I was watching a Gospel presentation on the web the other day. You know, one of those dynamic slide presentations that have a nice piano playing in the background, warm colors, and leaves you wishy-washy at the end. Well, this site walked people through the Gospel telling what Christ did and how it is we can have eternal life. At the end of the presentation people were called upon to say this prayer:
“Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and don’t deserve eternal life. But I believe you died and rose from the grave to purchase a place for me in heaven. Lord Jesus, come into my life; take control; forgive my sins and save me. I repent of my sins and now trust in you to save me. I accept the free gift of eternal life.”
So far so good, right? Well, yes . . . but . . . I am not going to pick the prayer apart with a theological fine tooth comb, but I do want to show you what the next slide in the presentation said.
Here it is:
- If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sins
- Placed your trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death
- And received the gift of eternal life
- You are now a child of God forever
I don’t know about you, but that first bullet point has me concerned. Now I am not sure I am a child of God. Has anyone forsaken their sins? I have and continue to try, but no luck yet.
Yes, this is the infamous (and often nauseating) Lordship salvation debate. How much does one have to do, believe, and change to be saved? No, I am not a proponent of Lordship salvation. Neither am I a proponent of its opposite extreme labeled “easy-believism” or “cheap grace.” I hold to a more mediating position called “Free Grace.”
Let me give you some brief definitions:
Lordship Salvation: The belief that salvation involves both a belief and repentance of one’s sins. Repentance is the “turning away” from all known sin, giving complete (not partial) “Lordship” of our lives to Christ. Without this full commitment, one is only a nominal Christian and has yet to experience true conversion.
Free Grace: The belief that salvation involves a complete trust in Christ for salvation. Repentance is the changing of one’s mind about who Christ is and their attitude toward sin (i.e. that I am a sinner and sin is bad). This change of the mind will necessary bring forth the fruit of a changed life, but one cannot determine what aspects must change or when the Holy Spirit will bring certain changes about. Christ is ultimately our “Lord” in the sense that he is our God, not in the sense that we have abandoned all known sins. The abandoning of all sins requires a life long process called sanctification.
Cheap Grace: The belief that salvation involves a complete trust in Christ for salvation. Repentance is the changing of one’s mind about who Christ is. This change may or may not bring change in the life of the believer. Christ is “Lord” in the sense that he is their God, not in the sense that they have abandoned all known sins. The abandoning of all sins requires a life long process called sanctification.
Back to the prayer . . .
Bullet point one: “If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sin [you are a child of God]”
Biblical Rejection of Lordship Salvation
This is where I part ways with the Lordship salvation camp. I do this both practically and biblically. Biblically I depart because I cannot square it with the realization that there are so many of God’s people who don’t live godly and have not forsaken all sin. One important passage comes from 1 Peter 3:15 where Christians are admonished to make Christ the Lord of the hearts.
“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy” (ESV).
Here are some other translations:
“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts” (NAB).
“But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts” (NET).
“Simply proclaim the Lord Christ holy in your hearts” (NJB).
The word being used here for “set apart” is hagiazo, which means to “make holy, set apart, or sanctify.” It is used in the aorist imperative which may imply a decisive action, but could just as well be gnomic (timeless). Either way, this imperative is for Christians. The result of this “setting apart” is that we will be ready to tell people why we still have hope in suffering. The command comes to more light when we see that in the Greek syntax kurion (“Lord”) and christon (Christ) is in the emphatic position. An acceptable rendering of this verse might be: “Set apart Christ as Lord of your hearts” or, a more stilted version, “Christ as Lord set apart in your hearts.” The point is that it is Christ, not anything else, that we are to make Lord. The implication is that it is possible for us, as Christians, to have other things as Lord of our hearts.
There is also one more interesting point to be made about this verse before we move on. There is a textual variant which replaces christon (Christ) with theon (God). The King James (wrongly in my opinion) follows the Byzantine text here: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.” However, the earliest and best manuscripts have christon which is why all modern translations have it as such. The reason why the variant was introduced is speculative, but may have to do with the seriousness of what is being commanded here. To set apart Christ as Lord is to set him apart as master, sovereign, and God. It could be that one of these scribes had issues with such a lofty designation for Christ. As well, Peter is alluding to Isaiah 8:13, where in the LXX Yahweh is Lord. The point is that this command is serious. We are to set Christ apart as Lord, master, and God. There is to be no other gods in our life. I believe that this is a theological reflection on the first commandment (Ex. 20:2). Christ/God alone is to be set apart. We are to put nothing before him. And this is a command for Christians who, according to the Lordship camp, have already done this or they are not truly Christian.
Not only do we find these type of assumptions from Peter, but from Paul as well. Paul calls on Christians to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). This command is moot if the Lordship camp is right and this has already been done as a criteria for salvation. Paul also tells Christians “not to not carry out the deeds of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16) and to “set aside worldly desires” (Titus 2:12). If the Lordship camp is correct then I don’t know how to understand the admonishment here. Either I say that these people were not really Christians in the mind of the Paul or that unbelievers at the point of their salvation are the most sanctified that they will ever be.
As well, it is hard to see the Lordship position in light of the Apostle Peter’s own life and failures. Among the many examples I find his visitation to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 compelling. We all know that prejudice is a sin in the Bible. Yet we find the Apostle Peter living for ten years with this unrepented sin in his heart. From the time of Pentecost to the time of the events in Acts 10 there transpired about ten years. If you remember, Peter was called by God to go to the Gentile Cornelius’ house to proclaim the Gospel. Peter, reminiscent of Jonah, admits his reluctance to go do to his own sin of pride and prejudice against Gentiles:
“You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean” (Act 10:28).
It is amazing that the Lord took so long to deal with this sin of Peter. It was not “unlawful” for a Jew to associate with a Gentile. In fact, the law said just the opposite. They were to be a “kingdom of priests” to the other nations! (Ex. 19:6). This is a fact that Peter most assuredly dwelt on after this event (1 Pet. 2:9). However, this was one of those terrible sins that took Peter ten years after being indwelt by the Holy Spirit to change. This hardly fits into a Lordship view of salvation.
Time would fail if I were to turn to other Petrine examples, Romans 7, or the curious case of the Corinthian carnality.
Practical
Finally, I turn to the practical. First, without getting into too much detail (which I do in other posts), there are many sins in my life that I have yet to surrender over to the Lord. Most of these come in the form of attitudes and dispositions, but some are more tangible and habitual. Some are sins of “commission” some are sins of “omission.” In short, I don’t feel as if I have completed my journey of making Christ the Lord of my life by any means. The desire is present, but the will is so often lacking. When I came to Christ, I did not come with any guarantees of giving up this or giving up that, I came to him with all I had to offer: nothing. I simply said with a great deal of sincerity, “Have mercy on me the sinner.” I made not promises, deals, and offered no guarantees. Today, I still have no offers or guarantees, only the hope of mercy.
Second, I have never met anyone who is completely surrendered to Christ as Lord in the sense that they have given up all known sin. I have met a lot of beggars for mercy, but none who have made it. Again, this brings up the curious situation that if we require an unbeliever to give up all known sin before they are Christian, then we are setting the bar higher than that of life-long Christians.
I have gone on long enough. I know that there are different nuances that people bring to this issue. I know that there are extremes and strawmen. But this fact does not change what I am ultimately getting at: The Gospel is free. We don’t require people to give up all known sin, we require them to call on God for mercy. We are saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ. As frustrated as I may become by nominal Christianity, I dare not taint the Gospel do to these frustrations. I will leave the work of sanctification to the Holy Spirit and realize that this is a life long process.
142 replies to "Does One Have to Forsake all Known Sins Before they Are Saved?"
This passage is very persuasive to me in so many ways:
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ (Lk. 18:13).
I see no repentance that is a “turning away” (i.e. stopping) from sin. I see a repentance that is a turning away from self-reliance to reliance on God.
Salvation is a begging for mercy with a basis in Christ. That is it. And it continues throughout our life.
Easy believism? Sure. Paul was often accused of such as evidenced in Rom. 6:1. If God can take care of opening our hearts to turn from self-reliance to God-reliance, why do we feel the need to footnote the Gospel with such requirements?
Its free, simple, and a stumbling block because of such. Leave the block in the road.
I do think you need to repent to be saved. But I don’t think you have to have the Lordship of Jesus Christ mastered at moment #1. Salvation is only the starting point. But at some level, after salvation, the Lordship of Jesus Christ should become more and more evident as time goes on. He should be “more Lord” after salvation than he was before.
Truth,
Thanks. Take this: “the gospel call to faith presupposes
that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to
Christ’s authority.”
What does it mean? Do you mean:
Repent: stop the sins you are currently aware of?
Repent: recognize that these things are wrong?
Sin: individual sins?
Sin: knowledge of your helplessness?
Yield to Christ’s Authority: hold nothing back (i.e. stop all bad, start all good)
Yield to Christ’s Authority: recognize that he is God, sovereign, and master
Again, it all comes down to what does it mean to repent.
My definition: a turning from self-reliance to reliance upon God by calling on God for mercy. This is a change of mind with regard to who God is and your previous rejection of him. You move from a position of rejection to acceptance.
Wrong definition (in my opinion): the ceasing from sin.
Yeah Mike,
“Lordship Salvation” is a really bad way to discuss this debate. For both sides believe that Christ is Lord and that salvation comes by way of submission to such.
It is simply this:
One side says that you come to him as Lord and beg for mercy alone, then he changes you.
The other side says that you come to him as Lord BY begging for mercy and committing to change.
I would still like an answer to the question as to how one does church discipline? Or is it that one cannot obey the Lord’s command to do church discipline, in the way that the Lord commands to do it, with this view?
“I see no repentance that is a “turning away” (i.e. stopping) from sin. I see a repentance that is a turning away from self-reliance to reliance on God.”
Michael, I don’t see him calling out Yahweh instead of generic God either, but such is not the information given to us in the context. If we want to know what he was probably doing in the biblical context, we have to look elsewhere for what repentance is. To take this passage as a confirmation is an argument from silence. It does not say what he does and does not do with his sin. It’s just a prayer asking for forgiveness/restoration to God, and if anything, that would imply biblically that he is repenting in terms of what the Jews would understand with a prayer like that (per Isa 1).
I also wanted to say that I think this is the first time that I can go down the poll and say, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. You’re dichotomizing things that go together.
Hodge, that makes no sense. All you are saying is that this passage is pretty meaningless because there could have been things that he thought that are not there. The context is obvious that it is Yahweh. Would you really try to argue that it might not be? His disposition is one of failure, he stands far off because of his present sin, he calls himself the sinner, and all he does is call for mercy. Christ said he left there forgiven. Are you really trying to say that there were conditions such as a commitment to cease from sin that we can legitimately read into this?
Michael,
Isaiah tells us what repentance is. The Gospels tell us. Paul tells us. The problem is that Pharisees accepted who God was. They accepted God’s grace upon them as a people. The problem was that they did not seek to submit to Him as Lord in every aspect of their lives (as per the Sermon on the Mount). The Baptist tells us that this was seen in the fact that they did not have fruit in accord with repentance. Again, this is an initial ceasing from willful sin, not a forever ceasing of sin in general or even a general ceasing of all sin, since not all sin is known (frankly, God usually only puts a couple things in front of your face, and it is those things that display the attitude toward Christ).
So what we really need from you is a definition of this statement:
“a turning from self-reliance to reliance upon God by calling on God for mercy.”
Reliance for what? What is the average person relying on himself for? Salvation? Are most people really working for their salvation or even concerned/thinking about it before the gospel is preached to them? I think the definition would be better, and we would more likely agree, if “self-reliance” was changed to “self-governing” (or what Christ calls lawlessness in Matt 7) to submitting to God’s governing; but that is essentially the lordship position.
“Hodge, that makes no sense. All you are saying is that this passage is pretty meaningless because there could have been things that he thought that are not there. The context is obvious that it is Yahweh. Would you really try to argue that it might not be? His disposition is one of failure, he stands far off because of his present sin, he calls himself the sinner, and all he does is call for mercy. Christ said he left there forgiven. Are you really trying to say that there were conditions such as a commitment to cease from sin that we can legitimately read into this?”
Michael,
Of course he’s calling out to Yahweh, but we get that from the biblical and historical context. My point is that you want to isolate the passage as though we can see what he’s doing, when in reality, all we see here is him calling out for mercy to be restored to God. But what is he restoring? What kind of relationship is it? The text doesn’t say. You’re reading into it that he’s only restoring a non-lordship relationship with God, where he’s still going off to willfully sin against God, but wants God to forgive him anyway. That is absurd. Asking God for mercy means asking God to restore the relationship, and biblically and historically, that means asking God to restore the relationship where God is his Lord and Master. That’s the context of the OT, Second Temple, and the Gospel itself. That’s like me going to Acts 2 and saying that, “See, only repentance and baptism is necessary for salvation. People don’t have to believe anything.” Well, of course, they do; but we get that from the larger biblical and historical context.
Sorry, I just realized that I said we don’t see that in the “context.” That’s poor wording on my part. I should have said immediate context as opposed to the larger context/s. That may have confused you. I apologize for that.
Lordship salvation is:
Definition:
“Repenting of your sins (forsaking your sins…turning your back on them) and trusting in Christ to forgive you. You repent and forsake your sins because you have a new mind to do so. You commit your life to Christ because he is worthy. Because He is Lord. The commitment is to live for Christ. You are committed to Him because you love Him and of course because He loves you. ”
Commentary:
How a commitment to live for Christ can be seen as “works salvation” escapes me. And if that is the case then Paul has a lot of apologizing to do for all the commands he put forth for us to live as Christians.
Now I have to get back to drying my hair. Its quite damp from my swim in the Tiber.
CMP: “Take this: “the gospel call to faith presupposes
that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to
Christ’s authority.”
What does it mean? Do you mean:
Repent: stop the sins you are currently aware of?
Repent: recognize that these things are wrong?
Sin: individual sins?
Sin: knowledge of your helplessness?
Yield to Christ’s Authority: hold nothing back (i.e. stop all bad, start all good)
Yield to Christ’s Authority: recognize that he is God, sovereign, and master
Again, it all comes down to what does it mean to repent.”
#1. Hence, the reason why I originally directed you to a short 2-page pdf by JMac.
#2. To all your 6 questions about Repent, Sin, and Yield to Christ’s Authority, the answers are “YES”.
Hodge,
I have a question for your and thank you for responding to my post. Not everyone accepts God at one moment in time, most go through years of being drawn by God. Some respond slowly to the draw of God. I first acknowledged his creation, then I slowly moved to accept Jesus as savior. It took years. When do you suppose I experienced regeneration? Early on or at the time of salvation. If at the time of salvation, then how did I respond to the drawing of God early in my life? Sorry for the tediousness of this question. I am sure it is of no consequence, but it interests me.
“Easy believism? Sure. Paul was often accused of such as evidenced in Rom. 6:1. If God can take care of opening our hearts to turn from self-reliance to God-reliance, why do we feel the need to footnote the Gospel with such requirements?”
LOL. This shows how far apart we may be on this. I actually think Rom 6:1 is a good argument for the lordship position. He says that it is an absurdity for someone to take the idea that we’re saved by grace through faith to mean that we don’t have to repent and can live in sin (which I take to mean willful and known sin). I’m not sure how to read this otherwise. Paul is addressing a possible misapplication of his teaching of the gospel being freely given. This seems to address more what you’re saying directly.
“Its free, simple, and a stumbling block because of such. Leave the block in the road.”
This statement is a good example of the above. The Jews find Christ to be a stumbling block (is this ever said of the Gentiles?) because they think that they are saved already as God’s chosen people. The gospel comes along and tells them that they too have to repent and place their allegiance in Christ, trusting in His work and following Him, and this is offensive to them, as it would be to all who already think they are saved.
The stumbling block for everyone else seems to be those who enable sin in some way, not those who preach repentance from it. For example, Matt 13:41-42: “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
CMP,
The claim still remains that you have misrepresented the Lordship Salvation position with your rhetorical question:
“Does one have to stop all known sin before they are saved?”
Michael, although I referred to this prior to your request for a more accurate succinct statment of “Lordship salvation”, how about this statement of saving faith from the Westminster Confession of Faith:
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.”
Hi JohnB,
That’s a fair question, as I think many experience this. There is a distinction that the Reformed make between regeneration and God’s “pre-salvific” work in one’s life. We could see election as God working in one’s life before one is even born; but an individual is not regenerate until God changes their disposition, gives them such a desire to be restored to God, that they repent and believe in Christ. It is at that point that we would say regeneration has taken place. We, of course, believe that God has been working in your life the entire time, working on your thoughts, etc.; but it is at the point where you believe and follow that is logically preceded by regeneration (“unless a man be born again he cannot [even] see the kingdom of God”). So no one believes that regeneration takes place and then three weeks later someone believes; but we do believe that God works in your life to bring you to that point. Augustine described it as God hedging him toward that goal; and of course, Lewis described God as the Hound of Heaven. So there is a pursuit by God that leads to His victory in winning you. The act of regeneration is just the final blow by God in the battle of that particular war.
I consider some of the most instructive and powerful verses in Scripture that describe and demonstrate the simple requirements for salvation to be Luke 23: 39-43. These verses recount words of Jesus and one of the criminals on the cross. This criminal was at the very end of his life and had absolutely no opportunity to perform any good work as justification for his salvation. Nor does Scripture comment on the nature of extent of his repentence. However, the criminal’s words deomonstrate that he acknowledged he was a sinner, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he had placed his trust in Jesus. Apparently, this was enough to admit him to paradise in the company of Christ.
I never really understood this debate. How can Jesus be savior and not lord? Getting past all the debates and word wrangling, just how is one a Christ follower if one is not bought body and soul by Christ’s death? How can one be a Christian without commiting to follow him?
To me it has never been a question. Of course Jesus is Lord!
How exactly does one make Jesus a Savior without making Him Lord at the same time? Yes, they are two words but they go together, like faith and repentance.
The issue at hand is trying to say “repentance must come before faith”. But no one in the Lordship camp is saying that.
MCP, you say:
“However, I am more than willing to admit that I have not found a place that says this in any of the writings. But this idea of “forsaking sin” or “making a commitment to change” sounds no different to me.”
It is very different, just like the difference between “declared righteous” and “making righteous” (cf. the debate on Rom. 3:24).
Again, you seem to be hung up on the word “forsake”. But the definition for forsake is “to renounce” something. However, we can drop the word if its confusing and just say “repent and believe”. Is there something wrong with this?
Jesus clearly says “repent and believe in the gospel” in Mark 1:15, linking the two. Also, the Scriptures clearly use “repent” and “believe” interchangeably, assuming the audience understands they go together.
Also, see Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; 17:30; 26:20.
If repentance is not part of initial saving faith, then what kind of gospel is Peter preaching in Acts 2:38? Also, notice Acts 26:20. They are to perform deeds in keeping with their (initial) repentance.
Folks,
I am not saying that repenting of the way you viewed things before (self-reliance) to a true belief in Christ (he is your only hope) will not change your and progressively change your commitments, but the new birth cannot be required to produce such a level of commitment out of the gate. Our commitment to Christ, repentance for sins, and changed life is a lifelong process called sanctification. The new birth requires a simple belief that will produce (although we need to be careful saying exactly what it will produce and the timing).
Again, I turn you to Peter. Did he repent of his prejudice or did he hold on to it for a time? Or maybe he just made a commitment to change but could not fulfill this commitment?
All I am saying is to be careful about the burden you place on people’s backs for their reliance for their salvation will be grounded in what they did. i.e. I was saved because I committed to Christ by letting go of all my sin. This is really not much different than the Roman Catholic Gospel.
Again, while I get frustrated with nominal Christians, the call is not to increase the requirements for being saved, but to increase the requirements for living saved.
Theology-So true! If you need an editor, I am available. Spelling–“change” to “changed” under the ‘Free Grace’ paragraph and ‘hear’ to ‘here’ after the Isaiah 8 passage…and I sped read this. Sorry to point out your sins…doesn’t mean you’re not saved!
“We are saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God and the imputed righteousness of Christ. As frustrated as I may become by nominal Christianity, I dare not taint the Gospel do to these frustrations. I will leave the work of sanctification to the Holy Spirit and realize that this is a life long process.”
That is it!
I would add one word to your comments, Michael. I would add the word ‘my’ in front of the word “nominal”. I am (me personally) often frustrated by ‘my nominal Christianity’. But Jesus knows me, and He loves me anyway.
Being a Christian is to be declared righteous for Jesus’ sake.
As Luther said, “if you believe it, then you’ve got it”
Michael,
Again, reliance for what? This is the revivalist gospel, but I don’t see it as the issue for many to whom we preach the gospel. So what is the reliance upon self for? Life direction? Salvation?
Again, I bring up the Church discipline issue precisely because I think it’s a wrench in the system. Think about this: If your view of the gospel makes the church discipline that the Lord commanded us to do, in the way He commanded us to do it, inconsistent with your gospel, then it’s not the right gospel. The lordship position is consistent with the Lord’s instructions concerning Church discipline (as well as His statements that those who practice lawlessness–a statement made about the covenant community, rather than unbelievers–will be damned). So which is the true gospel? The one that is consistent with the rest of these texts, or the one that makes them incoherent?
Forgiveness and mercy.
this is the New Testament pattern:
‘Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brothers, what shall we do?
And Peter said to them:
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’
(Acts 2v37-38)
Repent = turn away from sin, turn toward God.
be baptized – for forgiveness of sin
receive gift of Holy Spirit – power for a future life of holiness (staying free)
not that hard to understand, really.
same pattern is used throughout the NT and a cursory read of Isaiah 6v1-9 displays the same pattern
The other point of clarification I think needed might be in breaking it down this way. A person is in sin. You go to them and eventually bring the church in on it. You tell them they need to stop doing Sin A. Which, or how many, of the following responses indicate a repentant believer in your mind:
A. “I know it is a sin, but am having a hard time stopping. I ask God for forgiveness, and I could use some help.”
B. “I was unaware that this was a sin. Thank you for pointing it out. I’m going to ask God for forgiveness.”
C. “I know it’s a sin, but we’re all sinners, and since I’m saved by grace, I’m going to continue to do it.”
D. “I’ll eventually give it up one day, but right now I’m having too much fun with it. God’s forgiving though, so I’m good to go.”
I would say A and B evidence an attitude of repentance and a true relationship with Christ. C and D do not. If C and D just heard the gospel and still said this after they say they repented and believed in Christ, I don’t believe they actually obeyed the gospel, so I don’t believe they actually repented and believed.
As per your admonition, I would say, “Let’s not add anything to the gospel AND let’s not take anything away from it either.” To us, you’re taking away. To you, we’re adding. We should all refrain from begging the question, no?
I have news for you (Romans 7).
We all sin, and will continue to sin until we die. And we will do many of our sins over and over and over again.
Will there be NO gluttons in Heaven?
We are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We say this every Sunday in our congregation.
The Lord also told us that we have to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. What do you do with that?
The inability to distinguish the law from the gospel is a huge problem in the church, and this is why there are so many ‘holiness’ churches around, driving people to despair, or making phonies out of them, or worse yet, creating a delusional, prideful lot who actually think they are not sinning and that they are doing just fine.
Read again, the parable of the Pharisee and the scum bag (tax collector).
Michael,
The Pharisees believed that they had God’s forgiveness and mercy, and it was based in grace, not their works. So what is the problem Christ has with them? They do not have fruit in accordance with repentance, meaning they do not have repentance. They devour widow’s houses. They do not obey the Scripture in order to obey customs that benefit them instead. I’m not sure why He has a problem with them if they meet the requirements to be in God’s kingdom? Do you think that their only big issue is that they rejected Christ? But the Gospels are clear that they rejected Christ (after first seeking Him out) because of His constant rebuke for their sins.
Folks, most, not all, of this is nothing more than talking past each other.
“Forsaking your sins” as a condition of repentance needs to be changed as this implies “stopping sins” is a condition of salvation. I know that none of you who advocate sola fide would say that a condition of salvation is to stop sinning.
I might be more comfortable with “Forsaking sin” as this has the implication of sin in general, but it still can be confused with works righteousness.
In the end, we all agree that we don’t bring anything to God for our salvation. We turn to him for mercy because of the weight of our sin and we have no where else to go.
But as long as you use the language “forsake your sins” people are always going to rightly object that this is too easly confused with a works righteousness.
As I said before, I am not completely willing to let go of my sin even after decades of living with Christ. I prayed just the other day that I would be willing to be willing after I realized that I was not really willing. So it is very odd for me to hear people requiring of a non-believer to do something that I can’t.
In the end, if the Holy Spirit is working in your heart, then there will be fruits of belief, love, and a progressive battle with sin.
CMP,
“I am not saying that repenting of the way you viewed things before (self-reliance) to a true belief in Christ (he is your only hope) will not change your and progressively change your commitments, but the new birth cannot be required to produce such a level of commitment out of the gate.”
The new birth indeed does allow us to make this commitment, as we are no longer slaves to sin, and can now choose not too. Whereas before the new birth, we were totally depraved and could not choose not to sin.
“Our commitment to Christ, repentance for sins, and changed life is a lifelong process called sanctification.”
Yes, but it is that too, but this does not mean these do not occur at the initial conversion as well. It’s not “either/or” but “both/and”.
Peter repented of his sins, just like he told the Jews to do in Acts 2:38, but this does not make him immune to future sin, as we still have our “fleshly nature.”
Remember, Paul preached both “repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ” in Acts 20:21.
In fact, Paul even says repentance can lead to salvation in 2 Cor. 7:10, “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.”
When you say initial repentance is only from a “self reliance”, you are saying that sin is summed up as “self reliance”, since the Bible says repent of your sins. I think the catechism answer is better, “Sin is transgression of the revealed will of God…”
“We all sin, and will continue to sin until we die. And we will do many of our sins over and over and over again.”
Thanks, Steve. If only you came sooner to cloud the issue. No one has said anything otherwise. Please understand the debate before you enter it.
Dr. Mike,
Did Peter forsake his sin of prejudice at Pentecost or ten years later?
Hodge, that comment to Steve was very unnecessary. Please go out of your way to be respectful and not belittle people who comment.
“Our commitment to Christ, repentance for sins, and changed life is a lifelong process called sanctification.”
Our faith is also a lifelong process. We need to choose to believe and struggle with belief. That does not mean that we don’t need to have faith initially as the door to entering a relationship with Christ. The same goes for repentance, which is part of the same act of transferring allegiances.
This has been a very good conversation. I think you all for participating. As you know, I rarely get into these things. I just write and run! I just don’t have the time any more.
Please feel free to continue, but keep it very respectful.
I have to bow out (and I am serious this time!!)
Hodge,
When I hear people say (write) that we HAVE to stop sinning (turning away from all known sin), then I think the issue is ALREADY “clouded”.
The trouble always revolves around the freedom. The freedom of the Christian, and the freedom of God to forgive real sinners. The kind that we know we are.
Thanks, my friend.
I’m sorry, Michael; but when we’ve been talking about this all day, and someone doesn’t bother reading what we’re saying, and then comes in with a “I have news for you Ignoramuses, the Bible refutes you!” I view it as extremely belittling of the people commenting. We’ve worked hard here to try and make it clear that NO ONE is saying that we do not continue to sin and struggle with sin. That was said numerous times. Nevertheless, apologize for the sharpness of my rebuke.
Respectfully CMP,
The title of your your blog post is a rhetorical question that caricatures and misrepresents Lordship Salvation.
“Does One Have to Forsake all Known Sins Before they Are Saved?”
By the way, we don’t “choose to believe”, God chooses to give us faith, or the ability to believe.
We are born, not of blood, nor of the flesh, NOR of the WILL OF MAN, but of God.
Even Jesus told the disciples that they did not choose him, but rather he chose them.
And, Jesus tells Niccodemus that he can’t be reborn again by his own actions, it “has to come from above”.
Thanks.
I’ve gotta run.
Thanks for the discussion.
I’ll check back later tonight.
Ciao!
Does grammar even matter any more?
“we HAVE to stop sinning” does not equate to “turning away from all known sin”!
“Forsaking all known sins” does not equate to “stop sinning.”
Again, I’m wondering what proponent of Lordship salvation says this?
Steve,
I think it’s clouded for people who want to fit it into their version of the gospel that does not already include it. It seems pretty clear to me. Now, should we explain it to the people to whom we are preaching? Yes. But it’s pretty clear once explained. It’s just confusing when it’s a square peg that others try to fit into a round hole.
The freedom we have in Christ isn’t the freedom to sin, but the freedom from sin. We now have power we did not have before in terms of our sanctification and our initial repentance and faith. Paul himself says that he is not arguing for a freedom to sin. Me genoito! Yet, many have misunderstood that the free gift of the gospel means that I don’t have to be in a relationship with Christ as Lord in order to receive it.
“We are born, not of blood, nor of the flesh, NOR of the WILL OF MAN, but of God.”
Which is precisely why we’re capable of repenting and believing in order to enter a relationship with God through Christ and it not be a good work that we produced.
another definition for ‘repent’ is ‘being sorry enough to stop doing it’
naturally, the question ‘what shall we do?’ was in response to hearing the Gospel.
the Gospel is best summarised in Rom 1v17.
God is righteous, holy, pure, fair, etc, etc and now that sin has been punished (in the cross) – forgiveness and holiness are on offer (not demanded).
when I realise my life is in dire straits as a result of hearing the gospel presented Biblically (and that includes repentance a la Jesus, John the Baptist, the disciples’ preaching all the way thru Acts) I respond with ‘what shall I do?’
the rest is simple as my previous post stated.
I’m saying that we can’t help but sin. look at what St. Paul says in Romans 7 and look at your own life.
Instead of focusing on ‘sins’, we ought look at our bondage to ‘sin’, realize the bind that we are in and be thankful that we have a Savior who loves sinners. he doesn’t love their sin, but He loves the sinner.
No, we don’t make it our goal to sin, but we ought not be living inward guarding ourselves against that which we cannot help but do.
Sin is not like so much doggie stuff that we avoid or step in now and again…sin is our condition.
So, as Michael said, the Holy Spirit will sanctify us (“He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion…”).
So we are free from having to make ourselves right with God and we are free for the neighbor. God is not keeping a scorecard with our sins, as we are in Christ, and He remembers our sins no more. He puts them as far away from each other as the East is from the West.
These are subtle differences, but I beleieve they are very distinctions.
If repentance is optional to enter into heaven, then I have a question. Then what you are saying is that there are going to be people in heaven who never repented of their sins? Wow. Blasphemous.
Vince
Hi Michael,
Your definition of “Free Grace” and “Cheap Grace” are almost the same, is this on purpose? In the sense of extent, rather than contrasting concepts? The main difference as you mentioned would be in the change of life, rather than just change of mind.
Just finished our youth camp on “Proof of Purchase,” looking at the 3 aspects of salvation, namely justification, sanctification, glorification. Guess what we’re really getting at is regeneration (by the Holy Spirit) from the point of conversion, and the process of sanctification (being made holy) hence forth. Glad and affirm your closing statement that our salvation is based on God’s grace and Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Shalom,
Timothy P (Skillful Shepherds)
Lots of interesting conversation on Facebook on this topic. Those hung up on repentance pretty commonly deny enternal security are promoting salvation by works – our works, they say, can make us lose salvation. They may know about Ephesians but they insist only those who presevere will be saved. They will not accept that God enables His elect to persevere. They quote proof texts and emphasize how we must obey. They are essentially requiring sinless perfection and fail to understand biblical grace and the biblical doctrine of soteriology. One claims to be a zero point calvinist.
As for Lordship salvation I stand with John MacArthur and against his critics. His writings have been primarily to refute easy believism. While it’s true we are regenerated at a moment in time, we’re not necessarily redeemed at the moment we raised our hand, said a prayer or walked an aisle. We should look for the fruit that accompanies a truly changed life. Salvation is God’s work. We must stop trying to squeeze as many in as possible and let the Spirit work through the power of the biblical gospel.
Steve,
You’re dichotomizing what is abstract from what is concrete; but they’re not mutually exclusive. Sin is our condition because we are self worshiping, i.e., inward focussed. But this stem produces branches. The key in repentance is to seek restoration for our condition as it is represented in those branches. To not turn away from a known sin is to not turn away from our condition, but rather to embrace it. What you are asking us to imagine is one who seeks to restore a broken relationship while we are still knowingly and willingly breaking that relationship. God calls us to do otherwise, to seek restoration, and move away from the doing of sin (btw, sin is a doing, not just a condition as it is demonstrated in the collocation “doing lawlessness” or “doing sin”). Our condition is tolerated by God because of Christ, but our individual sins that God makes known to us are to be fought. In fact, I would say that Michael’s statement that God will overcome them in His own time misunderstands that God does wish them to be dealt with at the time He makes these sins known to them. Otherwise, again, Church discipline is an erroneous practice.
Your Lutheranism will bring you to a different place than those who are Reformed in their thinking; but we both agree that sin is fought by outwardly looking to Christ as our mercy and restoration to God, not something that is overcome by looking inward. Inward is only the condemnation of the law, but outward is the salvation from that condemnation in Christ, and therefore, repentance that brings us into that relationship is part of the answer to overcoming it. That’s the point of Romans 7, as it is fulfilled in Romans 8. Hence, those who would enter this relationship must do so using the door provided.
“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”