The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Destiny of Man

by Joseph C. Dillow

Can a true Christian lose his salvation? If he cannot, then is there a danger of moral liberty? It has been many years since a comprehensive book on the doctrine of eternal security has been published. This unusual book, The Reign of the Servant Kings, approaches the subject from a distinct and refreshing perspective which draws heavily from the viewpoints of both Calvinist and Arminian interpreters. In what one New Testament professor called a "classic," and a seminary president described as "brilliant," Joseph Dillow gives us a powerful defense of the biblical teaching that salvation cannot be lost. However, he goes beyond doctrine to life. What are the practical effects of such a doctrine? Setting his discussion in the broader context of the final significance of man, he provides a highly invigorating and motivating framework for understanding the meaning of human life and how and why we should live in the Spirit. The author offers a perceptive analysis of the malaise affecting Western Christianity. Spiritual lethargy and the quest for affluence have all but dominated our lives. Why? While the church has always been influenced by the surrounding culture, Dillow argues that this is not the only cause of our impotent witness. Many Christians have lost their spiritual motivation simply because they have no vision for the Great Future. Our pulpits have failed to challenge us with the ultimate significance of human life, participation with King Jesus in the final destiny of man. We do not live lives from an eternal perspective. Historically, the problems of spiritual motivation have been addressed in two different ways. On the one hand, those of an Arminian perspective (believing that salvation can be lost) have warned the indolent of forfeiture of their justification. The heirs of the Westminster Confession, on the other hand, have challenged those who are lethargic in their commitments to re-examine their foundations, as they may not be saved after all. Dillow argues that the latter approach in particular has actually contributed to the very carnality against which it rails. This controversial and paradoxical conclusion is carefully set forth in a sustained and reasoned appeal to the New Testament, in a thoroughly biblical alternative. Spiritual motivation is grounded in a sense of unconditional acceptance by God and the certainty that our lives have eternal significance. The Reign of the Servant Kings is a book about the certain salvation of the Christian. The issues of faith, assurance, eternal rewards, and spiritual motivation are interwoven into a stimulating look at the final destiny of man.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Spirituality

930 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 1, 1992

Reviews

[Bill Olsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am slowly going through this book. It is absolutely essential in really understanding important passages regarding salvation and also rewards. It gives scriptural reasons and support in behalf of the eternal security that God promises those who believe in Christ and how that relates to believers who do not follow Christ well and therefore do not receive the eternal rewards and position that others who do. It deals with the issue of experimental predestinarians (the teaching that there are those who find out, by reason of their fruitfulness if they are truly saved - their life is an experiment to see if they are really predestined to heaven). It also deals with unfaithful believers in Christ, what their general unfaithfulness means, and what loss of rewards they will suffer. It gives those who truly believe in Christ an assurance based on God's Word not of their daily experience of walking with the Lord or not.

[Justin Watkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is actually Dillow's first rendition of this book. The new version which was published in 2012 is called "Final Destiny: THe Future Reign of the Servant Kings." If you want to get an accurate depiction of what the Kingdom of God actually means then this is a great read. Dillow accurately shares the Free Grace position on the Kingdom and where we will spend eternity. The original "Reign of the Servant Kings" is just over 700 pages where the new publication is just over 1000 pages. This is a difficult read if you aren't accustomed to reading theology books. I would highly recommend this book.

[Dan Klender · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book presents the most thorough discussion on salvation I have ever read. It is well researched, based on the Scriptures, written by a blue chip, certified biblical scholar. It is the most thought provoking book I have ever read. It will challenge and encourage your faith!

[Danny Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book brought together years of theological confusion and misunderstanding. I have always struggled with the experimental predestinarian position, but didn't really know how it was fully articulated. Their understanding of the warnings of Hebrews never made sense to me. Dillow's argument makes complete sense, that "falling away" does not mean falling away from salvation, but a loss of rewards. I feel like my theology has been fine tuned by this book.
My few criticisms are:
I didn't understand why Dillow waited to near the end of the book to argue for eternal security. I felt like the main argument of the Partaker position is based on the assumption of eternal security and it makes more sense to explain and defend that position at the beginning.
I also don't like the term "carnal" Christian. It feels to either/or. I would prefer to say that there is a spectrum of maturity where mature and immature Christians are rewarded or denied rewards based on their perseverance.

[Bill Norris · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding book that should be read by every Christian! Dillow does a good job of showing the errors of Reformed & Arminian Theology.

If you want to get your Reformed/Arminian/Lordship friends worked up...give them this book! :)

[G Walker · Rating 1 out of 5]

Responding to Jodie Dillow (especially that book) would require more than 30 seconds.

Here’s the super short version:

The book isn't really quite of the "kindling" offense... So hold off on using it for that. Maybe keep it around to level an uneven work bench (but even at that it is probably too thick unless you really suck as a carpenter).
It is large enough to function as an impromptu weapon. If a burglar breaks in and you had good enough aim - that book might drop him. So there is some value there even if only in binding and production size of the book.

But honestly a book like that cannot be so easily dismissed as it was foundational in disturbing the peace of American Evangelicalism even if only a few people actually read it cover to cover.

Here's the short version:

First let me say Jodie Dillow is a godly man. His theological colleague/mentor Earl Radmacher is too. As was Zane. Bob Wilkin confuses me – he is awfully angry and hyper for someone who isn’t reformed. I’ve engaged all of these guys at one time or another.

Dillow’s book on the Song of Solomon was great… and while I don’t think he understands the literary nature of the book very well and definitely doesn’t adequately understand the church’s historical reading of that book (which he somehow wants to make his opponent), his commentary is still great and worthy of much attention – even when he is wrong. He asks good questions… even if he has bad answers. I recall reading a work by him too on the pre-deluvian “canopy” theory which was interesting and helpful from a creationist standpoint. I read it because somebody like Morris (from Creation Research?) recommended it… anyway; if you’re into “evidential” apologetics (and I am not) then it’s worth having. All that to say, Dillow is no slouch and is worthy of at least hearing out… especially if that book is being circulated among your peers.

That said, I think the Lordship debate – both sides – is BS (all caps!). Both the GES/Free Grace Camp and its Lordship opponents like MacArthur or Piper are all missing one thing -- the point.

The debate exists in several contexts that are worth framing at least in broad general strokes as to why I am being so dismissive of both.

First, the debate only exists in the West and primarily in the US. Or to put it another way, it’s what fat, lazy, mostly economically comfortable Christians will take the time to bite and devour each other over. It is sport. And that’s what we are good at… thought experiments about God and the things of God.

Christ is Lord. Period and that shouldn’t be up for debate and fact of the matter is, when we look at the faith in a global context, or I dare say even in the tribal works of PNG, that issue almost never comes up – until some sick American (or Aussie or P.O.M.E. Brit) “imports” it. Why, because Christ is already presented as the conqueror of sin and death. He is Lord. He is masta.

I suspect it will start to appear though more, once missionaries start teaching Eschatology (as a system) to the indigenous people. And honestly, THAT is the heart of the issue.

So second then, more narrowly defined, the FreeGrace and Lordship camps stem from a very faulty understanding of the end times – Premillennialism. More often than not (save Piper) the debate is found within the narrower Premill confines of Dispensationalism. Once this kind of eschatology gets introduced, I would bet my left arm on it; the issue will find its way, even to PNG. Without belaboring the woes of such an adolescent eschatological model, I will say that Premillenialism in all forms was condemned in no less than (3) of the churches (7) ecumenical counsels. And while that may not matter to us “modern” folk… it does matter in the broader context of where we can from and on whose shoulders we actually stand.

The point in that is that the reason eschatology matters to the debate is that Premillennialism necessarily has Christ waiting to be enthroned until his Millennial reign… and we all know that can’t happen until the secret rapture then some big giant pyramid is going to descend out of the heavens and Jesus is going to establish his kingdom with tanks and bazookas and maybe a few drones and/or stealth fighter bombing missions. Sadly though, as if the cross wasn’t enough humiliation, his reign will be upset and ended by Satan’s rebellion and with his kingdom in upheaval on the brink of absolute ruin, his reign is scrapped and creation is handed back over to the Father (for success) so that we can all live in some static and platonic version of heaven.

All sarcasm aside… IF Jesus is not on his throne, THEN what do we do with him?! And hence the debate. That is WHY this debate exists. No other reason. The Lordship camp, rightly wants to acknowledge the Lordship passages… but honestly Brooks, these passages only make sense in the context of an inaugurated eschatology. And the Free Grace nuts want to withhold his crown rights because of their tightly wound systematic eschatological necessities. So then you have all kinds of silly stuff that actually developed as a result of this debate like “Progressive Dispensationalism” or “New Covenant Theology”. People trying to find a way to manage or categorize their Savior so he can still be Lord somehow, even if only on paper. That combined with a severe misunderstanding of the Puritan writings (thanks to MacArthur highjacking them for personal piety) and the false guilt associated with the subsequent morbid introspection that follows made for a “hot mess” of things.

Third though, I believe that the rewards issue is framed all wrong. And rewards is more to the point of what Dillow is trying to address more than the debate at large. All of this though is based on a faulty model of merit. Both sides again are to blame. The Lordship camp maintains Christ’s vicarious law keeping… which is to say, his works are credited to us. So we are (ultimately) saved by works, just not our – but those of Jesus. And the free grace camps says… No, no, no… no vicarious law keeping… but God will keep track of the good we do once we are saved and “reward” us for that. So, as good American capitalists, we want to know what the ROI is. What is our return on investment; if we do this, what will we get, if we do that, what will we get? Is God really that petty? Is he really in the sky sitting up they keeping weights and balances… tallying up or good and bad? How does motive factor into all of this… is it just the deed or will our corrupt hearts cancel out our good works? The answers to those questions (on both sides) are disturbing!

Merit of any kind (in the context of salvation or discipleship) is foreign to the teaching of Scripture and I would dare say absolutely foreign to the very heart and nature of who God is as Trinity. As to anything vicarious… I actually reject vicarious law keeping (narrowly defined in this debate) and believe that we should emphasize Christ’s vicarious humanity. All of grace – because of ALL of Christ (past, present and future work[s]… and also in his very ontological being).

But, I will say this, if merit is real, then our two options are either some kind of pre-Vatican 1 model of Roman theology or something closer to the Free Grace camp. Again, IF merit is true than what we do matters. Whether for salvation or as a follower… it’s all a matter of simple economics at that point. But maybe it’s a little more complicated than consumer math as it would assume at some level that Premillennialism had to be at least possible, or the Pope is indeed THE vicar of Christ..

Fourth, and I do believe it is worth noting… I think Dillow does ask some good questions in the book about the warnings passages. I don’t agree with his conclusions per se, but he does ask good questions. Questions that need to be answered by everyone. I have read countless numbers of people in the Lordship and reformed camp and honestly, I don’t think they take the passages seriously. In the end, I reject both readings though.

These warnings are more than hypothetical (like standard Lordship line maintains) and they are more than word games or addressing strictly discipleship/earthly “salvation” like the Free Gracers want to argue. They were given in real space and time to real people – before the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. THIS MATTERS

Lastly, I think too that the rewards model he and others are addressing is too static. Too platonic. Too Western and too American in its general framing.

Anyway, the salvation, the new life, the life abundant is not (only) something for the future, it is available to us here and now. Christ IS renewing his creation even now. But all that is another conversation. If you have a kindle or even a half way descent internet connection (you can read it on your laptop) Wright has a great book on the subject Surprised by Hope and it is on sale in the Kindle store for $1.99 (USD) which is killer price for an AWESOME read.

This much I know. My salvation is in Christ. It is secure because he is THE object of my faith. His Spirit is my guarantee. I am saved not because of the death of Christ, but because of his incarnation, life, death, resurrection AND ascension and continuing incarnate ministry before the father. I am saved because of his vicarious humanity – which continues even now. This enables me to partake in the joy, beauty, robustness and reality of the Trinitarian life in the here and now.

That said. Apostasy is real. This is a mystery. I don’t understand it but it happens and we need to be able to believe the Bible and use the language of the bible… AND THAT IS THE HEART OF THE ISSUE.

So I will end, this “short” rant about why the book (and the whole debate) are ultimately irrelevant with a quote from a Pastor whom I have the utmost respect for:

Theology is a “Victorian” enterprise, neoclassically bright and neat and clean, nothing out of place.
Whereas the Bible talks about hair, blood, sweat, entrails, menstruation, and genital emissions.
. . .
Here’s an experiment you can do at any theological library. You even have my permission to try this at home.
Step 1: Check the indexes of any theologian you choose for any of the words mentioned… above.
Step 2: Check the Bible concordance for the same words.
Step 3: Ponder these questions: Do theologians talk about the world the same way the Bible does? Do theologians talk about the same *world* the Bible does?

from Peter Leithart, Against Christianity, p47.

Anyway, this went on much longer than I intended and still is only mostly ad hoc and ad hominem … Much more could and should be said about the contents… unfortunately I gave up my copy the better part of a decade ago. In the end, I wouldn’t waste my time with the book unless your peers are reading it and it is being circulated around the field… at that point – its contents may matter if for no other reason than internally critiques and knowing what to address by way of correction.

[Walter Popoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent look at very challenging passages in the Old and New Testament. It deals with the themes of inheritance, and how God‘s people are promised something after the new birth. The new birth is a preparation for something greater. Why was someone born in the first place as a Christian (I mean the Nee Birth, see John 1:12). There’s a purpose to our salvation. This book helps illuminate what the Scriptures teach about that purpose, which involves inheritance.

The whole book of Hebrews is an exhortation to not miss the heavenly calling, to which all Christians are invited. That heavenly calling in Hebrews corresponds with the inheritance spoken of in this book. But this is a VAST truth, that no one person has all the answers to. The scriptures themselves are the perfect interpreter, and the Holy Spirit is the perfect guide. As we read the Bible with humility and hunger to grow, we can use this book as one good reference point, to more deeply understand our call to inherit the kingdom of heaven

[Susan Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book. I borrowed this from a friend and will get my own copy as it's not one to just read once. Very intellectual and has a lot of thoughts to read and re-read. How to gain the most from your relationship with Jesus? How to get those crowns (rewards) to lay at His feet? How to live the Christian life in fulness and joy? Read the book.

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did not find this book to really be based in historical Christianity. I think it shows that you can make the Bible say what you want. I also think the author actually ends up supporting Catholic ideas unwittingly.

[Eric Olsen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great theology but a horrible read. Most difficult book I’ve read in a long time – a truly laborious read on Calvinism, Arminianism, and free will/eternal security.

[Barry Black · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5
Written from a free grace perspective.
Very deep at times.
Helps with many problem passages which have been hijacked by lordship salvation proponents and
hyper-calvinists to attack assurance of salvation.
Very interesting, but not a "read in one day" book.

[Rev Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can watch my review for the Reign of the Servant Kings at https://youtu.be/_biL7L1WFcc