Towards the end of the 20th century, John MacArthur wrote a couple of books that engaged with what is historically known as the “Lordship salvation controversy.” Reflecting on his writings more than a decade later, MacArthur offered a succinct description of what his opponents were teaching.

[The non-lordship camp] insisted there is no place in the gospel for the proclamation of Jesus’ lordship. They said those who call unbelievers to surrender to Christ’s authority are preaching a gospel of works. They taught that repentance is a false addition to the gospel message. They objected to any kind of evangelism that employed the language of denying oneself, taking up a cross, and following Christ (cf. Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). They declared that devotion to Christ, love for Him, and obedience to His commands are all matters that pertain to discipleship rather than saving faith. Faith, they said, is merely the acceptance of salvation as a free and unconditional gift—and they portrayed discipleship as a second-level commitment. Therefore, according to their view, the gospel presents Jesus as Savior only, not as Lord.

Others, like James Montgomery Boice, referred to this type of teaching as the “Dallas Doctrine” because it was associated with professors at Dallas Theological Seminary. Men like Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, and John Walvoord, were proponents of the non-lordship view. If you want to dive into the issue, The Gospel According to Jesus and The Gospel According to the Apostles are good places to start. For shorter comments on the debate, read this letter from John Piper to “a friend.”

Recently, I’ve been re-reading The Gospel According to Jesus. It was one of the earliest and most formative books I read after becoming a Christian in 2002. It is worth your time!

There’s a lot to say about the book, but one part has stuck with me over the last couple of days. Namely, according to MacArthur, Zane Hodges argues that the “dead faith” of James 2 is actually capable of saving sinners. Why? According to Hodges, dead faith is “proof of salvation” (MacArthur, 187). Here’s MacArthur explaining the view:

Hodges postulates that in order for faith to be dead, it must have been alive at one time (p. 20). He theorizes that the salvation spoken of in James 2:14 means deliverance from the temporal consequences of sin, not eternal salvation (p. 23). Thus he concludes that James is talking to redeemed people beset by dead orthodoxy—in Hodges’ words, their faith has become ‘little more than a creedal corpse’ (p. 33). Though their faith has lapsed, Hodges believes their eternal salvation is secure. The fact that their faith is dead, he says, simply proves it was once alive—and therefore they must be saved

What is striking to me is how succinct MacArthur is in cutting the legs out from under the logic that says a dead faith must have been a living faith at one time. He responds with lucid brevity, simply pointing to Ephesians 2:1. He writes the following:

Dead faith does not necessitate faith that was once alive, any more than Eph 2:1 (“You were dead dead in your trespasses and sins”) implies that individual sinners were once spiritually alive.

Now, that deals with the argument of whether a “dead” faith implies something must have been “alive.” It would be interesting to deal with the larger reading of the context to see how Hodge arrives at his conclusion. Perhaps in another post …