X Close Menu

10 Things You Should Know about the Lordship Salvation Controversy


Your first response to this title may well be: “What controversy?” One doesn’t often hear much any more about the so-called “Lordship Salvation” controversy, but it is most assuredly an issue that needs to be addressed. Continue reading . . . 

Your first response to this title may well be: “What controversy?” One doesn’t often hear much any more about the so-called “Lordship Salvation” controversy, but it is most assuredly an issue that needs to be addressed.

(1) Those who affirm "Lordship" salvation oppose the idea that one may have saving faith without submitting to the Lordship of Jesus in daily obedience. We are justified by faith alone, but not by the faith which is alone (Sola fides iustificat, sed non fides quae est sola).

Saving faith is a working faith. That faith by means of which we are justified is the kind or quality of faith that produces obedience and the fruit of the Spirit. In the absence of obedience, in the absence of fruit, in the absence of submission to the lordship of Jesus, there is doubt whether the faith is saving.

(2) Opponents of lordship salvation insist that such a view introduces works into the gospel and compromises grace. Faith should, but may not, produce works of obedience. According to this view, you can be a Christian without necessarily being a disciple; you can receive Jesus as Savior without necessarily submitting to him as Lord. How you live and what you believe after you profess faith in Christ has no bearing on whether you really believed in him in the first place.

On this view, it is altogether possible that a born-again believer may repudiate the faith, turn his back on Jesus, and become an unbeliever. However, advocates of the non-Lordship position generally affirm eternal security. Thus heaven will receive saved unbelievers!

(3) Note that in Romans 10:9 Paul identifies the confession of Jesus as Lord to be an essential element in the gospel message. The Greek word Kurios ("Lord") is used more than 6,000x in the LXX to translate the name YHWH. Many of these OT texts referring to YHWH are applied to Jesus in the NT. For example, its use in Joel 2:32 is applied to Jesus in Romans 10:13. Thus, confession of the "Lordship" of Jesus entails, at minimum, the confession of his full and perfect deity. Jesus is YHWH incarnate. In Philippians 2:10 Paul describes the title Kurios as "the name which is above every name," which can only be the name of God himself. Thus, as Cranfield notes, "the confession that Jesus is Lord meant the acknowledgment that Jesus shares the name and the nature, the holiness, the authority, power, majesty and eternity of the one and only true God" (2:529).

In Romans 10:9 the confession of Jesus as Lord refers to the lordship he exercises by virtue of his exaltation. It points to his investiture with universal dominion. Thus, "the hearer of the gospel message is called upon to affirm an article of faith, namely, that by virtue of his death and resurrection, Jesus has been exalted to a place of sovereignty over all men" (Alan Chrisope, Jesus is Lord [Evangelical Press, 1982], 62-3).

(4) This confession involves the acknowledgment of the rightful authority of Jesus Christ over the life of the believer. According to George E. Ladd, this confession “reflects the personal experience of the confessor. He confesses Jesus as Lord because he has received Jesus Christ as his Lord (Col. 2:6). He has entered into a new relationship in which he acknowledges the absolute sovereignty and mastery of the exalted Jesus over his life” (Theology of the NT, 415).

This compels us to ask the question: Can we believe in Jesus Christ in the biblical sense of that term if we do not intend to submit to his authority?

(5) The doctrine of Lordship Salvation views saving faith neither as passive nor fruitless. The faith that is the product of regeneration, the faith that embraces the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross energizes a life of love and obedience and worship. The controversy is not a dispute about whether salvation is by faith only or by faith plus works. All agree that we are saved by grace through faith, apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10). But the controversy is about the nature of the faith that saves. As noted earlier, according to Lordship Salvation, Sola fides iustificat (faith alone justifies), sed non fides quae est sola (but not the faith which is alone).

(6) We must distinguish between the content of faith and the consequences of faith. To say that faith issues in good works does not mean faith is good works. To say that works are the expression of faith does not means works are the essence of faith.

(7) Lordship salvation does not teach that Christians can't sin. It does teach that Christians can't live complacently in it. Lordship salvation does not say Christians will be sinless. But it does insist that Christians will sin less. Christians do sin, but they don't practice it (1 John 3:6). Christians sin; sometimes seriously. But if they are Christians, they will be discipined for it (Heb. 12). Complacency and contentment in sin are the hallmark of the unregenerate soul. Conviction is the sign of the saved one. In other words, the Christian will sin, but it will make him miserable. Dead people don't fight!

(8) Thus lordship salvation recognizes a distinction between the implicit acknowledgment by the new convert of the principle of Christ's rightful authority over his life and the explicit practice of progressive submission to the Christ who is Lord. Receiving Christ as Savior and Lord does not mean the new convert is wholly committed. It does mean he is committed to being holy.

John Piper describes a scenario in which a young lady objects, insisting that she accepted Jesus as Savior when twelve years old but didn't submit to his Lordship until she was 30. “If Lordship salvation is true,” she says, “had I died when I was a teenager I would have gone to hell.”

No, says Piper. Jesus was her Lord from the moment of her conversion. Her experience since then has been one of more or less yieldedness to his sovereign rights as Lord over her life. She says she didn't fully submit to his lordship then. She is right. But she has not fully submitted even now, or she would be sinlessly perfect. The Christian life is one that begins with accepting and bowing to Jesus as Sovereign ruler and Lord . . . with a progressive degree of experiential submission as one matures. The Lordship of Christ is not something one discovers and yields to only once but thousands of times over the course of our Christian experience.

(9) Lordship salvation insists that repentance is essential to the gospel message (see Luke 24:47). Says John MacArthur:

"If someone is walking away from you and you say, 'Come here,' it is not necessary to say 'turn around and come.' The U-turn is implied in the direction 'come'. In like manner, when our Lord says, 'Come to Me' (Mt. 11:28), the about-face of repentance is understood" (34).

An objection raised by opponents of Lordship salvation is that the gospel of John, which is admittedly a document focusing on unbelievers, never mentions repentance. Three things may be said in response.

First, John wrote his gospel after Matthew, Mark, and Luke and did not wish to unnecessarily repeat what they thoroughly addressed. The synoptic gospels speak repeatedly about repentance.

Second, John's focus in his gospel record is on the identity of Jesus and believing who he is.

Third, although the word "repentance" is absent from the fourth gospel, numerous things are said about believers that imply, if not require, the presence of repentance in their lives: Christians are portrayed as those who love the light (3:19), hate the darkness (3:20-21), obey the Son (3:36), practice the truth (3:21), worship in spirit and truth (4:23-24), honor God (5:22-24), do good deeds (5:29), love God (8:42), follow Jesus (10:26-28), and keep his commandments (14:15). Thus the absence of a particular word does not necessarily entail the absence of the theological concept. The latter can be expressed in other ways, through a variety of terms other than that of “repentance” itself.

(10) This controversy also focuses on the grounds for assurance of salvation. Advocates of lordship salvation recognize three grounds.

The first and preeminent ground for assurance of salvation is the inescapable logic of John 3:16. Christ died for sinners. All who believe in Christ's death have eternal life. I have believed in Christ. Therefore, I have eternal life. We can have assurance we are saved because we know God's word is true concerning the saving work of Christ and the eternal destiny of those who embrace it by faith.

Second, according to Romans 8:16 (and other texts), the Holy Spirit awakens our hearts with the inner, subjective, intuitive confirmation and confidence that indeed we are God's children.

Third, the reality of the root is borne out by the fruit. Loyalty, love, and obedience bear witness to the reality of one's profession. Where there is no fruit, there may be no root. Jesus was speaking to the “Jews who had believed him” when he said: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31; see also Heb. 3:14; 1 John 2:3-4, 19). Thus we see that not all “belief” is saving faith. The test of whether so-called “belief/faith” is saving is the on-going reality of abiding in the word of Christ and obedience to his commands.


2 Timothy 2:19 says "The Lord knows those who are His, and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." That said, let us first consider the individual. Does the individual's claim to salvation (not sanctification) agree with Scripture? Then, as for sanctification, there are stages of spiritual growth. How much has the individual been taught and learned? As for others examining the individual, the preceding should be asked of the individual. If the individual's claim agrees with Scripture, what are you going to do? Do you have enough knowledge of their life to determine whether there is any sanctification at all? Then too, if the claim to salvation is sound, how much sanctification does it take to be certain, on the individual's and the questioner's part? I am not minimizing the need for sanctification nor the power of the Spirit. As for every individual, regardless of the means He uses, it is ultimately the Spirit who bears witness to the individual that they are a child of God (Romans 8:16). On the individual's part, "be all the more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall" (verse 10 of 2 Peter 1:3-11). As for those who question the individual's salvation, I simply say "Make up your mind!" If YOU believe they are not saved, treat them accordingly. Thus if YOU believe they they are NOT saved, treat them accordingly. Don't expect a non- Christian to act like a Christian until they BECOME one. That would be the fair BIBLICAL thing to do. And again, the Lord knows those who are His. Amen

John Owen's short book, "Gospel Evidences of Saving Faith" is relevant to this discussion. Two of his 4 "evidences" are (2) Habitually approving of the holiness and obedience God requires as revealed in scripture, (4) Bringing the soul into a special state of repentance. He points out these evidences are not always at all times on display. Our actions can and do go against what we know and approve as God's will for our holiness - otherwise Paul would not have said that we are easily entangled in sin. Thankfully it is not by ourselves but "by the Spirit we are to put to death the deeds of the flesh."

Interesting this subject on your blog. Our church will have a conference in February on this subject. I read and will reread this article several times in approach of our conference. Our church web site is gracelifeshoals.org

Loved this brief article - and I think it is well balanced and fair. Even if the controversy has largely died down and the academy has moved on, the unfortunate and dangerous legacy of Free Grace theology lives on in many small churches and in some parachurch orgs in America. So it still needs to be addressed. Thank you.

How much daily "lordship" is enough "lordship" to be saved?

My wife made the observation that often there is Gospel presentations these days that lack explanation of the need for repentance. As long as some present a Jesus without a need to repent, Lordship will continue to be an issue.

A good book on this is "Confident in Christ" by Robert Wilkin. Hundreds of passages are shown teaching assurance is possible simply by looking to Christ and His promises.

Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth

In Revelation 5:5-6 Jesus is referred to both as the lion (king) and lamb (atoning sacrafice for our sins). To truely believe in Jesus we need to embrace both aspects of him. Even his name. Jesus (God is salvation or God Saves) and Christ (The Priest-King or anointed one) implies both. If we are truly saved by faith in Jesus, faith according to Scripture must embrace both. It is a looking to God, a dependence on God to rule and enable, and cleanse, and save. If we are looking to ourselves for any of this we have faith, but not in God.

Excellent Article, pastor Sam! Thanks for writing it. I'm not even sure why anyone would call Salvation... "Lordship Salvation." I.e., Lordship Salvation seems redundant.

How can Salvation be anything other than trusting and declaring that Jesus is Lord?

One reason this is an issue that still needs to be addressed is the fact that each side has failed (largely, in general) to fairly and accurately hear the other side out, and thus continue to misrepresent the other position. Here we have 10 things we SHOULD know... from one side's perspective, or at least a segment of that side. I hope that this thread launches a mature discussion with input from someone willing to listen to and or fairly present an alternative view.

Darrel Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote a mediating article years ago, in which he observed both sides (at the time) lobbing shots beyond the bow of the other, strawmen, etc. etc. It would be nice to have such a scholar join in here and bring some balance.

In other words, I for one, find this article out of balance and misrepresentative of the so called "non lordship" position.

If you go back to Genesis 3, the problem is that man didn't want to submit to God's kingship. The consequence was separation from God, spiritual death. How can reconciliation happen without the rebellion ending. I have worked in Africa for 21 years and every African I have ever explained the situation to understands that a rebellious child can never be reconciled with his or her father without ending the rebellion.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments for this post have been disabled.