Questions about Salvation

By Merle Hertzler

Note: This is a response to Scott Ellard's comments, which are found here.

   ------------

Scott,

You have questioned whether I had met the requirements for the born-again experience. It has been difficult for me to answer without knowing what you think the requirements are. As I have pointed out, Christians differ widely on what is required. Telling me that you support "the Christian model" doesn't help me at all. All Christians claim that they are teaching the true requirements, and that it is the others that are false. So telling me you happen to be one who teaches the true salvation doesn't help me understand which of the many Christian views of salvation you support.

In your last response we finally see your view of the requirements. You write:

I at one time thought that by simple intellectual agreement with many Biblical truths, that I could claim to be born again. However, I learned there was more to it than that. I had to be *willing* to surrender to all of his claims on my life...I was born again when I "unconditionally surrendered" to Him...Ultimately all justification or righteousness is dependent upon willing obedience in a particular context...True saving faith is nothing more or less than unconditional surrender to God on his terms.

You express the view that is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.  This is the view that one must surrender to Jesus as Lord in order to obtain salvation. This point is sometimes hotly debated in the church. Some think lordship salvation is a heretical denial of grace. Other teach it is the only true Christian way to salvation. In the survey I took at The Christian Forums, 49% of the Christians that responded agreed with you that one must accept Jesus as Lord to go to heaven. But 51% disagreed.

I was once active in a church that broke away from its affiliation (IFCA) because some in that affiliation taught lordship salvation. The leaders of that church thought that lordship salvation was such a denial of God's grace, that they could no longer promote that organization. Don't get me wrong. This church still taught the lordship of Jesus, and taught that we should all be unconditionally surrendered to him. But they did not think lordship was necessary for salvation. They thought that your words above represent a dangerous heresy. You apparently think their words are heresy. Such is life in the church, when people try to live by a contradictory book.

You say that one must surrender all the claims of his life to Jesus if he wants salvation. This sounds to me like salvation on the installment plan. It is like getting furniture with no money down by signing a contract to pay $500 a month for the next 12 months. Is that furniture free? Of course not! Even if you get the furniture with no money down, it is definitely not free. And it seems to me that the salvation you offer is not free either. Look at the payment terms. Look at the small print. Your salvation requires unconditional surrender of all claim to your own life for the rest of your life. Oh, the cost of those payments! This is not free salvation, not in any sense of the word. It is salvation on the installment plan.

And what happens if you miss the "payments"? If you have promised everything to God, but then find yourself sometimes living according to your own claims on your life, are you not then breaking the contract? Do you then lose your salvation? If not, what is the purpose of a commitment that can be completely ignored while still receiving the benefits?

What happens if a believer drives faster than the speed limit or says a curse word?  He would then have broken the commitment to total surrender. Is he then eternal toast? What happens if he rapes, murders, steals, and vandalizes? How far can the believer go in breaking that commitment while still retaining his Don't-burn-this-one-in-hell exemption?

You wander if I made the unconditional surrender that you say is required. Well, I tried to make that surrender. I surrendered to Jesus, not because I thought it was necessary for salvation, but because I thought it was good. But then I found myself many times prone to wander, and found myself many times doing things that I thought God would not want me to do. So though I tried to surrender all, surely there must have always been at least some subconscious parts of my mind that still wanted to live for myself.

How about you? Can you truly say that you have surrendered every claim to your life? Were even your subconscious desires surrendering at that moment? Have you lived up to that commitment? If not, could it be that you really didn't mean it?

It seems to me that, if complete and unconditional surrender is required to escape hell--as you suggest--we are all doomed.

The Just Shall Live by Faith

Let's move on  We have been discussing if Paul's quote in Romans 1:17--"The just shall live be faith"--was a valid quote of Habakkuk. You write:

To say the just shall live by faith is nothing more or less than saying that those justified (or righteous) before God are in that state by believing God, whether that is the gospel of Christ or the principles of sacrifice as given to Israel.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Let me try again and see if I can express it clearer. Where is Habakkuk saying that one becomes righteous by believing God? That is not his theme. Throughout the book Habakkuk deals with the question of how the faithful Jews should react to the Babylonian captivity. "Why are You silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous than they?" he asks. (See Hab 1:13.) And his answer is that the Jews should continue steadfast in Judaism, even if it doesn't seem to be working. (See Hab 3:17-18.) When Habakkuk says, "The just shall live by faith," he is answering the question of how they should live in spite of such adversity. How should they live? Habakkuk says they should "live by faith", that is, they should remain faithful to the Jewish tradition. In no sense is he claiming that salvation is by faith instead of works. In no sense is he saying that it is okay to leave the Jewish tradition and adopt Christian faith. In no sense is he talking about salvation from hell or eternal life. He is talking about perseverance in adversity.

And yet Paul quotes this verse to promote salvation by faith in Jesus (Rom 1:17). This is just one example where Paul misapplies the Old Testament.

Salvation by works

I mentioned that some verses require us to keep the commandments for salvation, but others do not. You respond:

I need specific references to comment precisely, however in general most of these kinds of issues have to do with not rightly dividing. I am something of a dispensationalist which understands that the "command" for being in a right relationship with God is dependent upon what constitutes obedience for any given person.

Okay, the reference I usually use is Matthew 19:16-21, where it says one must keep the commandments and give to the poor to be saved. Do you or do you not agree with Jesus that one must keep the commandments and give to the poor to be saved?

On the other hand, Paul says salvation is given to "the one who does not work" (Romans 4:5). Do you or do you not agree with Paul that one who does not do any works can have salvation?

That's all for now.

Regards,

Merle