A Layman's Guide to the Lordship Controversy

by Richard P. Belcher Jr.

Book by Belcher, Richard P.

123 pages, Paperback

First published December 1, 1990

About the author

Dr. Belcher is the Professor of Old Testament. He is an ordained minister in the PCA and pastored an urban nondenominational church in Rochester, NY for ten years before pursuing the Ph. D. This pastoral experience in an unusual and challenging setting gives him great insight into the practical, modern issues that will be faced by future pastors studying with him at RTS. He graduated from Covenant College and received his M. Div from Covenant Seminary. He also received an S.T.M. from Concordia Theological Seminary, and his Ph. D. is from Westminster Theological Seminary. He has served as stated supply for numerous churches in the area since coming to RTS Charlotte in 1995.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

AN EXPOSITION OF BOTH SIDES, THEN A DEFENSE OF "LORDSHIP SALVATION"

Richard P. Belcher served on the faculty of Columbia International University now for twenty-nine years, retiring in 2005. He currently serves as pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in South Carolina. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1990 book, "what exactly is each side saying in this debate? Is it necessary for all those interested in understanding the issues of the debate to read the two large books on the subject? ... there is a need for a brief summary of the arguments in the controversy---a summary which even the layman can understand. Yet the reader should not expect this to be a discussion which remains neutral on this important issue."

He summarizes Zane Hodges' view: "salvation is absolutely free as one simply takes God at His word in the gospel... It involves no submission, no repentance, no change in life-style as a result, and no fruit that will necessarily follow. To add these as part of salvation or even evidences of salvation is to leave the reformation principle of 'sole fide'---faith alone." (Pg. 11) He adds, "Discipleship is hard and costly, while salvation is free." (Pg. 13) He suggests, "Hodges ... is convinced that no New Testament writer ever questions the salvation of his readers." (Pg. 15)

In contrast, John MacArthur says, "The gospel preached by Jesus was a message of repentance, and the worst sinner who repented and turned to Christ would be saved, while the self-righteous man who thought he was good enough to deserve salvation in the eyes of God is excluded from God's favor." (Pg. 38) Belcher summarizes, "MacArthur is convinced Matthew 7:13-14 is a devastating blow to modern easy-believism... In this text we see men making a choice which has definite earthly and eternal results." (Pg. 41)

Belcher highlights a problem: "The problem with the non-lordship view is that it opens the door for a 'carnal security.' ... Every pastor has felt a certain frustration and burden when facing such a person who possesses a bold confidence and smiling assurance while almost laughing at any call or challenge to love and serve Christ. How does one deal with such a person according to non-lordship salvation?" (Pg. 98-99)

This book is a very useful, and objective, summary of the debate.

[Danny Bennett · Rating 2 out of 5]

I skimmed through the principles because I have read both Hodges and MacArthur and feel I understand the debate well and moved to Belcher's critique of the Free Grace perspective. You can tell from the beginning where Belcher stands calling it the "non-Lordship view." instead of "Free Grace." At the beginning of his critique, Belcher says if you hold to the Free Grace perspective you will either be more convinced of your view or change your views. Well he was right, I am more convinced of the Free Grace perspective after reading his critique. I am not going to go into a refutation of each of Belcher's point, I think I will work on articulating my own view and arguments in a writing of my own. But at one point, Belcher's argument is that Free Grace is wrong because it's not Calvinistic and it's Dispensational. His point is that only those with a non-calvinist, dispensational bias would agree with Hodges. Why is it bad to have that bias but okay to have the reverse bias in regards to Lordship salvation? In other words, it's okay to have a bias if it leads to Belcher/MacArthur's view, not okay if it leads to Hodges. Shouldn't we try to eliminate any bias and read the bible exegetically? This is a debate that breaks my heart because it is dividing the church more than any other debate and it involves the very nature of the gospel. Hopefully, the truth will come to light soon.