Lordship Salvation vs. Free Grace

"I commend not the works of my hands,
for I fear that when thou examinest them
thou wilt find more faults than merits."
~ St. Augustine

Introduction

It is rare today to hear a sermon being preached on obedience, fruit in a believer's life, or sanctification that does not contain many observations on how far the church is from her goal. The sweeping failure of the body of Christ to live up to her standards seems to be common knowledge, assumed without even having to be proven by additional evidence. Yet examples of Christian leaders falling from their high positions, pastors abusing their roles with their flock, and worldly Christians in general can, if needed, provide ample fodder for the thunderous denouncement of the lives of many believers from both secular and Christian sources. The Church's judgment of the actions of many who call themselves Christian is often more harsh than that of the world.

It is equally rare to hear a sermon regarding Christian liberty, the law, or justification that does not include correspondingly fiery injunctions against legalism or works righteousness. The same Sunday mornings that many congregations are being brow-beat into humble (if fleeting) submission, others are being reminded of their freedom in Christ and that to rely on good works in any way destroys the message of the gospel and distorts the doctrine of grace in salvation. It is argued that obedience will flow from a believer's loving response to God's mercy, and that if any further conditions be added to this then the gospel itself is made ineffectual.

The tension between these two positions cannot be easily solved by appealing to a few verses from Scripture. Both sides provide multiple proof texts and examples from the Bible to bolster their view. Both implore the use of reason and common sense when dealing with the issue. Despite the ostensibly similar methods employed by each, a consensus does not seem to be forthcoming. Many believers simply vacillate between the two poles as need arises. When the church (or, more often, a single member) is seen as "backsliding," an appeal to light legalism might be appropriate. When the tables are turned by a more "pharisaical" brother, then the verses stressing liberty are called forth to defend the actions being judged. While it may be a convenient method for dealing with day-to-day situations it cannot help but fragment when one is asked to explain their belief. What happens when a non-believer asks for one's view on the place of works in salvation? How does one answer the accusations of hypocrisy in the church to a doubter? In order to form a coherent outlook on these and many related questions, the apparent dichotomy between faith and works must be answered.

In this information age, theological battles do not remain behind the scenes for very long. Out of the discussions and debates between those leaning to one side or the other in this controversy has arisen a strong polarization of views. Two main camps have been given somewhat official titles, and spokesmen for each have been chosen. Representing those who favor the freedom in Christ aspect is Zane Hodges' Free Grace movement. Opposing this view of the Christian life is John MacArthur who is the primary delegate for the teaching known as Lordship Salvation. Between these two authors several books have been written, each sequentially answering the other. Several other spokes-writers have been added to each position along the way, although few have achieved the iconic status of Hodges and MacArthur. Their works, then, are primary in the debate, while others have added fuel to the fire on both sides.

Might the polarization be unnecessary? Both sides point out not only flaws in their opponent's position, but misunderstandings of their own. Accusations are made of attacking straw men. ⁽¹⁾ Perhaps somewhere within these misunderstandings lies a tertium quid, a middle way that avoids both horns of the dilemma. While questions regarding salvation and the gospel are of utmost importance and must be worked out, it seems that a higher degree of agreement between Christians ought to be expected. Surely in a fallen world Christian energies could be better expended fighting the secular onslaught than each other. Below will be presented the main arguments for each side (primarily regarding the definition of "faith", the place of works, and the role of God in salvation), critiques of both, and a summary evaluation of the whole debate. Lordship Salvation

John MacArthur dislikes this title for his view, claiming that it appears to add the recognition of, and submission to, Christ's lordship to the gospel, when it is actually at the heart of it. ⁽²⁾ In his own words, MacArthur asserts that the gospel is a "call to faith [that] presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority." John Stott writes that, "It is a misunderstanding of the nature of saving faith which lies at the root of this desire to separate Christ as Savior from Christ as Lord." ⁽³⁾The Lordship position has summarized Stott's assertion in the phrase: "Christ is Lord of All or not At All." Eschewing the legalistic charges of detractors, he defines his position as encompassing the following points:

• Christ's death on the cross paid the full penalty for sin,
• Salvation is a gift of God given by grace through faith in Christ alone - plus and minus nothing,
• Sinners cannot earn salvation,
• God requires no preparatory works before salvation, they are saved fully before their faith produces a single work,
• Genuine christians can and do sin, sometimes heinous sins. ⁽⁴⁾

MacArthur goes to great lengths to stress that salvation is God's work from beginning to end, and in fact this fairly monergistic view of God's work in a believer's life is the basis by which he avoids charges of works righteousness later.

True vs. False Faith

Commenting on Christ's Sermon on the Mount in Mt. 7:21, Hamblin and Stephens write that, "using the right words, or even preaching and teaching about Christ, will not result in salvation. Redemption is not based on saying the right thing at the right time. As simple as it is, it is much more profound than that. It is a matter that involves the depth of a person's being." ⁽⁵⁾ They go on to argue that the word "believe" in English has lost the crucial component of commitment in its usage. They suggest that "faith" should be used as a verb ("I faith in Jesus Christ"), thus focusing on the heart as much as the mind. ⁽⁶⁾

The question, according to MacArthur, is "a disagreement over the nature of true faith." ⁽⁷⁾ He asserts that, "Not all faith is redemptive." ⁽⁸⁾ He defines faith as, "a supernatural confidence in-and therefore reliance on-the One who has made the promises." ⁽⁹⁾ Further, it is a work of God, not something man can conjure up by will: "If faith were a mere human decision, it would be no assurance at all . . . Real faith, however, is a divinely implanted assurance that rises above the natural functioning of the human mind." ⁽¹⁰⁾ Further, he writes, "It is not enough to know about His promises or even intellectually believe the truth of the gospel." ⁽¹¹⁾ Based on Hebrews chapter eleven, faith, according to MacArthur, must also include assurance, conviction, trust, and an element of seeking. If it is less than this it is not true faith, but only knowledge ("belief that" versus "belief in").

He argues against the "simple" definition of faith asserted by the Free Grace camp ⁽¹²⁾ by listing three primary elements of faith:

• Notitia, which is the intellectual recognition of a fact,
• Assensus - the emotional conviction or application to oneself of a given fact, and
• Fiducia - one's volitional reaction to, or trust in, the given fact. ⁽¹³⁾

These can be seen in Acts 2:36-39, where each component of faith is recognized:

'Therefore let all the house of Israel know [notitia] for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified.' Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart [assensus], and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;[fiducia].

Thus, it is not only mental assent of the facts of the gospel that procures salvation, but trust and obedience to its teachings. Anything less is "easy believism," a faith that does not work. ⁽¹⁴⁾

While it is argued by the Free Grace view that we should not "puzzle ourselves with introspective questions about the 'nature' of faith," it seems that there must be a test for true and false faith. ⁽¹⁵⁾ There are examples of false believers in Scripture (1 Jn. 2:18-21), and multiple commands to test one's own faith (2 Peter 2:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Jn. 2:3-6). Accordingly it must be asked: how can faith be tested if it cannot fail? James' point seems clear in chapter two that useless faith exists (and appears to exactly match the Free Grace definition):

What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? . . . Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. . . You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? (14-20)

After quoting this verse, MacArthur cites the Reformation saying: "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone" (emphasis in original). What is it that accompanies faith when it is not alone? The Lordship position claims that it is the presence of works.

The Place of Works

After reviewing his commentary on James chapter 2, MacArthur concludes that "true believers cannot be hearers only." ⁽¹⁶⁾ The kind of faith that saves is one evidenced by works: non-doers are not true believers, although true believers will not always put the word into practice. ⁽¹⁷⁾ Those in the Lordship Salvation ranks are quick to point out that works are the effect of salvation and not its cause. Jesus said to His disciples that,"every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." (Mt. 7:17-21). He also gave this command: "bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples." (Jn. 15:8). These verses do not affirm that fruit will bring forth trees (confusing the cause with the effect), but rather that "true" trees (true believers) will produce good fruit (good works).

The result of this understanding is stated succinctly by MacArthur when he writes, "Where there are no works, we must assume no faith exists either." for, "Real faith inevitably produces faith-works" (emphasis in original). ⁽¹⁸⁾ He also writes that, the Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God's work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (James 2:14-17). Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance of salvation (1 John 2:4). ⁽¹⁹⁾ Works, then, are the test for true faith - the necessary fruit of true faith. ⁽²⁰⁾

God's Role in Salvation

If good works are necessary for true faith it would seem that the Lordship Salvation view is only repackaged legalism. Opponents have made the claim that it is nothing less than heresy. ⁽²¹⁾ Proponents of the view avoid this criticism by appealing to God's role in a believer's life. If it is the case that man is responsible for works, and must add them himself to his faith, then legalism is the only possible result. If, however, good works are also part of the gift of salvation from God, then works are a necessary component within the whole. MacArthur comments, "The faith God imparts comes with a built-in attitude of surrender and self-abandonment. . . . Believing isn't easy. It isn't even hard. It is impossible in human terms." ⁽²²⁾ In this light "surrender to Jesus as Lord is no more a meritorious human work than believing he is Savior." ⁽²³⁾

MacArthur writes that, "Prior to this century [the 20^th], no serious theologian would have entertained the notion that it is possible to be saved yet see nothing of the outworking of regeneration in one's lifestyle or behavior." ⁽²⁴⁾ He cites church fathers and preachers from Augustine to Zwingli including Luther, Calvin, Henry, Edwards, Spurgeon, Pink, Tozer, etc. not to mention several confessions and catechisms to prove that the Lordship Position is not only a new position, but that it can hardly be called heresy. It is, accordingly, the Free Grace new emphasis on non-lordship that is the contradictory position in the church.

Scriptural support for this position is given as well. Ephesians 2:8-10 is cited as evidence that salvation is of God for good works. Philippians 1:6 shows that it is God Who "began a good work in you" and, "will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." Later Paul writes that, "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). As well, we are told in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 that, "the God of peace Himself [will] sanctify you entirely." Thus, it is God's work in us that produces the fruit. The same God Who justifies (not according to works) will also sanctify (not according to, but through, works). Because God cannot fail, His work in salvation must come to pass. If works are part of His salvation, then anyone who is saved will of necessity bring forth fruit. If no fruit is present, then God, by necessity, must not be at work.

Free Grace

Contrary to the Lordship view proponents of the Free Grace position assert that simple belief alone (i.e. without elements of repentance, surrender, submission, etc.) appropriates salvation, and that to add anything else to that condition is tantamount to presenting a false gospel. Hodges writes regarding Lordship Salvation that it "promotes a judgmental and pharisaical spirit within the church." ⁽²⁵⁾ Citing predominantly the gospel of John (which is considered to be the prime authority because of its "purpose statement" in chapter 20 verses 30-31), it is stated that nowhere is repentance, surrender, or submission listed as conditions for receiving eternal life. ⁽²⁶⁾ Thus the Free Grace view separates from the Lordship view on the very issue of the gospel's content.

Belief vs. Unbelief

The debate has been shown to be primarily centered around one's definition of faith. In contrast to the multi-faceted signification of the word by the Lordship view, the Free Grace position holds that faith is simple acceptance of facts. Indicative of this idea are the writings of Zane Hodges. He writes regarding this subject in Absolutely Free that,

Over a period of many years the idea has gained ground that true saving faith is somehow distinguishable from false kinds of faith, primarily by means of its results or "fruits." . . . Thus two men might believe exactly the same things in terms of content, yet if one of them exhibited what seemed to be a "fruitless" Christian experience, his faith would be condemned as "intellectual assent," or "head belief" over against "heart belief." ⁽²⁷⁾

Elsewhere he comments,

The result of the lack of perception just described [that of preaching the necessity of works] has been an effort, on the part of many, subtly to redefine the nature of saving faith. This has often seemed a necessity, no doubt, because of the many texts which predicate eternal life on nothing more than faith. ⁽²⁸⁾

Belief as used in Scripture is, according to Hodges, exactly equivalent to its use in English. He writes, "Let it be clearly stated here that English words like to 'believe,' or 'faith' function as fully adequate equivalents to their Greek counterparts." ⁽²⁹⁾

Hodges is strongly committed to destroying the idea that belief contains any component of surrender, submission, or repentance in it. ⁽³⁰⁾ He gives an example of one who "believes" that the President will do what he promises he will do. This would not, he argues, entail that that person will not break the law at some point. He states emphatically that, "The Bible knows nothing about an intellectual faith as over against some other kind of faith," and that, "it is an unproductive waste of time to employ the popular categories - intellect, emotion, or will - as a way of analyzing the mechanics of faith." Hodges defines faith as, "Receiving the testimony of God. It is the inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true. That - and that alone - is saving faith" (emphasis in original). ⁽³¹⁾

Hodges objects to what he calls "code words" for his view such as"cheap grace," "easy believism," and mere "intellectual assent," claiming that these all represent a "seriously distorted assessment" of the issues. Hodges further eschews use of common phrases such as "belief in" versus "belief that," arguing that these expressions are used interchangeably in Scripture (Jn. 3:36 cf. Jn. 20:31). It is the content of faith, not the "kind" of faith that matters. ⁽³²⁾

The Place of Works

One of the main contentions of Free Grace proponents is that the Lordship view confuses justification and sanctification, or at least mixes them in an unbiblical manner. Hodges writes, "Through justification we acquire the very righteousness of God, which is credited to us on the basis of faith alone . . . Through regeneration we acquire the very life of God, which is imparted to us likewise on the basis of faith alone" (emphasis in original). ⁽³³⁾ In a related work he writes,

Logically this [that works follow necessarily from faith] means that final salvation from hell depends on both faith and works. Accordingly, works are elevated to the level of a condition for salvation even if they are not seen as the immediate cause of salvation. . . . At their core, all such systems of thought are "legalistic" in the broad sense of the term. . . . Preachers who articulate this message are blind to the unconditional grace of God.⁽³⁴⁾

In the Free Grace system, repentance and other good works are fruits of faith. While this may seem similar to the Lordship position, its distinction is in the fact that believers will respond out of love rather than necessarily responding based on God's work. Hodges contrasts faith and repentance using several verses in Scripture. He mentions Acts 16:31 where faith is listed as a condition for salvation but repentance is not (significant because Luke uses the word more than any other NT writer), Acts 20:21 where repentance is listed separate from faith. He also points out that in John's gospel (specifically written, according to Hodges, to bring people to eternal life) repentance is not listed even once. This would be seriously misleading were it actually a component of saving faith. ⁽³⁵⁾ Hodges also points out that in some cases it was not necessary to preach repentance along with faith (i.e. Jn. 9). ⁽³⁶⁾ It is argued that repentance and obedience are not part of saving faith that leads to eternal life, but that they are essential to the "manifestation of that life." ⁽³⁷⁾

God's Role in Salvation

Hodges and other Free Grace teachers at least seem to agree with the Lordship doctrine of eternal security. He writes that it is the nature of a gift that once it is given it belongs to the recipient. Because in the case of salvation the gift is eternal it cannot, by definition, be lost. This relates to the nature of regeneration. When we come to God in faith, He performs a miraculous new birth and gives us a new nature. Hodges writes that, "The life-bearing Word of God accomplishes an inner transformation when it is received in faith." ⁽³⁸⁾ It is a "new birth," and like physical birth it is a one time event with permanent consequences. ⁽³⁹⁾ Just as physical birth is irreversible, so is spiritual birth. We can no more give back our spiritual birth to God than we can give our physical birth back to our parents. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ Thus, while not holding to the strong Calvinistic doctrine of MacArthur, Hodges can still retain his eternal security - not because God superintends a person's growth and beliefs, but because the very thing God did cannot be reversed.

What is more, even if a believer were to lose their belief entirely and turn from God until the day they died they would still have full assurance of their salvation - for once the gift is given it cannot be returned for any reason. This idea is reinforced by examples from Scripture such as the woman at the well (she was not told to drink, and drink, and drink . . . ), and Christ's reference to the Israelites' looking upon the serpent in the wilderness for healing (not being told to look, and look, and look . . . ). It might be asked, then, what of all the commands to obey, to fight the good fight, run the race, persevere, remain faithful, do good works, etc. throughout the New Testament? If one cannot lose his salvation, even for unbelief, then the only thing left is rewards.

For Free Grace teachers, there is a distinction between a believer and a disciple. Hodges writes,

It is one of the major errors of lordship theology that it reads the words of Jesus about discipleship as if they were basically no different from the words He spoke to the woman from Sychar about the water of life. . . . no one can understand the New Testament who does not see the obvious difference between the gift of life and being a pupil of Jesus Christ. ⁽⁴¹⁾

It is recognized that God has plans for the believer that include good works, but it is stated that believers choose whether or not to walk in those works. If they do, they are disciples and will reap rewards. If they do not, they short circuit the life God has for them, but are in no danger of losing their salvation. It is pointed out that there is a difference between what God wills and what He decrees. The latter must come to pass, the former may come to pass (i.e. Jn. 3:17 cf. Eph. 2:10). ⁽⁴²⁾ Thus, believers cannot lose their salvation for failure to perform good works, only their rewards. Salvation, because it is based solely on a one time acceptance of facts, cannot be lost - only stunted in its effects.

Initial Criticisms

There is a difficulty in dealing with these two issues that begins with each view's presuppositions regarding the role of God in man's sanctification. ⁽⁴³⁾ In MacArthur's strong, though not overtly stated, Calvinism, his conclusion follows necessarily. If it is the case that God superintends the entire outworking of one's faith, including all associated works, then it would have to be the case that works would always be present in the life of one so controlled. However, if man has more to do with works than that, as Hodges appears to believe, then the necessity of fruit in the life of a believer could rightly be termed "legalistic." Unfortunately, both sides have their foundation rather hidden. Statements are made that point clearly to their soteriological views that are not supported in their writings on the debate. Thus, anyone reading both views will naturally follow whichever is closest to his own view because with regard to the Calvinism / Arminianism debate they would would simply remain consistent. The failure of either side to really address this issue has opened the door for misunderstanding.

There are also some apparent contradictions between the views that might be solved simply by better defining terms (or by better representing the other's use of terms). For instance, statements like: "The 'hearing' that Jesus is speaking about is nothing less than the believing reception of God's life-giving Word," [emphasis mine] or, "by believing the amazing facts about the person of Christ, Martha was trusting Him," [emphasis in original] might sound like classic Lordship assertions, yet are penned by Zane Hodges himself. ⁽⁴⁴⁾ MacArthur seems to be echoing Hodges when he writes of faith, "As a divine gift, faith is neither transient, nor impotent." ⁽⁴⁵⁾ Dillow writes of a person who does not know God but may be a Christian anyway: "A Christian who claims to know God but in whose life there is no evidence is a liar. He may or may not be a Christian, but he definitely does not know God." ⁽⁴⁶⁾ These odd similarities have prompted one scholar to write, "When proponents of each side state their view clearly, the problem of semantics becomes apparent." ⁽⁴⁷⁾

Finally, there is substantial agreement on so many facets of saving faith that if presented carefully the two views would be virtually indistinguishable. Both agree that Christ's death paid the full price for sins, that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone - plus or minus nothing, that sinners cannot win favor with God for doing good works, that God requires no works to be saved, that believers can and do sin, and that eternal life is a non-returnable gift of God that is given at the moment of belief. ⁽⁴⁸⁾ It seems difficult to believe, given all these agreements, that substantial disagreement could exist. Any view that makes it through this fine filter of truth could not come out very impure. Is there no way to affirm the best in both views and avoid the pitfalls?

Evaluation and Possible Solutions True vs. False Faith

It is evident within Scripture that there is a distinction between true and false faith. It is possible to believe that a thing is true (i.e. "God exists") and also to believe in and trust and act as though a thing were true (i.e. following God)(Jas. 2:14-20; 1 John 2:18-20 ; Mt. 15:7-8). If this were not the case it would be difficult to make sense of the multiple verses challenging believers to test faith (2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10; 1 John 3:10 ; 1 John 2:3-6; ). Further, it appears evident from these and other verses that the test of true faith is obedience (Titus 1:15-16; Hebrews 3:18-19; Hebrews 11:8; ), and not just affirmation of truth (Mt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46).

However, it is also true that obedience is not part of the gospel message of belief. If this were so, then John's gospel would appear to be quite misleading. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Paul also made several claims regarding the gospel that mention faith alone as the condition for salvation (1 Cor. 15:1-8; Rom. 4:4-6). Further, there appears to be a clear distinction between a disciple and a Christian (although one may be both - Luke 14:16-33; Jn. 2:11; Jn. 12:4). ⁽⁵⁰⁾ The Bible also lists some who did not appear to be committed as believers (i.e. Lot, and the believers at Ephesus). ⁽⁵¹⁾ As to the object of faith, it seems that Lordship teaching elevates one aspect above all others (i.e. His lordship versus His Kingship, Creator status, supreme judge, etc.) in salvific belief. ⁽⁵²⁾

While true faith alone leads to salvation, the makeup of true faith must be more than mere assent, for to have "false assent" makes almost no sense other than to simply not believe in the first place. One component, for example, must be repentance. While not always stated as a condition for salvation, it is at other times (Acts 11:18; 20:21; Rom. 2:4; etc.). The question is, repentance from what? One can repent from unbelief as well as sin. The close link between true faith and obedience must also be accounted for, and will be below.

The Place of Works

The Bible does not always present obedience and faith as strictly contrary to one another. Several places in Scripture seem to almost make them synonymous (Romans 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Acts 6:7; Hebrews 5:9; John 3:36). The production of fruit is presented as evidence of true belief (Mt. 7:17; Lk. 6:43-49; 1 Jn. 2:6). And Christ's parables show that the "seed" of faith will produce fruit (Lk. 8:11-18). However, it is also evident that belief is all that saves, apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10 cf. Jas. 2:21-24). And that our proper "work" is actually belief itself (Jn. 6:29). Further it is through faith (not works) that believers will overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4 ).

It seems, therefore, that true faith will naturally - although not necessarily or universally - produce good works. Good works cannot be said to flow necessarily from the believer's life, for the believer must retain free will if exhortations to exercise it are to make sense. Free will also accounts for the fact that believers do continue to sin (a point upon which both views agree). Just as any individual sin may be avoided by the unbeliever (but not sin in general), any individual good work may likewise be avoided by the believer (but not good works in general). This does not mean, however, that good works should not be expected to be a normative characteristic in a believer's life. Therefore it can be said that a strict lack of good works may call the person's salvation into question.

The Role of God

The expectation of good works in general can avoid the charge of legalism if God is responsible for their coming to pass. Scripture seems to indicate that this is the case (Eph. 2:8-10 and 13; Phil. 1:6 ; Heb. 5:9; 1 Thess. 5:23 ). However, it must be noted that man's role is also important, otherwise there would be no need for instruction or exhortation to do good (1 Tim. 1:18, 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7; 1 Cor. 1:10, 4:16, 9:24; 2 Thes. 3:12).

It should also be recognized that good works are an element of sanctification (as opposed to justification). This process is brought along by obedience - an obedience which must be learned, not imputed (Rom. 6:16; Eph. 6:5). Sanctification is an act of God, a part of salvation by His grace (Eph. 2:8-9), but this does not eliminate the necessary response of the believer (Eph. 2:10; cf. John 15:10). This loving obedience is the result of God's grace, yet it involves the believer's will and actions (Lk. 6:46). It appears, then, that loving obedience, while the result of God's grace, depends also on the will of the believer for its performance(Jn. 5:3). It is the case, then, that obedient acts performed out of love for God should be evident in a believer's life. While some works must come from every saved person, more will come from the one who "runs as if to win." God will reward those whose works pass through the fire (1 Cor. 3:13-15), and those whose lives have produced little will not receive as great a reward. Yet one's salvation is not dependent on those works because it is God Who saves and God Who works (Phil. 2:13). And God's will cannot but come to pass.

Conclusion

While there are many more ideas that could be explored with regard to these two views, the main "sticking points" have been presented and evaluated. In all that they both affirm the truth is evident. In their differences there is sometimes only misunderstanding, equivocation on terms, or simple misrepresentation. In the areas where genuine disagreement exists, it is usually based on the foundational beliefs of each side regarding God's role versus man's role in each step of the salvation process. Were these latter issues settled it may be the case that very little controversy would remain. Instead, the conflicts lead to further polarization as each view must concentrate solely on their conclusion to make their points, when in reality a mediating position is to be preferred. Once God's role as sovereign and man's role as free servant become clear, most of the dividing issues between the two views become moot.

Thus, it is by God's grace (freely bestowed apart from any works of man) that saves (justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies) through faith (freely chosen) for good works prepared by God (that will naturally flow from the believer's new nature but which can be halted by the free will of the believer). In conclusion, good works will be evident in a true believer's life, however, due to the extent of sin and freedom in a believer's life it may be difficult to judge another's salvation (Mt. 7:1), but much easier to judge ourselves - as we ought to do (1 John 3:19-24).

NOTES

1. See for example: John MacArthur, Faith Works - The Gospel According to the Apostles (Vancouver: Word Publishing, 1993), 29-30.
2. MacArthur, Faith Works, 23.
3. John Stott, Must Christ Be Lord to Be Savior? Yes. (Eternity, Sept., 1959), 16. as quoted in Robert Lightner, Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1995), 212.
4. MacArthur, Faith Works, 23-24.
5. Robert Hamblin, and William Stephens, The Doctrine of Lordship (Nashville: Convention Press, 1990), 60-61.
6. Ibid., 64.
7. MacArthur, Faith Works, 30.
8. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 186.
9. MacArthur, Faith Works, 40.
10. Ibid., 43.
11. Ibid., 47.
12. Hodges uses this term consistently throughout his book with regard to faith. See: Zane Hodges,Absolutely Free (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989) xiii, 21, 25, 29, 38, 62, 63, etc.
13. MacArthur, Faith Works, 44.
14. Ibid., 196-99.
15. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 27.
16. Ibid., 143.
17. Ibid., 144-45.
18. Ibid., 149.
19. MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus, 29.
20. MacArthur, Faith Works, 142.
21. Charles Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969) 170. As cited in MacArthur,Gospel According to Jesus, 255.
22. MacArthur, Faith Works, 199.
23. MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus, 235.
24. Ibid., 30.
25. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 19.
26. Ibid., 26.
27. Ibid., 27.
28. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1985), 6.
29. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 28.
30. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 6-7. Also: Hodges, Absolutely Free, 29.
31. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 31.
32. Ibid.,39.
33. Ibid., 64.
34. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse, 5.
35. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 144-46.
36. Ibid., 157.
37. Ibid., 172.
38. Ibid., 57.
39. While physical death will occur to the body, the existence of the soul will continue on forever. Thus it is correct in this sense to state that once a person is born, that person will continue on forever.
40. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 57.
41. Ibid., 68.
42. Ibid., 73.
43. The use of the term "presupposition" here is not meant to imply that either side simply assumes their position without prior research - only that that research is not brought to bear on the subject at hand in their primary writings on this topic. Nor should it be seen to imply that evidence for these foundational views is necessarily expected in this limited scope.
44. Hodges, Absolutely Free, 60 and 39 respectively.
45. MacArthur, Faith Works, 189.
46. Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1993), 165.
47. Lightner, Handbook, 212.
48. MacArthur, Faith Works, 214.
49. Whether or not John 20:31 refers to the entire gospel or only to the previous events is immaterial. John's gospel (or any of them) is sufficient in itself to inform a person regarding salvation.
50. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 338-39. See also Dillow, Servant Kings, 151.
51. Ibid., 338.
52. Ibid., 339.