Lordship Salvation

The Calvinist Dilemma of Faith, Works, and Divine Determinism

Published by Papa Giorgio

The below was inspired via MemEvangelist’s posting of a graphic.

John Piper is—according to Charles Ryrie, Chuck Smith, and J. Vernon McGee—teaching what these critics regard as heresy, much as they have argued regarding John MacArthur’s teaching on Lordship Salvation. But even within the Reformed camp, Piper’s teaching on “final salvation through works” raises important questions about the relationship between faith, works, and salvation.

Like Dorothy following the yellow brick road to the Emerald City, the Calvinist is told to look for evidence that he is truly one of the elect. But the road seems to lead to a growing list of unconditions—signs of genuine faith, surrender, behavioral transformation, and lifelong perseverance. If salvation is a free gift received through faith alone, when does the evidence of salvation become a condition for obtaining or retaining it? And if final salvation requires not merely faith but a life of persevering obedience, has the yellow brick road quietly changed its destination from faith alone to faith plus works?

The question is not whether good works matter, but whether they remain the fruit of salvation or become part of the conditions for finally reaching the Emerald City.

Bad Theology Leads To Bad Faith.

But if faith is irresistibly produced by God through Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, can the Reformed tradition adequately account for unhealthy faith, distorted theology, and false assurance? Is the very premise of faith plus works an unhealthy one, or does the deeper problem concern how faith and works function within the doctrine of salvation?

Even Piper’s—and, as a fellow Reformed theologian, R. Scott Clark’s—starting premise deserves scrutiny. The question is not merely whether good works are necessary evidence of genuine faith. The more difficult question is whether works become instrumental in final salvation, creating a two-stage model in which a person is initially justified by grace alone through faith alone, but finally saved through works.

Is the premise of faith + works unhealthy?

Even Piper’s [and as Reformed, Mr. Clarks] starting premise is not without problems.

Is faith a genuine human response to God’s gracious provision and the gospel—or is it the inevitable result of God unilaterally determining and producing a person’s response through the irresistible regeneration of the elect?

Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

Over at ANSWERING CALVINISM we read this:

… The question is, Does God regenerate someone after he exhibits faith? Or does God first have to regenerate someone before he can have faith? Non-Calvinists say faith precedes regeneration. A person must first put his faith in Christ… and then God will regeneration him. Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that regeneration precedes faith. God must first regenerate someone before he can have faith. So who’s right? And why does this even matter?

Why this Matters

While this may seem like a rather insignificant issue, it’s actually very important. For if Calvinists are right, then that would mean all those biblical exhortations to “put your faith in God” are pointless because nobody can actually do it (unless God first regenerates them). This would also mean that God commands people to do what they are unable to do… and then punishes them for not doing it (which hardly seems like something a just God would do)! Moreover, if God must first regenerate someone for him to have faith, then doing so would sort of be like injecting him with faith, which would essentially be like forcing him to believe (which the Bible never talks about). …

Scripture repeatedly connects believing with receiving life and salvation. John 1:12–13 speaks of receiving Christ and becoming children of God; Ephesians 2:8 describes salvation through faith; and Acts 16:31 commands the hearers to believe in the Lord Jesus. The debate is not whether salvation depends on grace, but whether grace must first regenerate particular individuals irresistibly before they can believe.

This leads to another question. If regeneration places a person in Christ, and Romans 8:1 declares that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, what is the person’s spiritual status before exercising faith? Has the person already received the saving benefits associated with union with Christ, or does faith mark the point at which those benefits are received? Regeneration, union with Christ, justification, and forgiveness are related doctrines, but they are not automatically interchangeable. The claim that regeneration logically precedes faith does not, by itself, prove that justification and forgiveness are complete before faith.

If the person is already in Christ, why is faith still necessary for salvation?

Another issue with the Reformed Determinist position is that “unhealthy faith” is impossible in this view.

Does Exhaustive Divine Determinism Allow for Unhealthy Faith?

The problem extends beyond the order of salvation to the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

If God unconditionally decrees and ordains all things—including every thought, desire, belief, and decision—then what about unhealthy faith? If someone embraces a distorted understanding of God, the gospel, or salvation, does that belief also fall within the divine decree? And if God irresistibly determines the faith of the elect, why should saving faith be treated as the inevitable product of divine determination while theological error and false assurance are attributed merely to human failure?

The question is unavoidable:

If God ordains the outcome, in what meaningful sense could a person’s unhealthy faith have turned out differently?

If God ordains both the belief and its consequences, how does this framework distinguish between a belief God sovereignly determines and a belief for which the individual is held responsible?

Calvinists may respond that God ordains events through secondary causes, that people act willingly according to their own desires, and that divine sovereignty does not make God the author of sin. But this response raises a further question:

if God determines the desires and choices through which people act, in what sense are they the ultimate source of those choices?

And if God determines the choices through which evil occurs, how can the problem of ultimate responsibility be dismissed simply by labeling human beings “secondary causes”? As Piper attests to:

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒ø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually 𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory and his people’s good. This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child

Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

The Problem of “Maximal Aversion”

One member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians describes what he sees as a recurring problem in Calvinist reasoning:

“Calvinism is a system built on what I call ‘maximal aversion.’ Basically, Calvinists define their theological acuity by what they are not: non-Pelagians, non-16th century Catholics, and non-Arminians.”

The writer argues that Calvinists can become so determined to exclude any possibility of human contribution to salvation that they struggle to account for the biblical connection between receiving God’s grace and responding through faith and repentance. In his view, regeneration is sometimes placed before faith to preserve a system in which no human response can be understood as a genuine condition for receiving salvation. He summarizes his criticism this way:

“Any exegetical or theological inconsistency can be justified as long as it serves the greater good of the maximal aversion to human-initiated contingencies.”

That is the critic’s assessment, not a description that every Calvinist would accept. Reformed theologians generally argue that faith is not a meritorious work and that a person’s willing response is itself the result of divine grace. Nevertheless, the criticism raises a question worth examining:

  • does the desire to exclude works-based salvation sometimes predetermine how passages about faith, repentance, regeneration, and human responsibility are interpreted?

For further discussion, see Examining Calvinism: Born Again and Examining Calvinism: Charge of Paradox.

The Central Question

​The yellow brick road of Calvinism, which
theology, by necessity, often requires odd
conclusions, such as that those with whom
Jesus told to repent and believe the gospel
were already regenerated, and the same
being the case of Peter, Paul, and all those
who were called upon to repent and believe
– they were already regenerate.

The issue is not whether salvation depends on God’s grace. The issue is whether that grace must irresistibly regenerate the elect before they can believe—and whether this account adequately explains the biblical commands to repent and believe, the relationship between faith and new birth, and human responsibility for belief and unbelief.

If faith is possible only after God has irresistibly regenerated the elect, what role does the gospel invitation play in the individual’s response? If God determines the desires and choices through which a person believes, how is that response genuinely human? And if every belief falls within God’s sovereign decree, how should we understand unhealthy faith, false assurance, and theological error?

Is faith a genuine human response to God’s gracious provision and the gospel—or is it the inevitable result of God unilaterally determining and producing a person’s response through the irresistible regeneration of the elect?

Lordship Salvation | Heresy

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted March of 2026

As a point of order, I wish to note that while Lordship Salvation is called heresy by some (myself included), this does not mean that teaching a false doctrine mean one is unsaved. It just means they are gravely mistaken on said doctrine.

In an excellent start to an article, we see 12 quotes by leading pastors and teachers on the topic:

A. The problem:

On the one hand there are those who insist that salvation is God’s gift and that trust in Christ is the only requirement for salvation. On the other hand, there are respected pastors and theologians who teach that unless an individual submits also to the Lordship of Christ at the moment of salvation, he is not really saved.

B. The positions:

  1. Salvation by grace through faith alone:
  2. Curtis Hutson in his book, Salvation Crystal Clear, has a chapter entitled “Lordship Salvation, A Perversion of the Gospel.” He begins with the following warning: “Lordship salvation is an unscriptural teaching regarding the doctrine of salvation and is confusing to Christians.” Hutson calls Lordship salvation another gospel which contradicts the teaching of salvation by grace through faith” (p. 302).
  3. Charles Ryrie cautions that “To teach that Christ must be Lord of life in order to be Savior is to confuse certain aspects of discipleship and confuses the gospel of the Grace of God with the works of men.” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 178).
  4. Lewis Chafer writes that Lordship salvation is a seemingly pious but subtle error that in addition to believing in Christ “the unsaved must dedicate themselves to the will of God” (Systematic Theology, III, 384).
  5. Zane Hodges clearly distinguishes between salvation and discipleship. Eternal life is free. Discipleship is immeasurably hard. The former is attained by faith alone; the latter by a faith that works (The Hungry Inherit. p. 114, underscore in the original).
  6. Lordship Salvation:
  7. J. I. Packer rejects the idea that all men “have to do is to trust Christ as sin bearer . . . they must also deny themselves and enthrone him as their Lord.” (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, p. 89).
  8. Walter J. Chantry says that salvation without Lordship is impossible: “Practical acknowledgment of Jesus’ Lordship, yielding to His rule by following, is the very fibre of saving faith. It is only those who ‘confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus’ (Romans 10:9) that shall be saved . . . Without obedience, you shall not see life! Unless you bow to Christ’s sceptre, you will not receive the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.” (Today’s Gospel Authentic or Synthetic? p. 60, underscore in the original). His words concerning those who preach simple faith in Christ are very strong: “This heretical and soul-destroying practice is the logical conclusion of a system that thinks little of God, preaches no law, calls for no repentance, waters down faith to ‘accepting a gift,’ and never mentions bowing to Christ’s rule or bearing a cross.” (p. 68).
  9. John R. Stott suggests “that it is as unbiblical as it is unrealistic to divorce the Lordship from the Saviorhood of Jesus Christ” (Eternity, Sept. 1959, p. 37).
  10. A. W. Tozer labels the view of salvation by grace alone a notable heresy and a false teaching (I Call It Heresy! p. 9,19).
  11. James Montgomery Boice calls the concept of salvation through faith alone A defective theology. This kind of faith is directed to one who is a false Christ (“The Meaning of Discipleship”, Moody Monthly, Feb. 1986, p. 34, 36).
  12. John MacArthur champions Lordship salvation in his recent book, The Gospel According to Jesus. He attacks dispensationalists in general and Chafer, Hodges, and Ryrie in particular for “wrongly dividing the Word of Truth” (p. 197). “No one can come to Christ on any other term” than full commitment (p. 197). In his book, The Parables of the Kingdom, MacArthur writes that “there is a transaction made to purchase salvation, but it’s not with money or good works. The transaction is this: You give up all you have for all He has” (p. 108). How does one receive salvation? “You give up all that you are and receive all that He is . . . A person becomes saved when he is willing to abandon everything he has to affirm, that Christ is the Lord of his life” (p. 109). Even in our Regular Baptist circles, Lordship salvation has become an issue.
  13. John Baylo equates the saviorhood of Christ with His Lordship. He holds that “saving faith properly understood always involves trusting Christ with one’s life. . . confidence in Christ to both save and manage one’s life . . . superficial faith never saved anyone” (Baptist Bulletin, February, 1987, p. 7).

This is the key paragraph in that article:

  • Being a Christian means following an invitation. Being a disciple means forsaking all. To confuse these two aspects of the Christian life is to confound the grace of God and the works of man, to ignore the difference between salvation and sanctification. The gospel of grace is Scriptural. The Gospel that adds the works of man to salvation is a counterfeit Gospel.

I just wish to note that the same people that talk to me about the “Reformation” [read here: new Calvinists] upholding the SOLAS is full of it. And is why I say TULIP rejects the SOLAS…. all of TULIP.

Lordship Salvation (“perseverance”) inserts a myriad of works related issues into the mix. So much so, J.VERN called it a heresy!

BTW, I became aware of the J. Vern video because of this presentation over at the BIBLE PLACE. However, this presentation by the Bible Place is the one that showed me how people get the kingdom age mixed up. It is longer, s be prepared to settle in:

RPT’s SCREED: The Gospel is good news. Lordship Salvation is not.

Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, and Chuck Smith all raised serious objections to Lordship Salvation, viewing it as a departure from the simplicity of the Gospel. Likewise, the modern neo-Calvinist emphasis on “perseverance” can place such an emphasis on continued obedience and performance that it begins to resemble the very works-based righteousness that Protestants traditionally criticize in Roman Catholicism.

Calvinists often speak of repentance primarily as turning from sin. But in the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles, repentance is fundamentally a turning of the mind and heart toward God—to turn away from whatever is keeping a person from believing the Gospel and trusting in Christ. If an atheist, for example, believes that evolution rules out the existence of God, he must repent of that unbelief and turn to Christ in faith. He must turn from the thing that is keeping him from believing and receive the gift of God accomplished for us at Calvary.

This does not mean that repentance from sin is unimportant, nor does it mean that a Christian who sins cannot come to Christ, confess that sin, and ask for forgiveness. Christians still sin, and Scripture repeatedly calls believers to repentance and confession. The issue is whether repentance from individual sins should be made a condition or basis of salvation itself. We do not have to successfully turn from every sin before we can come to Christ. We come to Christ because we recognize our need for Him and trust in what He has accomplished for us.

Once a person believes in Christ, his sins are placed upon Christ, who bore them on his behalf. But if our continued repentance from sin becomes part of what determines whether we remain saved, then assurance ultimately becomes tied to our own performance. Sin in a believer’s life can interfere with his or her fellowship with the Savior, but that is precisely why we have a Mediator. Rather than hiding from Christ because of our shame, we should bring our sin and struggles before Him. We do not need to hide in the garden and attempt to cover our shame with our own efforts. Christ has already provided the covering.

The Arminian can then say that a person’s failure to continue in repentance has caused him to lose his salvation, while the Calvinist can say that the same failure proves that the person was never truly saved in the first place. The two systems reach different conclusions, but both can end up making the believer’s continued performance central to determining the reality of his salvation.

Consider the rich young ruler as an example. Jesus told him to give up his wealth and follow Him. His wealth had become an obstacle between him and Christ, and he could not bring himself to turn from that obstacle and follow Jesus. The point is not that every person must literally give away all of his possessions to be saved. Rather, the account illustrates that something can stand between a person and faith in Christ. Repentance, in this sense, is turning away from the obstacle and turning toward Christ in faith.

The Gospel is not, “Clean yourself up, stop sinning, and then come to Christ.” The Gospel is that Christ has done for us what we could never do for ourselves. We turn to Him in faith, trusting in His finished work rather than our own. Repentance is not a work we perform to make ourselves worthy of salvation; it is the turning of the sinner toward the One who saves.

Another quote to make the point is this one:

  • It may even be said that Lordship Salvation throws a veil of obscurity over the entire New Testament revelation. In the process, the marvelous truth of justification by faith, apart from works, recedes into shadows not unlike those which darkened the days before the Reformation. What replaces this doctrine is a kind of faith/works synthesis which differs only insignificantly from official Roman Catholic dogma.

Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014)

Pastor Andy Woods brought up a paper my Dr. Minirth? Here it is for the reader.

From what I hear through the grapevine (I live a stones throw away from Masters College and live in a town where everyone knows or went to at some point [church goers at least] to Grace Community) John MacArthur became frustrated with his congregation early in his career. He went on a sabbatical and got into the writings of the Puritans. This is where he started to align with the 5-points and his Lordship Salvation idea. And he obfuscated the Christians birthright.

And so, Johnny Mac brought that uncertainty of the Puritan’s salvation into his fold. More on the Puritans here:

Righteousness Laundering: In Their Own Words: