Category Archives: Biblically Speaking

This category is for topics and issues which come back to specific biblical answers and debates. It is especially concerned with God’s grace and the Christian life…and, with keeping the Gospel of faith alone in Christ alone crystal clear.

Biblically Speaking

John MacArthur or Zane Hodges?

5 Comments

Here’s the Dedication from Back to Faith.  I’m sure I don’t necessarily please anyone with this, but it is genuine from my appreciation for aspects of both of these influencial men.  -Fred Lybrand

John MacArthur or Zane Hodges?

If you’ve been in the conversation about the gospel for the past twenty plus years, then this dedication will be the strangest thing you’ve ever seen.I’m dedicating this work to both of these men, and largely because they have both greatly influenced my own life. John MacArthur was my first introduction to understanding the Bible as the Word of God, taking it in a normal sense, and studying line-by-line and verse-by-verse. For two years, as a new Christian, I listen to John MacArthur through his tape lending library at a clip of six tapes a week. Roughly that means I listened to at least 275 of his sermons (I’m sure I had some breaks in there somewhere). When I chose to leave Law School and attend Dallas Theological Seminary, I knew only that I wanted to learn the Word; and, I wanted to learn it like MacArthur knew it. Even to this day, no matter how mistaken I may think he is, I still enjoy listening to him! When I left for seminary I wrote him a thank you letter for his huge influence on my life—but as he gets thousands of them, I never heard back. So, publically, thank you John MacArthur for your significant ministry in my life. John, you gave me a love for God’s Word, and I trust the Lord will reward you for it.

Zane Hodges was my first Greek teacher who turned into a friend and mentor over time. Zane scared me to death… though he was easily among the most gracious teachers I’ve ever known. Zane, who went to be with the Lord on November 23, 2008, was always very insightful and very patient in his teaching. I must confess, since I was so immersed in MacArthur’s view, I wasn’t really that fond of Zane Hodges! In time, however, I began to think through the issues for myself, and Zane offered me something strategic in my development as a Bible student and preacher; Zane Hodges really insisted on looking at the text for what it was saying, rather than what I felt I “needed” it to say. This ability to place the Word of God ahead of my theological bias is essential to the true exegete. So, publically, thank you Zane Hodges for your significant ministry in my life. Zane, you gave me love for being brave about looking for what the text itself really  says, apart from defending my theology or my heroes from history. I trust the Lord rewards you as well.

So, how can I have heroes that have theologies at such odds? I think the answer is simple—we aren’t having conversations. On the one hand, I am thankful that we still live in a day and age where someone has a true conviction about something that is worth the battle; on the other hand, it would be great in our quest for truth if we were willing to have real conversations. Often we are fighting with our theology rather than with the scriptures and reason. It seems if we all understood our accountability as teachers, we would tread with a lighter step and a little more willingness to consider our own possible mistakes. I remain available to have conversations with anyone, especially those mentioned in this book; but, I really desire a conversation—not a lecture. May God grace us as we labor over such eternally important issues. May God grace us to say the ultimate words for entering through the door of humility, “I may be wrong.”

You can read more about Back to Faith at www.backtofaith.com

Biblically Speaking

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

4 Comments

All,

This is an article I wrote this week for the Free Grace Alliance.  I’d love your thoughts!

Fred Lybrand

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

Have you ever noticed how busy everyone is with getting words just right?  It turns out to be more than political correctness, it is really an issue of communication.  You may not have thought about it this way, but language is actually the most ‘democratic’ thing on the planet.  The use of words actually determines their meanings; and, of course, the use of words in a particular context determines THAT meaning.  If I tell you I love my wife, my dog, and my Kindle, then surely you can make out the different nuances.

More to our common faith, it has become a recent trend to refer to oneself as a “Christ-Follower” rather than a Christian.  The reason for this shift is that the word ‘Christian’ has fallen on hard time and doesn’t communicate the right meaning internationally or practically.  ‘Fundamentalist’ (in the faith) has fallen under the same spell of disrepute because it has been associated with certain militaristic ‘Christian’ sub-strata, as well as ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’.  So do we change words or keep working on the proper use of the terms?  Democrats and Republicans have been two groups whose names have fallen on hard times in the back-and-forth nature of popularity.  They just keep working at redefining their name.

The Context

I’ll leave it to you to solve such matters.  My concern here is with the Gospel of Grace.  The debate between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace has been muddling along for the better part of 100 years in noticeable ways.  Here’s an example that predates John MacArthur’s entrance into the foray with The Gospel According to Jesus in 1986.  A.W. Tozer in The Root of the Righteous (Wingspread Publishers, © 1955, 1986), says

There can be no spiritual regeneration till there has been moral reformation.  That this statement requires defense only proves how far from the truth we have strayed.  In our current popular theology pardon depends on faith alone.

Unfortunately, Tozer is saying exactly what he sounds like he’s saying.  For Tozer, salvation is conditioned on a commitment to reform and not faith alone.  All of this is tied up in confusing the relationship between faith and works (see Back to Faith by Fred R. Lybrand for a  thorough discussion of this matter), so Tozer can also, at times, affirm the doctrine of ‘faith alone’ as well.  Kevin Butcher pointed out the real issue back in 1989 when he asserted that the Lordship Salvation side doesn’t represent the Free Grace side’s view of the gospel accurately.  He said,

MacArthur’s first error involves a problem of perception—he doesn’t clearly understand the other view. He does well when he states his own position, describing “Lordship Salvation” as a gospel that requires a faith that commits all (cf. pp. 169ff), a repentance that gives up sin (cf. pp. 159ff) and a submission to the “mastership of Christ” (cf. pp. 203ff) before eternal life is apprehended. The Lordship gospel, according to MacArthur, speaks of a “salvation that is a gift, yet costs everything” (cf. p. 140). But the “other” view which might be referred to as the “Free Grace” Gospel is misrepresented on several counts. (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Spring1989 —Volume 2:1)

The issue is rather simple:

The Lordship Salvation View: One (or many) things are required of the one desiring eternal salvation.  These things largely have to do with a commitment on the part of the seeker to pursue life-change through an abandonment of all desires, possessions, lifestyle, and choice to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Free Grace Salvation View:  There are no requirements for the one desiring eternal salvation.  The ‘requirement’ is that which attends the acceptance of any gift; a willingness to accept it.  In the Free Grace View this willingness to accept is found in the phrase ‘faith alone in Christ alone’.  While the content of what is to be believed is occasionally debated,  the essential idea is that one is saved eternally by believing in Christ’s promise of eternal life for those who believe in Him.  I understand this ‘believe in Him’ have to do with the basics of His person and work, especially his dying and being raised again on our behalf.

What is missed in the debate is that Lordship Salvation proponents affirm they believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’ and Free Grace proponents affirm they believe in the Lordship of Christ.  I sit in the curious spot of honestly believing that the Lordship Salvation proponents really do believe in ‘faith alone in Christ alone’, and often share the message properly.  Of course, I also believe they often muddle their communication and make the gospel sound as though much more is required than faith in Christ.  I have concluded that their ‘muddling’ of the issue comes from a fundamental incongruence in their theology and thinking.  While affirming a distinction between justification (being eternally saved) and sanctification (growing spiritually to match the image and character of Christ), they also deny the distinction by affirming that believer = disciple [see Back to Faith, Xulon Press, 2009].

The topic especially becomes an issue when it gets down to sharing the gospel.  The Lordship Salvation proponents accuse the Free Grace proponents of not emphasizing the ‘lordship’ of Christ in our presentation, hence misleading people from what God requires for their eternal destiny.  The Free Grace proponents accuse the Lordship Salvation proponents of ‘adding’ to faith in such a way that the individual is not trusting in Christ, but rather in oneself (or other things) for his eternal destiny.

The Appeal

I really want to appeal to those on the Lordship Salvation side to clarify the issue we Free Grace advocates wrestle with concerning presenting a gospel with various conditions attached to faith alone in Christ alone.  However, for our part, I want to propose a fresh way to explain our view.  It uses words to force a re-thinking of what Free Grace advocates are saying.  Here’s the term,

LORDSHIP SANCTIFICATION

I believe in Lordship Sanctification, and in my 24 years of ministry I have advocated individuals abandoning themselves to the Lord.  I have begged believers to completely bring their will, desires, and possessions under Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the Lord of their lives.  I personally and deeply believe Lordship is crucial for the one who has faith in Christ.  In no sense would I ever be against Christ as Lord.  However, I do believe that this call is directed at those who have believed (see Romans 12:1-2) already.

If this understanding of Christ’s Lordship makes sense for our growth in the Lord, then the term Lordship Sanctification turns out to be a very clarifying phrase.  I believe in acknowledging Christ’s Lordship as a necessary part of the sanctification process.  I believe that in order to continue growing in the Lord, one must, in the course of time, yield utterly to the divine oversight of Jesus Christ regarding his life and conformity to the Image of Christ (see Romans 8:28-29).

There is also one great advantage in the debate over the gospel with the use of the term Lordship Sanctification; Free Grace proponents can never again be accused by the Lordship Salvation proponents of not preaching the gospel.  Frankly, if you preach Lordship as an important aspect of ones spiritual growth in Christ, then you can only be accused of being ‘slow’, never of being wrong!  They at least must admit that ‘finally’ we get around to sharing a saving message (in their estimation).

I believe in Free Grace Salvation and Lordship Sanctification.  My appeal to everyone who acknowledges himself as promoters of grace— please begin to refer to Lordship Sanctification often in your preaching, teaching, and mentoring.  If we could infuse this term into the discussion, I am confident that a new age of conversation and clarification can arise.  I believe in Lordship Sanctification as I hope you do as well, and I always get around to explaining it.  However, with one seeking forgiveness, hope, and eternity— I always begin with the good news that Christ died for you and if you will believe in Him you’ll have everlasting life, just as He promised.  In the gospel, the word is FAITH.  In spiritual growth, the word is LORDSHIP.  Let’s grow united in our clarity and in our communication.  Eternal salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, while progress in sanctification inevitably leads to abandoning oneself to the Lord of Glory.

Grace and peace,
Fred R. Lybrand

www.fredlybrand.org
www.backtofaith.com

To print a copy of this article click on this link: http://www.freegracealliance.com/pdf/LordshipSanctification.pdf

Biblically Speaking

Power Politics and the Church?

Leave a comment

I wrote a paper a few years back I never published called CHINA IN A BULL CLOSET [considering Christians in politics :-)]  My thought back then was that politics is fine for the called individual…but that the over-arching call on all of us as believers is to be engaged in our faithful ‘witness’ and discipleship / mentoring toward Christlikeness.

I proposed the following passage as THE opportunity for Christ to tell us that we should really obsesses on changing the government as the Church’s role on earth…but He doesn’t.

See for yourself (Luke 13:1-5):

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (ESV)

Galileans were His own countrymen…Pilate had killed folks in the act of worship (Clinton / Bush / Obama…haven’t been as bad as Pilate)…Christ re-focused on eternity.  My point is that there is perspective here for us…and the perspective is  l o n g – t e r m  !!!
Is it “You’re so heavenly-minded that you’re no earthly good”…or…”Your so earthly-minded you’re no heavenly good”…?
Grace and Peace,
Fred Lybrand
Biblically Speaking

If you grasp the insights in this book, you’ll understand FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE in such a way that you’ll never be tempted to judge anyone’s eternal destiny again.

2 Comments

OK…so, I want to shamelessly tell you about the power of sorting out the Faith/Works issue in keeping the Gospel clear, assurance solid, and judgmentalness banished.  It is all in Back to Faith (see www.backtofaith.com)

Here’s the beginning of Chapter 5 from the book to consider:

CHAPTER 5
The Cliché Is Pragmatically Invalid
If the arguments presented have been unpersuasive to this
point, consider that this one great weakness of the cliché is the
only real challenge needed to justifiably abandon it: The cliché is
pragmatically invalid. Pragmatic invalidity simply means that, in
any practical sense, the theology behind the cliché is useless, even
if it is true. Assume the cliché, “It is therefore faith alone which
justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone,” is true. In
other words, with the assumption that the cliché is valid, it is held
that one can indeed look at works (or the lack of works) and
determine something about the true nature of an individual’s
eternal salvation. Said otherwise, works prove faith. But can one
truly know if the works are authentic? Or, can the works be
hidden? Here a great problem appears, practically speaking,
because the true works arising from a true salvation are
indeterminable, and so the cliché is pragmatically useless. How
can one know for sure that the works seen in another are “because
of salvation,” rather than “in order to get saved?” To appreciate
this argument, one need only consider the distinction between fact
and theory.
A fact, in the simplest sense, is something that corresponds
to the actual state of affairs. Facts are those things which are
knowable and demonstrable and correspond with how things really
are. A theory, on the other hand, as used in this context, is an
unproved assumption. It parallels words like conjecture and
speculation when one speaks of theory in this sense. Obviously the
[This argument admittedly matches the correspondence theory of truth.
Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy [book on-line]

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, accessed 4 October 2006), 267;

available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d= 74362715;Internet.

Defined 6b: an unproved assumption: conjecture, c: a body of
theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject. Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary, 11 ed. (2003), s.v. “theory.”]

word of God does not contain theory, as such, but the factual
explanations from God concerning His will and revelation to
mankind. Whether or not one can demonstrate the validity of the
cliché as a biblical concept is not at issue. At issue is the
distinction between that which is provable and factual, in contrast
with that which is theoretical and based on conjecture.
If the cliché’s theory is true, then it is apparent that one can
look at works or lack of works to point to the genuine nature of
another’s saving faith. So the puritan Matthew Henry asserts,
Faith is the root, good works are the fruits, and we
must see to it that we have both. We must not think
that either, without the other, will justify and save
us.
The truth, however, is that scripturally speaking, believing
individuals can indeed lack works, while unbelievers can indeed
have good, albeit dead, works. Judas serves as a glaring example
of one whose works never betrayed him. When Jesus predicted
that one of the disciples would betray him, all were perplexed, and
no disciple stated, “Well, it is obviously Judas.”

Woe!

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Faith & Works & Logic (II)

2 Comments

Here’s a little more on the logic side:

There are 4 options we can view when we put together two non-causal elements.  For example, parents and kids—

Good Parents can have Good Kids
and
Bad Parents can have Bad Kids
but
Bad Parents can have Good Kids (isn’t this what salvation offers?)
and
Good Parents can have Bad Kids (Ezekiel 18

So, you see all the possibilities are out there unless things are truly causal (If…then).

………………………

Now, what about Faith and Works?

Faith can have Works
and
No Faith can have No Works
but
No Faith can also have Works (people trying to get into heaven based on their own good deeds)
and [so]
Faith can have No Works

The first three of these are clearly true, so why not the last one?

All of these possibilities exist—and, it is easy enough to notice that when a believer sins he doesn’t have works (for the moment at least); therefore, it must surely be possible for a believer not to have works.

Of course, what is normal is to have works and grow; but when people make works necessary to ‘prove’ something about faith I think they’ve left the real conversation in both ministry and God’s word.

Blessings,

Fred Lybrand