going to be good! This book contains expositions of several of our Lord’s discourses such as the Sermon on the Mount, His conversation with Nicodemus and others. I recommend this book to every Christian, this book is in the public domain and a copy is in our library.
7. Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. The summa theologia of the reformation.
8. Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhoff, a well trusted theologian. I used this book heavily for definitions of terms and doctrines.
9. Abstract of Systematic Theology by JP Boyce, again for definitions of terms.

1. In order to set the tone for this debate I want to take a look at some representative quotes from the principle players. We’ll let them speak for themselves and that will give us an idea of what they believe and how much of a gap there is between the two sides.
2. First Charles Ryrie, a proponent of No-Lordship salvation, and noted author of the Ryrie Study Bible. Born 1925 sill living. He had this to say when addressing the issues of the Lordship controversy, “The importance of this question cannot be overestimated in relation to both salvation and sanctification. The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel; therefore, one of them is false and comes under the curse of perverting the gospel or preaching another gospel”
3. This quote is from a book Ryrie wrote titled “Balancing the Christian Life” 1994. Ryrie goes straight to the central issue with this statement. The lordship controversy is centered on this single argument faith only vs faith plus commitment of life. Only one of these views properly represents the Gospel. Lastly he refers to Gal 1 6-9.
4. Next is Ernest Reisinger, a proponent of Lordship salvation, and a former pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral Florida. He passed away in 2004. “Proponents of this view are not in the historical and biblical stream of theology held by the reformers and the great teachers in the church. These men seem to have no regard for the great creeds and confessions of the historic churches”
5. This statement is another building block on the dichotomy between the two systems of theology. Reisinger is basically accusing the no-lordship theologians of being outside of historical Christianity. So if you hold a belief that is outside of historical beliefs is that then heresy? Depends on what your definition of heresy is and we can make a decision on that as we go through the finer points of both views.
6. Dr Ray Stanford former President of Florida Bible College, author of the popular “Handbook for Personal Evangelism” and an aggressive advocate of No-Lordship Theology. We will hear more from Dr Ray later but he had this to say about Lordship Salvation, “The person who preaches such a message is also accursed of God”
7. Again he invokes Gal 1 like Charles Ryrie.
8. Lastly we have John Macarthur a man who needs no introduction around here, “Chafer (together with other early dispensationalists, including C. I. Scofield) was so zealous to eliminate every vestige of law from the dispensation of grace that he embraced a kind of antinomianism. That was the seed from which the no-lordship gospel sprouted”
9. As we progress through these lessons the meaning of what MacArthur is saying will be clearer. For now let’s continue on.
10. We can see from these representative quotes that the nature of this debate tends to be polemical at times. Certainly the weight of the polemic is on the side of the No-Lordship advocates.
11. This debate is also confined to American Christianity.

1. Both sides have invoked Gal 1:6-9 in their writings and statements, and certainly this is the dividing line between the two sides. The accusation is that someone is teaching a false gospel here and what we are tasked with is to determine who is right in light of scripture and historical orthodox theology.
2. The fact that this issue affects soteriology means that how we understand salvation is affected, what is required or not required, the person of Jesus Christ, what the gospel is and what it says and how we understand it are all affected by the Lordship controversy.
3. This matter is relevant to us today, even though much of the controversy has died down in recent years it still simmers below the surface ready for a new generation of advocates.
4. With that said let’s look at the issues beginning with an overview of No-Lordship Salvation.

1. If we to look back in history to a certain place on a time line to find the origin of No lordship theology we would point to 1909 and 1918. That time period saw the birth of what is known as the Carnal Christian doctrine.
2. Most of us here have heard of that but who here knows what it is? (Allow for discussion)
3. The doctrine first appeared in its infant form in Scofield’s Study Bible commentary for 1 Cor 2:14 through 3:3. First let’s look at the text.
4. Scofield’s exposition of this passage from the notes in his Study Bible, “Paul divides men into three classes: 'Natural' i.e. the Adamic Man, unrenewed through the new birth; 'Spiritual' i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God; 'Carnal,' 'fleshly,' i.e. the renewed man who walking 'after the flesh,' remains a babe in Christ
5. Lewis Sperry Chafer expanded on this same exposition in his book “He that is Spiritual” written in 1918. We have a copy of this book in our library if you want to check it out. Chafer in his book advances the idea that there are two different kinds of Christians. One that is spiritual that has achieved a higher way of living and another class that behaves much like an unsaved man.
6. Chafer drew from a popular movement of his time known as the Keswick doctrine or movement. This movement is where we get the phrase “Let go let God” Centered in the lake country of England in a village called Keswick, the doctrine promotes a Wesleyan and Arminian view of sanctification. It has also been referred to as the higher life movement and basically promotes the idea that you as a Christian can achieve a state of being where you live in complete submission to the Spirit, thereby achieving a life that is almost completely free from sin.
7. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ also worked to advance this doctrine in his book “Ye shall Receive Power”. Bill Bright also drew upon Keswick oriented ministers like RA Torrey and Andrew Murray. Campus Crusade today still teaches this doctrine, although I recently spoke with a friend of mine who works for Campus Crusade about this doctrine. His view or explanation of the Carnal Christian doctrine is much more moderate than Chafer's and Scofield's. He explained the middle circle as not a perpetual state but an example of fleshly behavior in a Christian.


1. Here is a diagram produced to help explain what the doctrine promotes, this diagram also appears in tracts produced by Campus Crusade and appears on their website which is where I got this image. I’m not sure when or where this diagram first appeared, but it is used prominently in Campus Crusade’s ministry.
2. Each circle represents a separate class of man. The first circle represents the natural or unregenerate man. The dots in the big circle are the interests in his life like sailing, video games, sleeping etc.
3. The second circle represents the regenerate man ruled by his own self or ego, but added to the interests of his life in Christ, rather than ruling the believer’s life Christ is merely another interest.
4. The last circle represents the spirit led Christian where Christ has taken the throne of the believers life, or rather the believer has allowed Christ to take control. All the other interests of life then are secondary now.
5. Ok so that is basically what the Carnal Christian doctrine is. The question we need to ask is does our text support this doctrine? (Review text and open for discussion)
6. BB Warfield reviewed Chafer’s book in 1919 in the Princeton Theological Review and has this to say, “Mr. Chafer opens his book with an exposition of the closing verses of the second and the opening verses of the third chapters of I Corinthians. Here he finds three classes of men contrasted, the "natural" or unregenerated man, and the "carnal" and "spiritual" men, both of whom are regenerated, but the latter of whom lives on a higher plane. This teaching is indistinguishable from what is ordinarily understood by the doctrine of a "second blessing," "a second work of grace," "the higher life."” BB Warfield 1919
8. He who believes in Jesus Christ is under grace, and his whole course, in its process and in its issue alike, is determined by grace, and therefore, having been predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son, he is surely being conformed to that image, God Himself seeing to it that he is not only called and justified but also glorified. You may find Christians at every stage of this process, for it is a process through which all must pass; but you will find none who will not in God's own good time and way pass through every stage of it. There are not two kinds of Christians, although there are Christians at every conceivable stage of advancement towards the one goal to which all are bound and at which all shall arrive.” BB Warfield 1919.
9. BB Warfield draws from Rom 8:29 and 30 in his article, since we interpret scripture in light of other scripture especially with difficult a text like 1 cor 2-3. What other scriptures should we look at to help us understand what Paul is saying, or what other scriptures would refute Chafer’s exposition of 1 cor 2-3?
10. What we see when we look at the rest of scripture is that the Bible clearly teaches that there are only two kinds of people, saved and unsaved, light or darkness, truth and lies.
11. Lets look at 2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.”
12. This passage brings up an interesting problem for the Carnal Christian doctrine, if this doctrine is true then how do we understand 2 Cor 5:17? No-Lordship theology must interpret this passage in light of their doctrine. Since this passage deals directly with regeneration and sanctification then those doctrines must then be understood differently than what has been understood historically.
13. To understand this passage from the No-Lordship position then is to say that a new nature is introduced to the believer along with his existing sinful nature. So in effect two natures exists together one divine and the other natural.
14. Regeneration in the No-Lordship view then does not transform the nature of a believer but merely transplants a divine nature within the believer. Whether the sinner progresses then towards holiness in sanctification is left optional and up to the believer.
15. This stands in contrast to the orthodox view that the believer’s nature has been made new and is now progressing through sanctification towards the image of Christ.
16. Definition of regeneration from RC Sproul: Regeneration is the theological term used to describe rebirth. It refers to a new generating, a new genesis, a new beginning. It is more than "turning over a new leaf"; it marks the beginning of a new life in a radically renewed person. Regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit upon those who are spiritually dead (see Ephesians 2:1-10). The Spirit recreates the human heart, quickening it from spiritual death to spiritual life. Regenerate people are new creations. Regeneration is not to be confused with the full experience of conversion. Just as birth is our initiation, our first entrance into life outside the womb, so our spiritual rebirth is the starting point of our spiritual life. It occurs by God's divine initiative and is an act that is sovereign, immediate, and instantaneous. An awareness of our conversion may be gradual. Yet rebirth itself is instantaneous. No one can be partially reborn any more than a woman can be partially pregnant. Regeneration is not the fruit or result of faith. Rather, regeneration precedes faith as the necessary condition for faith. We also do not in any way dispose ourselves toward regeneration or cooperate as co-workers with the Holy Spirit to bring it to pass. We do not decide or choose to be regenerated. God chooses to regenerate us before we will ever choose to embrace Him. To be sure, after we have been regenerated by the sovereign grace of God, we do choose, act, cooperate, and believe in Christ.
17. 1 John 1:5-6, “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6, If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
18. 1 John 2:3, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments 4, The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him
19. Romans 8:5-9, “For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. 8:6 For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, 8:7 because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him
20. Gal 5:18-25, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, 5:21 envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things. I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 5:23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit
21. Rom 8:30, “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
22. Phil 1:5-7, “that He who has begun a good work in you will complete [it] until the day of Jesus Christ;”

1. We can follow the progression of the no lordship theology beginning with John Nelson Darby, a member of the Plymouth brethren who transplanted Dispensationalism in the US. Next CI Scofield and his study bible, then Lewis Sperry Chafer who codified the doctrine in his Systematic Theology volumes. Chafer became a founding member of the Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924. The no lordship doctrine at one time was referred to as the Dallas doctrine.
2. The year 1975 also saw the no lordship doctrine advance when the President of the Florida Bible College, Dr Ray Stanford wrote the booklet “The Handbook of Personal Evangelism” This book contained a section on something called “Lordship Salvation”. This is where, it is generally believed that the term “Lordship Salvation” was first coined. That referred to the doctrine that says “in order for a man to be saved he must not only receive Christ as his Savior, but also must make Him absolute Lord and Master of his life”. He goes on to say that “this doctrine has been termed “Lordship Salvation” and has absolutely no support from the Word of God. It is, in fact, another subtle way Satan has invented to get Bible-believing men to add works salvation without, perhaps, their realizing it, and to do it in such a way that it sounds spiritual and good.” The accusation here that works have been added to salvation is one that is made by every no-lordship advocate. Also the language and accusations here leveled by Dr Ray Stanford are wild and extreme considering the weight of scripture that refutes his assertion. However none of the no-lordship advocates have distanced themselves from his work, on the contrary they all quote from his booklet.
3. No Lordship salvation flows in the stream of theology that flows from Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Antinomianism. In the words of Ernest Reisinger, this doctrine has a father whose name is Arminianism a mother whose name is Dispensationalism and a sister called Antinomianism. In other words no-lordship salvation is natural progression of those doctrines as we'll see when we examine the finer points of no-lordship salvation in the next 2 lessons.
4. What Reisinger and Macarthur have both pointed out is where Dispensationalism has setup dichotmies within the Bible those dichotomies or separations have continued into every part of theology. No-Lordship advocates have setup dichotomies between faith and repentance, even the Kingship and the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. The major proponents of No-Lordship salvation include Zane Hodges, the author of one of our sources for this study, Charles Ryrie, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dr Ray Stanford and the contemporary advocate and president of the Free Grace Society Dr. Bob Wilkin.
2. Here is a concise statement of what Free Grace or No-Lordship Salvation teaches, written by Arch Rutherford a pastor in a Free Grace church.
3. "Free Grace" theology teaches that we receive eternal life the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord. "Lord" refers to our belief that He is the Son of God and therefore, able to be our "Savior". "Faith" is viewed as a simple and uncomplicated response to the truth God has revealed about His Son, and the Gift which He offers. When Jesus says "Truly, Truly I say unto you, he who believes in Me has eternal life" (John 6:47), "believe" means to be convinced and assured that what He says is true. (See John 1:11-13) ....
4. Do you see any problems with any of these statements?
5. “Lord refers to our belief that He is the Son of God and therefore able to be our savior” There are a couple of problems with this statement, first the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord is not dependent on our belief, thankfully! Phil 2:5 says that “God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name”. Again the phrase “able to be our savior” reminds me of an early heresey called “Monarchianism or Adoptionalism” this heresey took away Christ's divinity by saying the God had merely adopted a man to carry His spirit. Thankfully Jesus was not just able to be our savior but He is our savior remember he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but took the form of a servant and became obedient to death.
6. As you see you must think critically when presented assertions that are given in support of a doctrine or theology. Let's look at this phrase “Faith is viewed as a simple and uncomplicated response to the truth God has revealed about His Son and the Gift which He offers.” This statement presupposes that the author's definition of faith and your definition of faith are the same, or that there is only one kind of faith. But let me ask you is faith simple and uncomplicated? What does that even mean? Something that is simple to me may be complicated to you. In our next lesson we will examine this question in detail and in light of what scripture says.
7. Any questions? We will come back to this in our next classes, right now we are just looking at an overview of No lordship theology.
1. The opposite view in our study is called Lordship salvation as we have seen was labeled by its opponents, its principle proponents include John MacArthur Ernest Reisinger J.I.Packer, and B.B. Warfield. These are all people who have written in opposition to no-lordship salvation and in favor of lordship salvation.
2. Just as we said earlier that No-lordship salvation is closely related to Arminianism and Dispensationalism, conversely Lordship theology is related to Reformed or Covenant Theology, for the purposes of this class I have made no distinction between Covenant and New Covenant theology.
3. As for the history of Lordship theology none is readily apparent, when you look back through Christian History. It does not appear suddenly nor can it be attributed to any certain individual. I was reminded of this quote from Eusebius, “Orthodoxy does not have a history, it is true eternally. Heresey has a history, having arisen at particular times through particular teachers”
4. So what does Lordship salvation say? Let's take a look at a concise statement of it's beliefs, “The Gospel Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus’ message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God’s righteousness. It was in every sense good news, yet it was anything but easy-believism. J..MacArthur (Gospel According to Jesus)”
5. Does anyone disagree with anything in this statement? I think we would all be familiar with what MacArthur is saying here. But one question we need to ask is since Zane Hodges, Ryrie etc are using the same Bible MacArthur and Reisinger are using how did they come to such different conclusions? Why do you think?
6. So we have seen that each side has accused the other of error and apostasy, going so far as to invoke the curse spoken of in Gal 1:8. So what we are charged with in this study is to determine who is right and why while proving it through scripture.
7. As in ancient Christianity when heresies arose it caused Christians to define and examine what they believed. And this what we will be doing in this class.
8. The Lordship controversy has called into question the definitions of repentance, faith, grace, sanctification, human depravity, the role of moral law and the doctrine of assurance.
9. Because the Lordship controversy has called into question these doctrines we need to define what the Gospel says and what it is. This will be our starting point as we continue to look more closely at the more central issues.

1. Gal 1:8 says that there is only one Gospel, but we have been presented with two very different ideas of what the Gospel is and says. So let's ask ourselves what is the Gospel? Get answers.
2. Much of what the Lordship Controversy is about is dichotomies that have been setup between faith/repentance, Christ's Kingship and his Priesthood. I want to try to demonstrate or offer a scriptural proof of why this is an incorrect way to look at the gospel is and says.
3. Lets look at Mark 1:1, .
4. When we look at this passage in the Greek, we can see the relationship between Jesus and the Gospel. In English when we want to show relationship we use a preposition. Of, in etc. In Greek grammar we would use the genitive case to show relationship.
5. In our text we can see an example of the genitive case in the phrase “euangeliou Ihsou Cristou” So the words for “good news” and Jesus Christ” appear next to each other in the genitive case. There are 3 different kinds of relationship possibilities, subjective, objective and plenary (which is a combination of the two). You can tell which genitive case to use from the context of what you're reading.
6. So if we translate this phrase in the subjective genitive it would read like this, “the gospel which Jesus proclaims” or the gospel is the subject of what Jesus is saying. In the objective genitive it would read like this, “the gospel about Jesus Christ” in other words the object of the gospel is Jesus Christ. Now what Daniel Wallace (a prominent Greek scholar) would say is that this is possibly an example of plenary genitive which would read “the gospel which Jesus proclaims is in fact the gospel about himself”
7. My point here is we can get an insight into the relationship between who Jesus is and what he says (the gospel)
8. This isn't the only place in the Bible where a situation like this appears, we can also look Rev 1:1 and see where the same type of grammar is used. Rev 1:1, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
9. The Greek would read like this, ajpokaluyi" Ihsou Cristou, (ap-ok-al'-oop-sis )“the revelation of Jesus Christ”) could be interpreted as either an objective genitive (“the revelation about Jesus Christ”), subjective genitive (“the revelation from Jesus Christ”), or both D. B. Wallace’s “plenary” genitive [ExSyn 119-21]). In 1:1 and 22:16 it is clear that Jesus has sent his angel to proclaim the message to John; thus the message is from Christ, and this would be a subjective genitive. On a broader scale, though, the revelation is about Christ, so this would be an objective genitive. One important point to note is that the phrase under consideration is best regarded as the title of the book and therefore refers to the whole of the work in all its aspects. This fact favors considering this as a plenary genitive.
1. Another way to define the gospel or what the gospel says is through confessions or creeds. Some of the earliest creeds in the Christian church were actually scripture in the Bible.
2. For example a very concise description appears in 1 Corinthians 15:1, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
3. A more thorough description can be found in Philipians 2:6-11, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
4. So these passages contain very brief but very complete descriptions of what DA Carson said “The Gospel is what God has done, supremely in Christ, and especially focused on his cross and resurrection.”
5. What other creeds or confessions can you think of?
1. The Westminster Shorter Confession compiled in 1647 is a series of 107 questions and responses that covers every aspect of Christian Faith. (Need more historical background)
2. So if were to ask again what is the Gospel and who is Jesus, we would find very good answers here beginning with question 22 and ending with question 29.
3. 22) How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man? Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin. Luke 1:27, 31, 35
4. 23) What offices doth Christ execute as our Redeemer? Christ, as our Redeemer, executeth the offices of a Prophet, of a Priest, and of a King, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. Acts 3:22-23, Hebrews 4:14-15, Isaiah 9:6-7
5. 24) How doth Christ execute the office of a Prophet? Christ executeth the office of a Prophet, in revealing to us by his Word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation. Hebrews 2:3 John 15:26-27 John 4:41-42.
6. 25) How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest? Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continual intercession for us. Acts 8:32-35 Romans 5:10-11 Romans 8:34
7. 26) How doth Christ execute the office of a King? Christ executeth the office of a King, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies. Matthew 28:18-20 Colossians 2:15
8. 27) Wherein did Christ's humiliation consist? Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time. Luke 2:7 Matthew 12:40 Phil 2:5
9. 28) Wherein consisteth Christ's exaltation? Christ's exaltation consisteth in his rising again from the dead on the third day, in ascending up into heaven, in sitting at the right hand of God the Father, and in coming to judge the world at the last day. 1 Corinthians 15:4 Matthew 16:27
10. 29) How are we made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ? We are made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ, by the effectual application of it to us by his Holy Spirit. Titus 3:4-7, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior”
1. The whole of this last exercise what to demonstrate the relationship between our Lord and the Gospel. When we receive Christ we also receive and accept everything that he said and commanded. We become not just believers but followers of Christ. This very simple concept has been altered to a great degree by the no-lordship theology.
2. These are terms or doctrines that we use to describe different aspects of salvation. What no-lordship theology has done is to separate these from one another in order to make the gospel message more acceptable for a greater amount of people. In doing so they have produced a man-made gospel that is virtually unrecognizable from what is revealed to us in God's Word.
3. Can you remove Faith from Sanctification? To do so embraces antinomianism, in other words to be justified by faith with out any commitment of life or to make sanctification a work of the believer removes the Lord's commandments from immediacy in the believer's life.”J.MacArthur
4. Let me say also that to do so would change the meaning of both faith and sanctification, again to do so would alter the meaning of both words.
5. What about the person of Christ? Can we have Christ as our Priest but not our King?
6. No-lordship theology sets out to do these very things as we'll see in the next lessons.


Rom 8:30, “and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

1Cor 6:11, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Apostles’ Creed (dates to about 150AD)
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

No comments: