Around 47 A.D. a Philippian jailor, ask Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:30) This sounds simple enough, right? But hold your horses! "It's not that plain and simple", many, if not most people say. Since that time, it seems, the Christian Church has been on a mission to complicate the saving message of eternal life. Clergyman and the like have added addition works, requirements, or conditions one after the other, piling it on, and on, and on. The Medieval church developed an entire system of salvation of faith and works, surrounding a sacred ceremony. Whatever one did, it was never ever enough to be saved.
By the 16th century some had had enough and decided to go back to the beginning and said NO! "Faith alone is enough! At that time, that was absolute heresy, enough to send you to the stake, and many did. Those who had had enough, starter a new movement, called the Reformation. The Reformers began to beat the drum of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. And they were confident in this message of salvation based on their understanding of the Scriptures alone. But it didn't take long before even some in this new reformation once again began to add and complication the simple message of salvation of faith alone. "It just can't be that simple or easy! We must give people something to do." And they did. To this day, just go to about any Reformed, Evangelical, Protestant church and they will give you a long laundry list of things you need to do in order to be saved.
However, there were a few who stuck to the original salvation message of life by faith in Christ alone. In the 17th century there were namely the Marrow Men of Scotland. A century later in England there were a few free grace theologians (known as "antinomianism" by their critics) from 1630 to 1695. In Colonial America a handful of radical new light pastors, one by the name of Andrew Croswell preached the free grace message of life. These early free grace thinkers may not have used the same exact terminology, but they could be considered pioneers of what later became known as the "Free Grace Movement". In the late 20th century, free grace theology had risen to such sufficient prominence, mainly with the publication of several books by Zane Hodges, Charles Ryire and the establishment of the "Grace Evangelical Society", that opponents of free grace, just as in the past, sounded the alarm with viciously attack of free grace theology through various books, articles, and video clips as "dangerous", "antinomian", that is "against the Law" or "antiworks", "easy believism", "hypergrace", etc. The present debate is simply a rerun of the antinomian debates of the past. This debate continues unabated to this date, and will most certainly continue until the Lord's return.
In a online article by Phillip L. Simpson (2006), "A Response to the "Free Grace Movement" admits that it is "hard to describe this doctrine Lordship Salvation in a nutshell,". But why does it need to be so hard to describe? Only if you reject salvation by faith alone in Christ alone does it become difficult. Simpson says the doctrine that came to be called "Lordship Salvation" is a regrettable one, because it was a one that was coined by its opponents--Free Grace advocates. Wayne Grudem in his book "Free Grace Theology" 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel" says the phase Lordship Salvation is "a decidedly misleading and unfortunate summery of the central issues involved." Two pages later he requests that no one refers to his "position as the 'Lordship Salvation' position," for he "explicitly disavows that label as misleading and confusing." According to Simpson, John MacArthur, was made heroic among them for his lordship position, when he wrote the book "The Gospel According to Jesus". In his sequel MacArthur says bluntly, "I don't like the term lordship salvation, I reject the connotation intended by those who coined the phrase." Now, while they gripe over what their opponents call them, they are not even sure what they want to be called. Grudem prefers to call his position the "historical Protestant" position or the "non-Free Grace" position. Would that be the "no gift" position? All the while LS proponents call the "Free Grace " position, "Cheap Grace", a phrase FG proponents never refer to themselves. Why? Grace is FREE, ABSOLUTELY FREE, Never cheap! Like we can get it at a discount. As was stated earlier, God's grace was "costly" for Him, but FREE to mankind, because Jesus paid the high cost to purchase salvation for us.
