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.