A Form of Godliness

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

In the text above, the apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit issues a solemn prediction regarding the moral climate which will characterize the “last days.”  In Scripture, the term “last days” often refers to the period of time commencing with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and concluding with the return of Jesus Christ, but also, as in this text, specifically refers to that time immediately prior to his coming.  As to an exact time frame regarding this portion of the “last days,” we cannot infer one from Scripture, but only that there will be a period of time prior to Christ’s return which will be unique, being distinguished by certain conditions peculiar to itself.

Now the condition that Paul addresses here is that of a heightened corruption of human nature—not merely within society, but within the realm of religion as well—within those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.  For after he declares the coming of “perilous times”—made so by the unbridled selfishness and depravity which he clearly describes—he further states that this corruption will be accomplished in those having a form of godliness, or as some margins have it, “a form of our religion.”  Paul thus foresees a time in which “believers” will hold to a form of the Christian faith while continuing and increasing in moral depravity.

The apostle states as well that those who will hold to this form of godliness will deny the power of true godliness.  In other words, they will retain a belief in, and adherence to, certain aspects of the Christian faith—thus having a form of godliness—but will reject the moral transformation which true faith in Christ both begets and demands.

From this passage we may therefore infer the following: The days prior to Christ’s coming will be signified by an apostate form of the Christian faith—a form which is a departure from historical Christianity, and is void of the moral excellence inherent to true faith in Christ.

Inasmuch therefore as these things are so foretold, and in that it is the general consensus among today’s evangelical churches that we are in the “last days,” is it too much of a reach to suggest, when considering the moral climate prevalent in the church today, that our current brand of modern evangelicalism may indeed be that “form of godliness” of which Paul speaks?

Now I do not say definitively that this is the case, but I would say that such a suggestion should not be quickly dismissed as fanatical or extreme—for the direction of modern evangelicalism is indeed increasingly contrary to historical, biblical Christianity.  For with each passing year, the evangelical church’s presentation of both the Person of Christ and the Christian faith itself, resembles less and less the image of Christ found in the Gospels and the faith set forth in the New Testament.  Indeed, there has been for many years a deliberate and systematic effort within the church to portray Christ in a way foreign to that inspired portrayal found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and to redefine the Christian faith to make it more appealing to the masses.  If this is not the “form of godliness which denies the power thereof” spoken of by Paul, it certainly is a form of the same.

But consider some of the attributes of those who have this “form of godliness” as described by Paul, and see how it compares with the expression of the Christian faith which now is.  Paul declares that they who hold this form will be:

Lovers of their own selves

Sinners have always been “lovers of their own selves,” but Paul suggests that this will be rampant and heightened in the “last days.”  According to Paul, those who are “lovers of their own selves” do show by the same to be without true religion.  One may embrace a form of godliness and remain a lover of his own self, but one cannot embrace the truth—cannot embrace Christ— and remain so.

I would suggest here that our present generation does excel all previous ones in the realm of “self-love.”  By “present generation,” I do not mean only “younger generation,” but rather refer to all currently alive.  Indeed, we live in a time where individuals are self-absorbed, self-important, self-indulgent, self-centered, self-promoting, self-serving and preserving—and any other adjective which describes one who does not ultimately live for a purpose greater than his own happiness and gratification.

This “love of self” is not merely prevalent in society, but within the church as well—within those who profess to be the children of God.  Sadly, much of the preaching and teaching in evangelical circles does nothing to remedy this, but rather encourages and caters to it.  For consider how the Word of God is regularly approached and handled, being treated as a self-help manual and thus used to foster sermons such as “Realizing Your Dreams,” “Establishing Your Vision,” “Believing in Your Vision,” “Finding Your Destiny,” “Reaching Your Destiny,” etc.  Then of course there are the countless “three steps,” “five steps,” and even “seven steps” sermons designed for the purpose of self-improvement, cleverly presented in alliterations and acronyms—yet powerless with regard to effecting moral reform.

Does this sound familiar?

Boasters, Proud, Heady, Highminded

Here are four attributes Paul ascribes, though not in this order, to those who have a form of godliness yet deny the power thereof.  I have grouped these together because of their obvious connection one to another—pride.  “Boasters” are they who in speech magnify and exalt themselves and their own exploits.  “Proud” describes the one who over estimates his own importance.  “Heady” is the infatuation with one’s own intellectual prowess—whether real or imagined.  The “high-minded” are arrogant.

What should stand out here is this: In the mind of Paul, true faith in Christ will deal a death blow to pride in its various forms.  Paul cannot and will not harmonize godliness with pride.  He therefore relegates the boasters, the proud, the heady, and the high-minded to a faith which exists only in form, not in truth.

Wonderful apostolic, historic, New Testament Christianity!  Powerful to effect moral transformation, mighty to deliver the same, and authoritative to denounce those who would resist!

Does this resemble the faith of today?

Unholy 

Here again the mind of Paul is manifest: Those who are unholy do not possess true religion.  Theirs is an empty form.  In denying the power of godliness, in making light of godliness, they are left to an unholy way, and thereby do show themselves to be impostors and frauds.

But consider the disconnect between holiness and salvation in the Christianity promoted today.  In the modern gospel, is holiness a condition of entering the eternal kingdom of God?  It is not.  Is it a condition in Scripture?  Indeed it is, for it is written:

Holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord, and:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Etcetera, etcetera.

I have stated in previous articles that “holiness” has become a bad word among evangelicals.  So strong is the opposition to it that the mere mention of the word brings down choruses of “Legalism, Legalism!”  The ranks of the unstable and ignorant ignite their torches, take up their pitchforks, and ready themselves to run through any who would suggest that holiness was, is, and evermore shall be intrinsic to true faith.

Ironically, many believers today are more averse to holiness than they are to sin. Concerning holiness, they will have none of it, yet sin they will abide.  With regard to holiness, they have no experience; with regard to sin, “both hands do it well.”

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

Incontinent, Blasphemers

I have paired incontinency and blasphemy together, for they are twins begotten by the denial of godliness.  Those who make light of holiness and true godliness inevitably are incontinent—they cannot and do not control themselves.  It would be unlikely, if not impossible, for one who minimizes the essentiality of godliness to true faith to at the same time be a champion of self-control!

With this in mind, Christian, beware of those who magnify their rendition of the grace of God while downplaying or dismissing holiness, who use the love of God to allow for continuance in sin.  For this we may certainly know concerning those who are so inclined: They are strangers to holiness themselves—else they would extol its virtues; they are without moral restraint—else they would proclaim its necessity.

Accordingly, these “deniers of godliness” make an easy transition into blasphemy, for they eagerly seek perversions of truth which accommodate their incontinency, and thus are ready to embrace heresy.  But heresies grow together like grapes, each one connected to another, so that he who is willing to embrace the “salvation without holiness” heresy, must also embrace “another Jesus” as well—for the true Jesus Christ offers no such thing.

And he who embraces “another Jesus” does undermine and insult Christ, and he who proclaims this “other Jesus” does blaspheme the Son of God.  Thus, the ungodly add to their incontinency, heresy; and to their heresy, blasphemy; and to their blasphemy, the despising of those and that which is good.

Despisers of those that are good

Remember that the moral corruptions which Paul names in our text, which shall characterize the “last days,” thus making them “perilous times,” will be manifest in those who profess godliness.  Therefore, according to Paul, those who will “despise those (or that) which is good,” will also themselves continue to carry out a religious devotion.  As I have stated in other writings, the word “despise,” in New Testament usage, mainly means “to esteem less, to consider of little value or consequence.” Thus, the “last days” shall bring forth a faith which places little or no value on that which is truly good, and will consider the same to be inconsequential to spirituality.  As well “those that are good,” who manifest and do stand for godliness, will be despised and disdained.

This is alarming, for even now the evangelical church is guilty of this very thing.  For consider how little value is placed upon repentance, holiness, self-denial, love for and submission to God, etc.—all things which the Bible sets forth as good—and how much value is placed upon individual comfort and happiness irrespective of moral character.

And concerning those who would preach repentance, holiness, the denying of self and the taking up of the cross, love for and sympathy with God, etc.—where are they?  They are gone.  They are not found.  If any would yet preach these things, he does so only sporadically, by way of suggestion, moving off the issues quickly lest conflict arise and the church’s business be disturbed.

Lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God

Now we come full circle.  Paul begins his list of moral corruptions pertaining to the supposed pious of the “last days” with lovers of their own selves, and closes it with lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.  From this we see the great flaw of those whose religion is merely in form and not in truth— misplaced affections.  In them, the heart is wrong—for they give it to the wrong things—and in so doing, they love what they should not, and have little love left for those things which they should love most.

I will assume here that it is manifest to the reader that the North American church has no shortage of “lovers of pleasure,” so that I will not need to expound much further.  Indeed, how much effort has been expended to make church “fun,” and to convince those outside the church that we have more fun than they do!

Yet in Paul’s faith, the truly religious are known by this: They are lovers of God; they love God above all else—above pleasure and above their own selves.  If any lack in love for God, if any abound in love of pleasure, if any loves his own self above Christ, his Christianity is a powerless form.

Conclusion

Now the end of the matter is this: What expression of the Christian faith do you espouse? Is it self-centered or Christ centered?  Does it have for its motivation love for Jesus Christ and the glory of God, or is its motivation self-gratification through religious means? Do you embrace the present day “Jesus” who takes no issue with sin, or the real Jesus who died on a cross to deliver men from the power of sin?

With Paul things are clear: True faith in Christ brings about moral change—a transformation from self-love to self denial, from love of pleasure to love for God, from pride to meekness, from ungodliness to holiness.                                                                                                                       

This then is the the faith of the apostles.  This is New Testament faith.  This is Christianity.  

Anything less is a mere form—a form of godliness which denies the power. 

Gradual Submission?

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.  Matthew 6:24

In a previous article entitled “Optional Lordship,” I made the case that the lordship of Christ could not be optional with regard to salvation.  I argued from both scripture and reason that entire submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ was indeed essential to salvation, inasmuch as such submission is in fact a condition of acceptance with God.  Also, I went to some length to show the error of those who imagine that the benefits of Christ’s saving grace may be received while his lordship may be refused, and did, I think, demonstrate such imaginations to be inconsistent and contrary to the Christianity set forth in the New Testament.

In this article, I will focus upon another argument regularly made by those who assert that salvation is possible apart from an entire submission to Jesus Christ, namely, that submission to Christ is a gradual process, beginning at the time of the believer’s initial conversion and increasing by degree throughout his lifetime.  Indeed, this idea of a “gradual process” as pertaining to the believer’s submission to Christ, is the most commonly held viewpoint concerning this subject, as it represents the theology of some, and the opinion of many others who assume it to be true.

Now although the idea of “gradual submission” to Christ may seem reasonable to the many who hold to it, it is nonetheless greatly flawed, for it necessarily leads to conclusions which cannot be reconciled to biblical truth.  For if salvation occurs apart from a full and conscious submission to Christ, if submission to his lordship is a process which may, or may not ever, culminate in a full surrender to him, we must then conclude the following:

That God grants salvation to those who are in enmity against him

Consider what Paul states in Romans.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 8:7

This verse declares the “carnal mind” to be enmity against God.  And why is the “carnal mind” enmity against God?  Because it is not subject to the law of God, or as other translations state, does not subject itself to the law of God.  Here we have inspiration’s definition of enmity against God: That which does not subject itself, or is not subject to the law of God, is said to be enmity against him! 

Now a “gradual submission” implies that a full submission has not as of yet occurred, for as soon as submission is made the process is ended and the goal realized.  Hence, those who are “gradually submitting” must admit that they have not yet fully submitted, and thus must also acknowledge—which they readily do—that they were not in subjection to the lordship of Christ at the time that they received salvation.    

But according to Paul, that which does not subject itself to God is enmity against him.  Thus, he that does not submit fully to the lordship of Christ is indeed in a state of enmity against him.  For to say “I have not yet fully submitted to Christ as Lord,” is the same as saying “I do not yet subject myself to the law of God.”     

Thus, if, as the “gradually submissive” assert, men are saved prior to and without submission to Christ, we must conclude that God saves men while they yet have enmity against him.

Impossible

Again, if “gradual submission” truly represents proper Christian experience, we would need to conclude the following also:

That God saves men without repentance

For what is repentance other than a sincere and full submission to God?  Would any theologian worth his salt object to such a definition of repentance?  When God commands men to repent, does he have something other than entire submission in mind?  Indeed He does not.  Now admittedly, some may use terms other than “entire submission” and “full surrender” in their definition of repentance, but they certainly cannot define repentance in a way contrary to such terms and yet remain biblically sound. 

For if repentance does not necessarily include full submission to the lordship of Christ, we would have to conclude that one may be truly penitent and yet refuse to submit to Christ, that one may truly turn from his sin while consciously retaining the right to abide in his sin of insubordination to God!  But this is absurd.  Therefore, we must conclude that repentance includes a conscious and full submission to God.

But if we thus conclude, we must then also conclude—if we accept the “gradual submission” theory—that God saves men without repentance, inasmuch as He, according to this theory, saves men without submission. 

Again, impossible

Now along the same line, the “gradual submission” theory would lead us to conclude as well:

That God saves those who are in rebellion to him

If submission to Christ is a gradual process, whereby the believer becomes more and more submissive until he finally arrives at entire submission to Christ, then of necessity, this process would consist in a series of partial submissions along the way. Thus, the “gradually submissive” are also the “partially submissive,” for until they arrive at full submission, they can at best be submissive only in part.  Again, those who hold to “gradual submission” would as a whole admit to being only in a state of “partial submission”—if even that—at the time in which they received salvation.

But here I would employ the old axiom from mathematics which all who read are familiar with: “The whole is equal to the sum of its parts.”  Now if submission is only in part, it cannot be the whole.  And if submission exists only in part, then there exists necessarily other parts which are “not submission”—for if all the parts are submission, then so also is the whole.  But that which is “not submission” must be rightly defined as rebellion.  Therefore, the “partially submissive” are also the partially rebellious, and the “gradually submissive” are indeed the currently insubordinate.   Thus, if God saves men who are “gradually submitting” or only “partially submissive,” He does therefore bestow salvation upon those who are presently in rebellion to him!

This too is impossible.

Conclusion

Gradual submission and or partial submission, if possible, would nonetheless be unacceptable.  The submission that God requires of men is a submission of the heart.  It does not consist in a series of reluctant cessions comparable to those which a weaker nation may make to a greater power to gain some advantage or establish peace.  If men only gradually or partially submit, they necessarily, as we have seen, retain some degree of rebellion in their hearts.  Thus, the war with God—which every sinner is actively engaged in—rages on.  If one is only partially submitted to God, he is yet impenitent—for inasmuch as he knows that he should submit fully to Christ, and yet is unwilling to do so, he does indeed continue in impenitence.  But if he is yet impenitent, in what way can he be considered to be right with God?  Now he may deceive himself with illusions of righteousness which he has imputed to himself, but he is in truth a stranger to true righteousness as long as he avoids a sincere and absolute surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.

In truth, a gradual or partial submission is impossible.  The heart cannot be divided so as to render true submission while retaining even the smallest degree of rebellion.  If submission to Christ is not full, it is not submission from the heart.  For a partial or gradual submission to the lordship of Christ does show—rather, proclaims loudly—a reluctance to embrace the Person of Jesus Christ for who He is.  This reluctance is utterly inharmonious and irreconcilable to love for Christ—for how can one profess love for Jesus Christ and yet refuse submission to him?

Gradual submission is a deception which many, sadly, are happy to embrace, for it fills a need which the enlightened yet unwilling “believer” has.  For what are those poor “believers,” who know themselves to be unwilling to surrender fully to Christ to do?  Surely, true submission is not an option to them, else they would have already submitted.   To deny themselves and take up the cross is evidently loathsome to them as well, inasmuch as they avoid such commitment as if it were a plague.  So what then to do?

Adopt a view of submission to Christ which acknowledges the virtues of such submission while absolving the believer of all responsibility to actually submit!  This is precisely what the “gradual submission” view provides—for it absolves the believer from his duty to immediately surrender by relegating such submission to a future time.  Thus the believer deceives himself by imagining that although he has not yet fully submitted to Christ, he is on his way and may arrive there “someday”—gradually.  But this is a ruse—for until he surrenders, he remains at war; until he submits, he remains a rebel.

So we come at last to our initial text:  No man can serve two masters.  In this verse, the Lord declares the impossibility of serving two different masters.  He sets forth the conflict that will necessarily arise within the heart of him who would attempt this dual service: He will either (1) hate the one, and love the other; or (2) hold to the one, and despise (value or esteem less) the other.  In this case, we are told, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon (material wealth).”  But it should be clear from this text that one cannot truly serve God while actively serving anything other than God.  As previously stated, the heart cannot be divided and yet render true submission to God, for one cannot be at the same time submissive and rebellious.

But “gradual submission,” as we have seen, suggests that a believer can indeed “serve two masters,” for it asserts that a believer may serve Christ as Saviour while retaining the right to withhold submission to him as Lord.  Now it is evident that he who refrains from submission to the lordship of Christ continues to serve his own interests and ambitions, and thereby serves himself.  Thus, the “gradually submissive” are divided in that they attempt to serve two masters— self-interest and Christ. 

But Jesus said this cannot be done.  Now in the case of those who imagine that they are “gradually submitting,” there is yet a holding to a master other than Christ, and therefore a despising and disdaining of him who is their rightful Master.  Such a divided “service” to Christ is without doubt entirely unacceptable.    

Thus, such notions as “gradual submission” and “optional lordship” should as well be seen as entirely unacceptable, for they reek of dishonour and disloyalty to Jesus Christ.  As for me, I cannot, nor ever will be able to, sympathize with any believer who excuses himself from full submission to Christ.  But I can rejoice in those believers—whether weak or strong, whether struggling or overcoming—who exhibit a true and sincere submission to Christ.

And if this lands me “outside the camp” of the modern evangelical church—so be it.   

  

   

Optional Lordship

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Matthew 7:21

In this article, I would like to address the essential flaw with modern evangelicalism. This flaw does not appear so much in the statements and articles of faith of the various churches within the evangelical sphere, but rather is manifest within the mindset of both the leadership and laity of the church today.  It is a fault which exists within the present church’s understanding, interpretation, and consequently, definition of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ—what it means to be a Christian.

At some point within the evolution of the evangelical church of North America, a viewpoint of salvation was embraced which did not consider entire submission to Christ as essential.  It became possible in the minds of those within the church to somehow receive eternal life without having to yield fully to the lordship of Jesus Christ.  This resulted in the development of a “two-tiered” Christianity which recognized two distinct classes of Christians: the “believer” or “Christian,” and the “disciple.”  In this “two-tiered” concept of the Christian faith, the “believer” is considered anyone who has accepted Jesus as his Saviour—regardless of whether or not he submits to him as Lord—and the “disciple” is he who follows Christ more deeply, who lives a life of submission to Christ. Within this philosophy, it is presumed that both “believer” and “disciple” equally share in a common salvation, with the only distinction appearing to be with regard to their respective levels of commitment.

Now before I comment upon the absurdity of making two classes of Christians, and the impossibility of salvation apart from entire submission to Christ, I would like to offer a brief anecdote in support of my statement that such a “two-tiered” Christianity indeed exists within modern evangelicalism.  Many years ago, I heard a very well-known minister in one of his sermons reminisce about his conversion to Christ.  In his sermon he stated that in a certain month of a certain year that “Jesus became his Saviour.”  He went on to say however, that it was not until sometime afterward that “Jesus became his Lord.”  He made a clear distinction between these two events, and confidently asserted that he was in a saved state prior to yielding his life to Jesus Christ.  Thus within his mind, and perhaps even his theology, it was possible to enter into a relationship with Christ wherein the benefits of his salvation may be received while the authority of his dominion may be refused.  Consequently, this minister—and the countless others like him who assert the same things—make the lordship of Christ optional with regard to salvation.

Now that these ministers do indeed make the lordship of Christ optional should be evident. For, if salvation is possible prior to a full and conscious submission to Christ, then such submission is not essential to salvation.  If therefore submission to Jesus Christ is not essential to one’s salvation, then it must be regarded as optional to the same.  For whatever is not essential can at best be only optional. Indeed, if one can be saved without fully submitting to the lordship of Christ, then any subsequent submission is entirely optional—it may be either rendered or withheld without any effect upon the salvation which was received irrespective of it.

But this notion that one may embrace Christ as his Saviour while refusing his lordship is indeed impossible, and when examined in the light of Scripture, quickly shows itself to be absurd, for it is not only contradictory to Scripture, but indeed makes a mockery of it as well.

For consider what difficulties arise if we try to harmonize an “optional lordship” with the Word of God. Here are just a few examples:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  Romans 10:9, 10

The Scripture here tells us that confession is made unto salvation.  But what is it that we must confess? It is “the Lord Jesus,” or as other translations state, Jesus as Lord.  But if I have only accepted Jesus as my Saviour, and am conscious that I have not fully submitted to Him as Lord, how can I confess him as such? Am I to confess that which is not true to me personally, that which I resist and am unwilling to embrace?  If I confess Jesus as Lord, shouldn’t I in truth submit to him as Lord?

Now if I confess Jesus as Lord when in truth I have not yielded to him, I confess that which is in my case a lie.  Such a confession cannot result in salvation—for it is not possible that God would bestow upon me the riches of his grace in response to a declaration of a submission that I have not given. Thus from this verse, we must infer that not only is a confession of the lordship of Christ essential to the appropriation of salvation, but of necessity, a submission to that lordship as well.  

But does not the Lord himself also make abundantly clear that a mere confession of his lordship is of little consequence if it is not validated by an actual submission to him?  For He says:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Matthew 7:21

What then is the will of him which is in heaven?  Is it to divide the Son into a Saviour to receive, but a Lord to resist?  Does not the will of the Father include entire submission to the Son?  Who then can make the Son’s lordship optional and yet be considered a friend of God?  For the friend of God is he who does those things which are commanded him.  As it is written:

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  John 15:14

But they who confess Christ as Lord without true submission not only fail to receive salvation, but rather receive a rebuke for such a confession.  As the Lord says:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?  Luke 6:46

Consider also this verse from the Lord’s Prayer:

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10

A believer who does not submit fully to Christ cannot pray the Lord’s Prayer without making himself a hypocrite.  For how can a man who knows himself to be unwilling to surrender to God utter the words ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’ and be anything but a hypocrite?  For a kingdom consists in rule, dominion, and authority.  But he who will not surrender to the lordship of Christ is in fact unwilling to have his rule, dominion, and authority extend to his own heart and life.  How can he therefore say ‘thy kingdom come?’ What does he mean by such a petition?  He should rather say, ‘Thy kingdom come—except within me'—for this would more accurately depict the true state of his soul.

As well, what does he desire when he prays, ‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven?’  Surely he can only wish that the will of God would be carried out within the hearts, souls, and lives of others—for in that he is not in submission to Christ, he does thereby show himself unwilling to conform to the will of God personally.  How can he, therefore, ever be genuine in asking God to establish his will on earth when he is unwilling that it should be established within himself?   

Another example of the irreconcilability of an “optional lordship” with the Word of God is found in the first epistle of Peter, where we read:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  1 Peter 3:15

Other translations read thus:

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts…  NASB

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord…  NIV

Believers are here commanded to “sanctify the Lord God” in their hearts, or more precisely, to “sanctify” or “set apart” Christ as Lord.  The whole of Christendom acknowledges Christ as Lord on an intellectual and theological level, but it is the true Christian who embraces him as Lord in his heart. Now the heart is the seat of the affections, the very core of our moral nature.  It is here where Christ must be Lord if we are to be considered true.  Anything less results in an empty profession of faith—a “form of godliness” perhaps—but a departure from true Christianity to be sure.   

As stated, this verse is spoken as a command.  How then can the lordship of Christ, which is precisely what this verse commands us to embrace in the depths of our being, be regarded as optional?  Does Peter make exemptions for any to whom he writes?  Does this verse in any way suggest that the apostles envisioned a “two-tiered” kingdom of heaven in which the “truly submitted disciples” dwell with the “unwilling to submit believers?”

Now I could go on at length offering scriptures to show the absurdity of the notion of an optional lordship, but the few mentioned should suffice.  In truth the entirety of Scripture opposes such a notion either by, as we have seen, directly stating the opposite, or by setting forth the nature of true religion which is irreconcilable to this notion. Let us be honest: He who would attempt to receive the benefits of Christ’s saving grace, while resisting true submission to him is in fact a cheat—for he seeks to “enter the sheepfold” by “climbing up some other way.”  

To conclude, I will answer a few objections.

Objection:  It is unreasonable to consider entire submission to the lordship of Christ as essential to salvation.

Answer:  On the contrary, it is indeed our “reasonable service,” to “present (yield) our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1). Submission to the lordship of Christ seems unreasonable only to him who has not submitted, but to him who has, it is no burden, but rather life and peace.

Objection:  Entire submission to the lordship of Christ cannot be essential to salvation for the spiritual experience of the majority of believers does not include such submission, nor does the majority consider this submission essential.

Answer:  What a sad state of affairs when the majority of “believers” are unwilling to yield to the Lord whom they profess to serve!  But neither the experience nor considerations of the majority determine the way of salvation. Remember: “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” Matthew 7:13.

Objection:  God saves men by grace through faith alone, and not as a result of works.  Submission to the lordship of Christ is a human action, and therefore a “work.”  Hence, this submission cannot be essential to salvation.

Answer:  Ah, spoken like a true Pharisee or Sadducee!  For was it not these enemies of Christ, skilled in the manipulation of the Word of God, who did exalt and observe one truth at the expense of another?  This they did that they might shirk what was their clear duty before God, and thus avoid true obedience to him.  Yet in this their wickedness, they considered themselves to be pious, and went about “deceiving and being deceived.”

It is true that salvation is by grace through faith alone, that it is “not of works.” But is it not also true that, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it,’ and that, ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven? He who therefore uses the truth concerning grace to absolve himself from entire submission to Christ does indeed bring forth the fruit of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

But he who would exalt grace and faith to the neglecting of entire submission to the lordship of Christ understands neither grace nor faith.  For in that he imagines some incompatibility between grace through faith and entire submission to Christ, he does proclaim his ignorance and perhaps his wickedness as well—ignorance, if he assumes that grace is bestowed unconditionally, and that faith is some passive mental assent unattended by any action—wickedness, if he develops and defends such notions to circumvent his duty to Jesus Christ.  

A final word concerning “optional Lordship”

To the true Christian, “optional Lordship” is no option at all. For in that he finds himself, by the grace of God, to be in a state of submission to the lordship of Christ personally, and is conscious that the communion with God which he enjoys would not be possible without such submission, he cannot therefore imagine such submission to be optional—nor can he sympathize with those who would seek salvation apart from a full surrender to Jesus Christ. To the Christian, the idea of an “optional Lordship” is offensive, for he cannot see it to be anything other than what it is—an offense to God, and an insult to Christ.