This is a recent online post I made to the Reformed Theology Discussion List. It took me more than five minutes to write, so I thought I’d stick it in my blog to keep it in webspace a little closer to home 😉

——–
Message 76662 of 76876
From: “Sarah Joy Albrecht”
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: Lordship debate

— In rtdisc@yahoogroups.com, jmonte2000@a… wrote:

> What actually is the debate about? Is it, that if there is no
> fruit and you don’t make Jesus Lord of your life. Or is JM saying you have to do
> that at the point of believing. I know I didn’t make him Lord of my life, first
> of all no one ever told me I had too, I was converted for sure. Although
> Jesus is for sure Lord of my life now and there is fruit. I think Robbins was
> saying JM says you have to do that when you first believe. Can anyone help me
> out on this?

My understanding of the debate is this: Is a Christian one who a) simply makes a profession of faith or prays a “sinner’s prayer” (a.k.a. for the purpose of this debate “easy believism”) or b) is one who trusts God implicitly and is obedient to Him no matter what.

I believe the answer is B.

The only book that I have read on the lordship debate was by Ken Gentry called, Lord of the Saved: Getting to the Heart of the Lordship Debate .

Tom gave me this book while we were dating – I was raised a “Christian” and was fluent in Christianese but had no desire to be baptized. “Lord of the Saved” is a wakeup call not to merely believe in God, but to trust in and obey Him implicitly. Obviously, one cannot be obedient and indefinitely put off baptism 😉 I was promptly baptized after reading this book.

To a person who does trust in God implicitly and is obedient to Him, it is difficult to understand how anyone could think otherwise. But, for one who grew up thinking they are saved merely because they prayed a sinner’s prayer – or, at least, were told by parents that they did,because they were too young to remember – and that was all that was necessary to get to heaven, the realization that they have said the magic words but are still far from God is downright scary.

I think Gentry hits it on the head when he wrote, “my concern is that an improper, shallow presentation of the gospel is driving many to a merely psychological or emotional conversion”( p3).

This is so true!

If the intent of evangelism is to guilt, scare or trick someone into saying “I believe in Jesus” (often followed with a quick pat-on-the-head and an emotional “Look everyone! A new Christian! Hooray, you’re saved, here’s your spiritual birthday certificate and gift Bible) the message of the gospel has NOT been presented CLEARLY.

Phrases used like, “Give Jesus a chance – suppose His claims are false, what have you lost?” or “If you become a Christian, you don’t have to stop being cool – God saves us right where we are and loves us unconditionally!” are classic examples of what I mean by “trickery”. It is altering the gospel and downplaying Christianity in hopes to appeal to and “save” a larger audience.

The fact is that there is only one true God, and that we cannot equate trying out Christianity with trying out religions to see which one works best for us. And, if being “cool” involves a sinful lifestyle, we are called to abandoned the cool-factor.

Christianity is not just more fire-safety measure among many; it is a complete transformation from death to life. Any gospel presentation that directly or indirectly suggests otherwise is WRONG.

Gentry cites Hodges:

“Saving faith is taking God at His Word in the gospel. It is nothing
less than this. But it is also nothing more” (Absolutely Free! A
Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, 32).

“God’s love can embrace sinful people unconditionally, with no binding
requirements attached at all” (The Gospel Under Siege, 14).

I disagree with Hodges. When the gospel is presented like this – concluding that people are sinners and that God saves them unconditionally or “just as they are” (true, yes) BUT it is not coupled with the need for obedience to repent (Acts 3:19, 1 John 1:5-10, 2 Cr 5:17-18), it’s not the whole truth. It is, rather, misleading and even deadly (James 4:4, Rev 3:16).

Sure, by some MIRACLE God may choose to use this half-truth presentation and “conversion” for His glory and draw a person to Him, but it is not the mere emotional experience of a sinner’s prayer that saves.

How many “new Christians” even know about the indwelling and power of the Holy Spirit or being reconciled to God through Christ’s blood? Without knowing these simple truths, how can one have any confidence in Salvation? or have desire to grow?

This is why books like “The Purpose Driven Life” are on the best seller list. In modern times, the Gospel has been presented poorly and people are quickly pushed into ‘getting saved’ and are left without any direction, discipleship or desire to change their lives. Because of the presentation, there is a void being filled by Rick Warren. (I’m not trashing PDR – just saying that perhaps if people had a better understanding of genuine Christianity and turning their lives over to God as part of conversion, there wouldn’t be such a great need for the book.)

My conclusion is this:

While God can use an incomplete gospel message, it is not how the gospel was intended to be shared. It is disgraceful to defend, as I believe that Hodges and others have done, a gospel that leaves people without hope and on a self-centered path of perpetual immaturity and a detrimental friendship with the world. It is because of this teaching that so many “Christians” are filled not with Peace but with fear and doubt as to whom they really belong.

Sarah Joy Albrecht