Zane or John - and the Bible

Scott over at Christian Telegram references an article by Dr. M. James Sawyer entitled Some Thoughts on Lordship Salvation in which he compares and contrasts Zane Hodges's "Free Grace" with John MacArthur's "Lordship Salvation".

Briefly, John MacArthur (and others) advocate that a person who becomes a believer must actually submit to Jesus as Lord, while Zane Hodges (and others) counter with "No, no, no! All you need to do is believe."

It is an interesting article, but, in all honesty, it simply leaves me wondering what the truth is.

On Hodges he writes, "Hodges is responding to a caricature of a position rather than fully grasping what the Lordship position is saying, due in part to his own presuppositions. He hears the Lordship position insisting on the necessity of good works and interprets this as making works a condition of salvation." He believes that the problem occurs because of "the desire for absolute certainty that an individual possesses salvation." He thinks that Hodges fails to properly grasp or define faith, saying, "His working definition seems often to have reference to assensus and possibly notitia but without fiducia."

On MacArthur he says, "There is a hardness, an absoluteness, in the form of statements which preclude discussion." He believes that much of what MacArthur espouses is right, but he complains, "It is not a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. It is, however, being read as such, and as such it presents an unbalanced view of what the gospel is all about." I think one of the telling sentences begins "While I applaud the Lordship position in its insistence that the believer in Jesus Christ will show by his life that he is a believer, the rhetoric I hear ..."

I have to wonder if the rhetoric isn't the problem. I have to wonder if the opposition to Lordship Salvation isn't a product of misunderstood rhetoric. More accurately, I wonder if the Lordship Salvation position isn't intended to be an overstatement for effect. Sometimes, when we see a particularly egregious erroneous viewpoint, we can try to compensate by firm, deliberate, even excessive statements to the contrary. I have to wonder if MacArthur (and others) aren't responding to what they perceive to be a serious error and are, therefore, using more serious language than would ordinarily be used. Lordship Salvation, for instance, is not intended to provide a complete exposition of the doctrine of salvation. Dr. Sawyer is absolutely right. So is it possible that the critics are responding to something never intended?

As for me, I'm more confused than ever. I concur with Hodges (and MacArthur) on the doctrine of sola fide -- justification by faith alone (apart from works). We are not saved by works ... period. We do not contribute to our salvation. We do not earn, merit, achieve anything to do with our salvation. It is a gift, grace apart from my merit. And I agree with Sawyer that Hodges's approach lays the foundation for antinomianism. The sharp separation between justification and sanctification -- the hard-nosed battle cry that works are not part of Christianity -- flies in the face of Scripture after Scripture. But where is the balance?

On one hand we hear comforting words all around. John says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13). There it is, plain as day. If you believe, you can know that you have eternal life. Paul writes, "This was according to the eternal purpose that He has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him" (Eph. 3:11-12). See? "Confidence through our faith." What more do we need? On the other hand there are resounding alarms throughout Scripture, warnings that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17) and that "anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God" (1 John 3:10). We must test ourselves to see if we're in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). We must make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). We are warned -- warned -- to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

This same dichotomy is carried out in Scripture in plain sight. We don't have to dig for it; it is explicit.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).

So how do we handle this? Is assurance certain? Do we need to work or don't we? How do we correlate "not of works" with "for good works"? MacArthur and Hodges seem to go head to head. Both seem to be right ... and wrong. Without regard for either MacArthur or Hodges, how do we make sense of the Scriptures?