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.
