Must a person stop sinning in order to be saved, or at least be willing to give up certain sins in order to receive eternal life? Lordship Salvationists say "yes," but what does the Bible say?

Notice the following statements by John MacArthur, one of today's leading Lordship Salvationists:

"I remember when I used to discuss this lordship issue and this kind of commitment for salvation with other theologians in the time when I was writing the material on The Gospel According to Jesus, they would pose a question. One of the main guys posed this question to me. If you have a couple that you know and they're living in adultery, they're not married and they're living together and you're going to give them the gospel, do you say to them you must stop sinning and then come to Christ? Or do you say nothing about that, just come to Christ and worry about that later? Well, the answer to the question would be, what would Jesus say. What would Jesus say? Jesus would say this. You have a quote 'love' going on here. Whether it's love or not, I don't know, but you have an affair going on, you have a relationship going on. How important is it for you to receive the forgiveness of sin and eternal life? Because if you're not willing to put a sword in that relationship or any other relationship and to deny the thing your heart craves, then you're not worthy to be My disciple. That really became the nexus of that whole debate."1

And it's not just the "big" sins that Lordship Salvationists say must be given up in order to be saved. They go so far as to say that unless a person gives up smoking cigarettes (or at least is willing to give up smoking cigarettes), they cannot be saved! Regarding this, Charles Ryrie shares the following true story of a run-in he had with a group of Lordship Salvationists who accosted him one time at an airport. Ryrie relates the following incident in his book So Great Salvation:

"Some years ago in another country I was literally accosted after an evening service by a group of American missionaries working in that country. They had been infected by the lordship/discipleship/mastery Gospel, and having read the thirteen pages I had written about the subject in 1969 [in Balancing the Christian Life], they were anxious to debate the issue. I did not know them; they were uninvited; but I could not avoid meeting with them. So we talked for quite a while that night. Finally it came down to an illustration. I posed this case to them. We all knew, even at that time, that smoking had been proven a serious risk to one's health. I asked about a hypothetical person who wanted to be saved, but he smoked. Furthermore, he knew full well that smoking was endangering his health, and he realized that if he became a Christian he ought to give it up. But he was unable to do so, nor was he even willing. So I asked these folks, 'Can he not be saved until either he gives up smoking or is willing to give up smoking?' Reluctantly they admitted that their view compelled them to say no, he cannot."2

Years ago, William R. Newell wrote a gospel tract titled "The Only Kind of People God Saves". The tract is based on Romans 4:5, and it's very applicable to the Lordship Salvation debate. After quoting Romans 4:5, Newell writes the following:

"I wish to call your attention to one fact - God justifies ungodly men. He does not justify all ungodly men, but He justifies ONLY ungodly men. Men think that because they have been ungodly and wicked, God demands a change in their character before He receives them. This is not true. The quotation above definitely says that 'God justifies the ungodly who believe.'

What then does God ask an ungodly sinner to do? First of all, nothing, that is, to cease from absolutely all efforts to save himself. For the verse says, 'To him that worketh not.' A man is asked simply to accept God's verdict about him - that he is ungodly, unrighteous, and unable to save himself. Second, accept the blessed news that God Himself has already reckoned his sins and ungodliness to another Person, that is, to Christ, His Son, and that, because the punishment of sin was death, Jesus has by God's appointment died, has shed His blood, in the sinner's place. 'The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). Christ died for our sins - that is, instead of our dying for them. Death here means banishment from God under a curse, and Christ bearing our sins was forsaken on the cross as accursed of God. (Matthew 27:46; Gal. 3:13.)

Now when an ungodly man finds these two great truths: first, that he is utterly guilty and unable to help himself, and second, that Jesus Christ has already borne sin, in his place, by God's appointment; and when this ungodly man just accepts these facts and trusts this Saviour, whom God raised from the dead to be trusted, this ungodly man is saved then and there. That is, God forgives and justifies him on the basis of the price already paid - the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Do you believe this? Or, are you still trying to REFORM yourself - promising yourself that you will do better, and merit God's favor thus? Why do you not believe what God says: By deeds of righteousness shall no flesh be justified in God's sight? (Romans 3:20; Titus 3:5.)

Listen to the Gospel: 'To him that WORKETH NOT BUT BELIEVETH on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness' (Romans 4:5).

This is good news! Every sinner in the world could have this salvation, if he were willing, this moment. Let anyone who wants Christ claim Him at once. As a sinner, claim the Saviour God has appointed for sinners, as your very own Saviour this moment. He sees your heart. Trust Him now as yours, and lo, He is yours!"3

The problem with MacArthur's view of the gospel is that he confuses salvation with discipleship. That's typical of Lordship Salvation. But more than that, MacArthur's gospel clearly contradicts what the Bible says about the only kind of people God saves: not those who clean up their lives first, but "the ungodly"!

Just As I Am A Gospel Hymn

Just as I am, without one plea, but that Thy blood was shed for me, and that Thou bidd'st me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not to rid my soul of one dark blot, to Thee, whose blood can cleanse each spot, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about with many a conflict, many a doubt, fightings and fears within, without, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, Thou wilt receive, wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve; because Thy promise I believe, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.4

The author Lance B. Latham (1894-1985) was a strong proponent of Free Grace theology and one of the original founding members of New Tribes Mission (now Ethnos360). He was for many years the pastor of The Northside Gospel Center in Chicago, Illinois. He collaborated with Art Rorheim, the church's youth director, to develop weekly children's clubs. These clubs laid the foundation for the organization they co-founded in 1950, then known as the Awana Youth Association, and today as Awana Clubs International. Mr. Latham was affectionately known to his friends and colleagues simply as "Doc". For more information on Lance Latham's life and ministry, see the biography by Dave Breese titled Lance: A Testament of Grace.

I recently purchased Lance Latham's book The Two Gospels (Rolling Meadows, IL: Awana Youth Association, 1984), and read it with great eagerness and anticipation. Reading through the book made me feel as if I was back at New Tribes Bible Institute again. What a refreshing breath of Free Grace! In this short review, I'd like to highlight a few key thoughts from the book and share several excerpts. The first quote I'd like to share is in regards to how we are saved freely by God's grace. "Doc" Latham writes:

Believing on Christ is distinctly not "turning the direction of your life over to Him." It is looking in faith to our Saviour crucified for our sins on Calvary! It is not of works, devotion or full surrender. It is His work and His death that avails.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28).

Let Romans 3:24 sink into your heart:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

This is solid ground; for "My hope is built on nothing less (or more) than Jesus' blood and righteousness."

When the church lost this beautiful truth, it sank into backsliding and serious decadence. It still had buildings, crosses, candles and black robes, but was spiritually dead, devoid of the truth. The essence, therefore, of spiritual reality is not in the externals of religion, but rather in the internal reality of a sincere faith in the clear teaching of the Word of God.

We are fast approaching (if we have not reached) the place in our present age where these distinctive truths found in the book of Romans and in the balance of New Testament Scripture must again be "rediscovered." Methods and approaches will not do . . . it is the message that counts!

The doctrine of justification by faith is so provocative that it creates a question for many. "Will not belief in the grace of God alone produce a licentious living on the part of the people?" "Perhaps the people of God will live presumptuous lives when they realize that they are saved by grace and not by works."

We find the remarkable answer as we continue to consider the book of Romans.

[. . .]

In reading Romans 3 and 4, the great central passage on our justification, we find no words about the necessity of reforming our lives or forsaking our sins in order to obtain that justification. "Turning away" from our sins is mentioned after the matter of our justification is fully settled.

Paul asks the rhetorical question, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:1).

As William P. Mackay writes in his book Grace and Truth: "Unless the gospel we preach, when presented to the natural mind, bring forth such a question, it is another Gospel than Paul's."1

I love that statement by W. P. Mackay because he's basically saying that any gospel or system of theology that does not prompt a person to ask the question "Shall we continue in sin that grace might increase?" (implying that it is possible) is not biblical grace! The grace that Paul preached sounded dangerous enough to provoke the question.

Contrary to what some people think, the grace of God actually teaches Christians to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12). The following true story illustrates this truth and is excerpted from Latham's book The Two Gospels.

All The Stones In Stonyford

The message of the gospel of the grace of God, over the years, has stood the test. When one considers a given message or ministry, he has the right to ascertain if it has produced results. One of the great delights of my life is to witness the life-changing power of the message of the gospel of the grace of God and the results that it has produced over the years.

For the past 40 years, I have had the privilege of being associated with the New Tribes Mission. This association began at their very inception, and has continued blessedly down through more than four exciting decades. The very first committee held its first meeting at our Camp Mishawana in Michigan. New Tribes Mission today has over 2000 missionaries in the field and in the homeland who are true to the gospel of grace.

Very shortly after the founding of the mission, a camp for training missionaries was founded at Fouts Springs near Stonyford, California.

Three brothers came with different backgrounds and seemed disturbed by our teaching. They believed in the shed blood of the Son of God as God's payment for sin and that Jesus was truly God's son and God. However, they believed that they had to deny themselves to be sure of their salvation.

We all worked physically on the grounds a few hours everyday. A real job had been undertaken by the mission at our "boot camp" in Fouts Springs. There were about 300 people on the grounds and among them many children. The necessity of a school became very evident. Preparing the ground, a mass of stones, sand and clay, involved removing many rocks of all sizes.

One brother saw the truth of Scripture in that task. "Doc, to move all the sins out of our lives before we get saved would be harder than getting all the stones out of Stonyford!" Many people try to do things that are absolutely impossible. We could confess and remove sins to the day of our death, yet never reach a standard of perfection that a Holy God could accept.

The burden of the brothers' conviction that they must add something to Calvary as the payment of sin was gone. The penances, the self-castigation, the fastings to ease their consciences disappeared. Instead, they became intensely interested in their Bibles, and spent hours and hours delighting themselves in the Word of God.

They became missionaries to Japan, rather they became citizens of Japan. They took no furloughs, so as the years went by their support began to diminish.

The Lord eventually opened up the opportunity for them to start a Japanese-English School, and an orphanage. The revenue became enough to take care of all their needs.

Now they send missionaries to other countries. A great work, started from observing the similarity of eliminating all the stones from a stream and trying to get all the sins out of a life. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3:20).2

In his seminal work on Free Grace Soteriology, Dr. David Anderson describes the extent to which original sin wreaked havoc on the entire human-being when he writes, “When Adam sinned, all aspects of his humanity were corrupted. His body became mortal. His spirit was separated from God (spiritual death), and every part of his psyche was corrupted: his mind was darkened, his emotions were degraded, and his will was defective.”1 Thus, in regard to the human psyche or soul, man is completely unable, on his own, to restore God’s design for intimate fellowship with the individual human being. This restoration can only come through God’s supernatural provision. If the human soul was not fully erased, but was sufficiently defaced through Adam’s sin, what impact does spiritual salvation have upon the believer’s psyche? Is God’s saving work within the soul of the Christian positional or progressive in nature? Ultimately, for the believer, what is the soul’s essential role within the entire package of salvation? Understanding the answers to these questions is critical to effectively grasp the significance of the believer’s soul in the sanctification process.

The purpose of this research paper will be to analyze, assess and clarify the often-misunderstood theological issue of the progressive nature and impact of salvation upon the human psyche, and how the Christian life must then be lived — both spiritually and experientially. This will be accomplished by focusing on two interrelated topics concerning the soul of the regenerate individual: 1) the essence of the soul in relation to the human being, and 2) the positional sanctification of the human spirit and the progressive impact of salvation upon the human soul.

The Nature of the Human Soul The Tripartite Human: His Person and Personality

At the outset of this study, it is incumbent on the researcher to clearly understand the meaning of the psyche in light of its New Testament settings. Many false assumptions and thus the ensuing theological confusions, have frequently shrouded a biblically accurate understanding of the human soul. Therefore, it is of primary importance that the semantic domain of the Greek word, psyche, be highlighted at this juncture in the research. In his master’s thesis, Jerry Patillo makes the convincing argument that, out of the 103 times this word occurs2 , there are four major usages of psyche within the New Testament. These include the literal, physical life of the individual (Matthew 2:20; 20:28; Mark 3:4; 10:45; Luke 6:9), individual persons (Acts 2:43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:14), an individual’s time spent on this earth (Matthew 16:24-26; Mark 8:35–37; Luke 9:24–25; Matthew 10:39, Luke 17:33; John 12:25), and the inner self of the individual person (Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; I Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12).3 It is the last two usages of psyche with which this research paper is specifically concerned.

According to the Apostle Paul, the timeless truth found in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (in which psyche refers to the inner self of the person) becomes a theological under-pinning for the tripartite human nature, with its distinctly triune essence and interaction of body, soul and spirit — “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Understanding the human nature to be a trichotomy (body, soul and spirit) rather than a dichotomy (body, soul/spirit) is an essential step in theologically understanding the journey of progressive salvation. The human soul and spirit work distinctly, and yet in complete unison, as the subsequent research will demonstrate. Concerning the theological implications of trichotomy upon the specific field of soteriology, C. Gordon Olson aptly states:

The trichotomist understands the human spirit as the God-consciousness part of unfallen man, while the soul is the self-conscious part. In the fall, it was the human spirit which was most affected…Dichotomists have to take spiritual death as a figure of speech, since they do not distinguish soul and spirit. Obviously, the soul/spirit did not die, or man would have become less than an animal. Trichotomists argue that the human spirit, the God-conscious part of man, literally died…On this basis, the trichotomist understands the new birth to be a literal resurrection or making alive of the deadened human spirit.4

Thus, the questions must be asked, “What then is the distinctive role played by the human soul throughout the sanctification process? What is the unique relationship shared between the believer’s soul and spirit?” The answer to these questions will prove essential for accurately interpreting and relevantly applying the psyche’s rightful place within the believer’s experiential sanctification process.

Not only does the human psyche share in the triune essence of the human nature (body, soul and spirit), but the human soul, itself, is a triune expression of the Godhead through the human personality (mind, will and emotion)5. Commenting on the psyche’s function within the tripartite human personality and the presence of the imago Dei (image of God) within every human being, Dr. David Anderson concurs with this observation by pointing out that the human soul is a unique combination of mind (Philippians 1:27), emotions (Mark 14:34), and will (Revelation 21:17).6 Thus, he concludes, “In the original creation, Adam and Eve were one with the Lord, had immortal physical bodies, and had the undiminished capacity to enjoy His love, interact with His thoughts, and obey His will. But the Fall affected all aspects of man.”7 It is also very important to note that the tripartite nature of both the human person and personality requires that the human soul retain a very distinct role and responsibility from the human spirit, in particular. Concerning the uniqueness of the psyche in comparison to the other elements of the human make-up, T. Austin-Sparks gives a very insightful perspective on the unique characteristics of the human psyche, when he states:

…the soul (often translated “life”) relates to man in his own conscious life here in this world; his good or evil; his power to do, to achieve, to enjoy, to profit, to know and acquire what is of this world, and to live as a responsible, self-conscious being, answering to God for himself and his life, and so taking account of his life as to include the reality of a Divinely intended higher destiny and intention than just to live to himself and for the brief span of this life. The soul can be affected by and responsible to something higher, but its immediate relationship is not with God. Such a relationship is indirect and secondary.8

Therefore, it should be evident, that the human soul was uniquely created by God to function as a necessary part of the person and personality of humankind. The presence of the psyche is of great significance to this research because it is at the very core of who God originally called and created humanity to be. However, one must ask, “What is the specific impact of sin on the human psyche? And to what degree, then, is it even possible for the human soul to be rescued from this plight of sin and death, if at all?”

The Sinful Soul: Defaced but not Erased

In the second and third chapters of First Corinthians, the apostle Paul writes to the Corinthian church about these very questions concerning sin’s impact on the human psyche. Paul states in 2:14, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Within the immediate context of this pericope (2:6-3:4), Paul’s meaning concerning “the things of the Spirit of God” in verse 14, is defined as “the wisdom of God in a mystery”(verse 7a), “the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory”(verse 7b) and “the things that God has prepared for those who love Him”(verse 9c). Thus, according to Paul, the specific truth he is expounding on is exclusively revealed by the Holy Spirit to the spiritual man but is considered foolishness to the natural man. Such revealed truth is characterized as “the deep things of God” (2:10c) by the apostle. Within the immediate context, this deep truth is nothing less than the progressive revelation concerning the spiritual Body of Christ — the universal Church and all the riches given to her freely by His grace (2:12). However, Paul affirms that the natural man is judged as unable and unworthy to assess and understand such spiritual propositions; he is unable to evaluate these Spirit-revealed things – they are spiritually discerned (verse 14). This observation is pertinent for understanding the impact of humanity’s sin upon the human soul. The English phrase, natural man, is actually the translation of one word in Koine Greek. This word is psychikos.9 The late C. Gordon Olson points out the distinctive usage of psychikos in 1 Corinthians 2:14, when he writes:

In speaking of the process of revelation in vv. 10-13, he compares the role of the Holy Spirit in searching God’s mind to the human spirit, which searches man’s mind. This implies a correspondence between the two in the revelation process. Then in 2:14 he describes the unregenerate man as a soulish (psuchikos) man. Man is merely soulish, not only devoid of the Spirit of God, but deficient in the correspondence realm of the human spirit as well.10

It is insightful to note that psychikos is the adjectival form of the root word, psyche, upon which this research is focused. As a result, this Greek concept clearly highlights the depraved nature of the human soul, under the influence of sin’s power. However, the question must then be asked due to the human soul’s natural subjection to sin’s dominance, “Does this not also mean that the soul’s essence has been completely erased because of sin’s corruption?” Dr. Anderson confronts this false interpretive assumption effectively when he opines:

It is interesting that this passage (1Cor 2:10-3:4) describes three types of men, each characterized by a different aspect of the tripartite man: body, soul and spirit. The man controlled by his flesh is described in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. Such men are called sarkikoi, fleshly or carnal. They are said to be unable (oude eti nun dunatai) to receive the meat of the things of God. The term used here for their ability or lack thereof (ou dunatai) is the same word used of the psuchikos man in 2:14. It is said of this so-called “natural” man that he cannot know (gnonai is usually understood to be “experiential” knowledge as opposed to intuitive knowledge) the things of the Spirit of God because he is unregenerate, that is, because he does not have the Spirit. But if that argument holds up for the “natural” man, the same should be said of the carnal man in 3:1-3.11

In relation to God’s illuminating work, the personal experience of the carnal Christian and the unbeliever is practically the same, though it is different ontologically. Based on the biblical validation of this claim, there is no contradiction. The psyche can be totally incapable of applying God’s revelation on its own, and yet, still be completely responsible for accepting the simple truth of the gospel message through the convicting work of the Spirit. In the end, even the believer’s natural life or psyche left to itself cannot receive what God desires to reveal to His children. Therefore, the human soul must be superintended by a supernatural life source, completely alien to itself, found only in the Spirit of God. In his contribution to the Grace New Testament Commentary, D.L. Hunt clearly makes the contrast between what the unregenerate psyche can and cannot do in terms of God’s revelation when he comments, “Acquisition of spiritual truth requires spiritual receptiveness. Paul points out that the natural man (psychikos, “an unregenerate person, a person without the Spirit”) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. The verb receive can be translated welcome. The unsaved person can understand, but he does not welcome spiritual truth, the things of God’s Word, because they are foolishness to him.”12

In short, this revelatory work of the Spirit, found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, has everything to do with the special illumination of truth for the saved and nothing to do with the, so-called, total inability of the lost to respond to that truth. This point is of the utmost importance in order for the exegete to properly understand what the human psyche is and is not capable of doing in response to God, specifically apart from the illuminating work of His Spirit. However, in the final analysis, the human psyche, left to itself, is not fully erased of its responsibility to receive God’s revelation, but is fully defaced of God’s divine intention. This transformative work within the human soul must then be accomplished by means of Holy Spirit interaction and impartation of His supernatural life within the human psyche.

At this juncture of our study, it is essential for the researcher to draw a clear line separating the human soul (psyche) from the human spirit (pneuma) in their biblical theology, as did Paul in the afore mentioned passage. This is exactly what Paul affirms in his two ontological categories of people listed in 1 Corinthians 2:15 — the soulish man (psychikos) and the spiritual man (pneumatikos). In his book, What is Man? T. Austin-Sparks highlights the difference between these two elements of a person’s ego or inner person, when he states, “…God holds man responsible as an intelligent, self-conscious being who can at least choose and seek; and, on the other hand, when the spirit has been renewed and brought into living touch with God, the soul is affected thereby, and both receives from God and gives to God by way of the spirit.”13 As a result, this essential differentiation made between the human soul and spirit leads us to our main subject of interest, the positional salvation of the regenerate human spirit and its potential impact upon the human soul.

Positional salvation of the human spirit and its practical impact upon the human soul Salvation of the unique person in Christ

When God’s Spirit makes alive the deadened spirit of man, it makes it possible for the soul of man – the mind, will, and emotion- to experience that redemption as well. Within this study of the soteriological impact on the Christian’s psyche, the student must first understand this basis of the progressive nature of salvation. For, as inferred from the previous research, positional salvation must affect the individual’s spirit before their soul or personality can be expected to respond in transformation. Among his numerous works on spiritual growth, Miles J. Stanford’s powerful call for the believer’s position in Christ to influence his performance in life is extremely fitting to this discussion. He succinctly writes, “Let the facts of your position overwhelm the feelings of your condition.”14 Hence, as mentioned above, to effectively understand the influence of progressive salvation on the human psyche, God’s permanent and positional work of salvation in the human spirit must first be firmly appropriated. This is necessary for the believer in order to avoid the bondage of legalism, and instead experience true liberty found exclusively in the grace that is in Christ (Romans 6:14; 2 Timothy 2:1). Devastating effects upon the believer’s spiritual journey ripple from the philosophical wake of conflating the human spirit’s positional regeneration with the human soul’s conditional transformation. This theological confusion eliminates any real possibility of assurance for the believer’s eternal security. It also relegates spirituality to legalistic performance, motivated by the fear of guilt rather than the gratitude that flows from grace. In his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:17, Reformed theologian, Iain H. Murry, unintentionally highlights the confusion when positional truth (justification) and conditional experience (sanctification) are inseparably unified. He concludes:

So Calvinism says that Christ’s work for us — that is the legal, forensic side of salvation — is never without Christ’s work in us. Wherever there is a true change in a man’s relationship with God there is also a change in his subjective, moral, personal state. Thus, on this understanding, faced with the question, ‘Do I belong to Christ?’ the Christian is permitted to argue, ‘Yes, I do belong to Christ because I find in myself changes which He alone can work and changes which only His unbought love prompted Him to work.”15

However, the Apostle Paul states that this creative work of God, accomplished in every believer, is absolute and permanent! The “new creation” life is entirely based on the Christian’s positional standing “in Christ,” despite observable change in the individual’s character. Thus, personal transformation within the believer’s psyche must be understood as the effect of the human spirit’s regeneration, and never it’s cause. This “new creation” work, equivalent to the believer’s renewed spirit, is obviously not experiential in nature at its core. Jody Dillow, in Final Destiny, masterfully develops a biblical theology of the new creation life within the human spirit:

The new nature is a new metaphysical entity, created perfect by God at regeneration. It is a “creation.” In Ephesians 4:24 we learn that the new man was created kata theon, “according to the standard of God,” in righteousness, and in hosiotes, “holiness, piety” of truth. It appears that the new self is as perfect as God is, just as it is as righteous as God is (2 Corinthians 5:21). The perfection and righteousness are ascribed to the believer by nature of his being “in Christ.” The fact that it has been “created” means that it has no sin in it. Does this mean that the person is perfect in experience? No. The person, the “ego,” lives either in his new capacity or his old. The person always has both and is always sinful. But when viewed from the single perspective of the person as united to the new creation, that is, the new man, he is perfect. That union, that identity is man as God intends man to be.16

Thus, it is only when the human personality or psyche is dominated by this “new man”, or regenerate human spirit, that the Christian is living like the person he was created and called to be in Christ. When the soul is actively united with the renewed spirit, this is the unique personhood that God intended the capstone of His creation to be all along – an accurate image bearer of His divine nature (Genesis 1:27).

Not only has the believer’s new position been provided to renew his spirit, but it has also provided the very power source for this position to be personally applied. This power source is none other than the Spirit of God, Himself. T. Austin-Sparks comments on this very concept of the Holy Spirit’s essential interaction with the human spirit, writing:

Only spirit can serve Spirit (Rom 1:9; 7:6; 12:11). Only spirit can receive revelation from God, Who is Spirit (Rev 1:10; 1 Cor 2:10). We shall return to this later. Let it be understood that God determined to have all His dealings with man, and to fulfill all His purposes through man, by means of that in man which was after His own likeness, that is, his spirit. But this spirit of man for all such Divine intentions must be kept in union with Himself, and never for one moment infringe the laws of its Divine union by crossing over to take counsel with, or be influenced by, his own soul or self-conscious life — the reason, desire or will — as an independent thing.17

That being said, is all hope lost of redeeming the human soul to a purpose greater than itself? The afore quoted author goes on to elaborate on this very question, “When the spirit is renewed, and Christ dwells and reigns with-in — in other words, when we are ‘filled with the Spirit’ — then the soul can come to serve the Lord as a handmaiden of the spirit to real but governed usefulness.”18 Again, as the human psyche is completely unable to experience transformation on its own, the experiential salvation of the Christian soul is completely reliant on the supernatural work of God’s Spirit, which flows through the spiritual conduit of the regenerated human spirit. In his commentary on the spiritual man in 1 Corinthians 3:1a, Arlen L. Chitwood writes on this very concept:

The spiritual man is one who is controlled by the Spirit of God acting through his own spirit. The spiritual man, unlike the soulical man, controls his emotions, feelings, and desires pertaining to his still-present, man-conscious existence. He brings his unredeemed body under subjection and exerts control over the soulical man. This, of course, is not performed within his own power, but within the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.19

Thus, both aspects of the person - the human psyche through the human pneuma, by means of the Holy Spirit- serve distinct, yet necessary roles in the same progressive sanctification process of the believer in Christ. The renewed human spirit makes this experience entirely possible and the spirit’s impact upon the human soul makes this process highly personal.

Salvation to a unique purpose in Life

Not only does this positional salvation of the believer’s pneuma provide practical sanctification for the individual psyche, but this regenerative work also carries with it the potential for saving the believer’s life on earth for a greater purpose. As referenced earlier in this research, two primary meanings of psyche in the New Testament are the individual’s inner self and their time spent on earth.20 The second of these two usages also has great relevance to this extremely important, yet frequently missed, aspect of the soul. This author believes there are at least four distinct instances in the New Testament where the soul refers to the believer’s physical life spent on earth (Matthew 16:24-27; Hebrews 10:39; James 1:21 and 1 Peter 1:9)21. The significance of this should not be overlooked. Specifically, James 1:21 is of particular relevance to the scope of this paper. James writes to his Jewish Christian audience, who is facing trials in life, “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” He calls them, as believers, to be impacted in a way that will allow the remainder of their lives to be redeemed for God’s purpose. At first glance, however, this text appears to promote a system of works-based salvation. This common misconception about the salvation of the soul leads to great confusion, for this conclusion would only be possible if the exegete interprets “save your souls” as synonymous with spirit-salvation, justification or going to heaven when a Christian dies. Robert Wilkin sheds some important light on the dangerous assumptions that result from ignoring the discipleship-context of this verse when he explains:

This verse certainly is confusing for the person who understands it as dealing with how a person obtains eternal salvation from hell. Note there are two conditions. The first is turning from one’s sins. This is moral reform. The second is receiving the word, which the following verses clearly show results in doing good deeds. Nowhere does this verse or the verses which follow state that we need to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ to obtain this “soul salvation.”22

In addition to Dr. Wilkin’s point, when the distinction between the human soul and spirit are lost, these two distinct entities of the believer’s personal make-up (soul & spirit) and God’s intended purpose in life for the believer are all falsely merged into one. In the end, significant damage to the proper interpretation and appropriate application of this text ensues. Thus, the importance of distinguishing the roles of the regenerate spirit and the progressively sanctified soul and earthly experience of the believer (which James 1:21 illustrates the latter two) should be evident to the observant exegete. Arlen Chitwood also elaborates on this important distinction exemplified in James 1:21:

The salvation of the soul, unlike the salvation of the spirit, is conditional. The salvation of the soul is dependent on the life one lives after his spirit has been saved. It is dependent on the individual allowing the Spirit of God to impart spiritual truth and control his life through his own spirit. An individual allowing the Spirit of God to impart spiritual truth and control his life progressively grows into a spiritually mature Christian. In this manner he exerts control over his emotions, feelings, and desires pertaining to his man-conscious (soulical) existence.23

Interestingly enough, within the immediate context, James 1:18 states, “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures.” This eternal truth is intentionally set against the backdrop of that which God, the Father, can only give to His children (in verse 17) — nothing less than good and perfect gifts. What does James present as the clearest proof of God’s omnibenevolent gift-giving? His gift of regeneration. From his commentary on the epistle of James, David Anderson’s thoughts are very insightful, “James teaches that salvation is an absolutely free gift from above.24 He almost sounds like John who said, ‘Marvel not that I say unto you, you must be born from above,’ in John 3:7. Anothen is usually translated ‘again’, but there is even more support for translating it ‘from above.’ John and James are saying the same thing. Salvation, eternal life, is one of God’s perfect gifts. It comes from above.” The conclusion from this interpretive information is that this birthing work of God within the believer’s life must be referring to something completely separate from soul salvation. There are two main reasons for this conclusion: 1) this regenerating work is exclusively based on God’s will, by means of His true word, completely apart from man’s effort or design and 2) being born from above took place in one complete or entire action in the past (aorist active indicative)25, not progressively in the present time. In contrast to this eternal salvation, the late New Testament scholar, Zane Hodges, expounds on the topic of soul salvation as he compares the broader context of the book of James with the analogy of faith throughout the New Testament:

Many readers and expositors have an automatic reaction to the phrase save your souls in English, which leads them to understand it as eternal salvation from hell.26 But none of James’s readers were at all likely to get such a meaning out of this text. The Greek phrase found here (sōsai tas psychas hymōn) was in common use in the sense of “to save the life.” It is used in both the Greek OT as well as in the NT in exactly that sense (see Gen 19:17; 32:30; 1 Sam 19:11; Jer 48:6; Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9). This is its obvious sense also in Jas 5:20, which refers to the physical preservation of a life from death. There is not a single place in the entire Greek Bible (i.e., the NT plus the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT) where this phrase signifies deliverance from hell.

Therefore, James implicitly yet decisively establishes the initial and positional salvation of the believer’s spirit (1:18), necessary for the secondary work of the soul’s experiential sanctification (1:21).

Once again, the distinction made between the human spirit and soul is essential for accurately unpacking James’ intended meaning and application concerning true soul salvation. Though many wrongly assign spirit salvation to James 1:21, it is vitally important to remember that when James uses the word “to save” or “salvation” (sozo or soteria), throughout his little letter, it has nothing to do with eternal salvation. Instead, it has everything to do with temporal, or earthly salvation, in the midst of trials (James 1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20). The right response to trials, James says, can help save a believer’s life or soul (psyche) for greater purpose and value here and now and into eternity future (1:12; 2:12-13; 3:1; 4:12; 5:20). Dr. Anderson summarizes the use of soul salvation in James 1:21, “If I were going to ask you what you were going to do with your life, you would know that by ‘life’ I mean the rest of your time on earth. Once we are born the countdown begins. The issue becomes whether we will ‘save’ our time on earth (our lives) for our own selfish purposes or if we will dedicate our time on earth (our lives) to seeking first the kingdom of God.”27 Thus, living a life of active, obedient faith on earth not only enhances the believer’s rich experience now, but will also result in eternal rewards later. The believer is saved eternally by faith alone, but his time on earth is saved for a greater purpose and eternal profit (opheilos — 2:14) by works. According to James, this is what soul salvation is all about.

Conclusion

The author of this paper is fully aware of the limited nature of this research on such a vast and relatively uncharted subject. Admittedly, this is only a shallow skimming of a theological topic that has incredible depth and correlation with numerous aspects of biblical and theological studies. As we have seen, the human psyche is the centerpiece of the progressive salvation process for the believer in Christ. This is based on an accurate understanding of the human soul’s essence, and the opportunity for the regenerated spirit to influence the soul for personal transformation and purposeful living. Thus, the soteriological development of the human psyche should not be seen as optional in nature, but rather as an essential theological underpinning to the believer’s unique person and purpose in experiential salvation. As the believer chooses to identify himself—his person or psyche—with his new spirit union with Christ—he is as God intends him to be: fully and freely living as one already created and called in Christ.

In order to accurately understand the author's intended meaning of Scripture, the Bible student and scholar must be committed to applying a literal (historical, grammatical, contextual) hermeneutic throughout the exegetical process. However, if this assertion is valid, one would also expect to find the application of this literal method within Scripture, utilized by the authors themselves. But do we? We must consider whether or not the human authors of Scripture also utilized this "plain-sense" hermeneutic for understanding previously written Scripture. Specifically, how did the New Testament authors interpret the original meaning of the Old Testament authors and their writings? Did they consistently apply a literal method of interpretation to Old Testament texts – discovering only one intended meaning? Or in isolated situations, did they revert to allegorizing certain passages – discovering multiple deeper meanings unintended by the Old Testament author? How does this affect the interpretive process of the modern exegete if the plain sense of the Old Testament text is not literally understood or conveyed by the New Testament author in part or at all? More specifically according to this author's theological convictions, the biblical text's singular meaning is a hallmark of Free Grace Theology (not to mention Dispensational Theology). If the authors of Scripture themselves understood a single passage to contain multiple interpretations, does this not undermine the very hermeneutical fabric upon which the Free Grace framework is built? The solution to this potential contradiction can be explained by a biblical understanding and application of sensus plenior within a sound hermeneutical framework. This paper will examine the definition, controversy and proper application of sensus plenior within the practice of Biblical hermeneutics.

Defining Sensus Plenior

The Latin term sensus plenior was first coined by Roman Catholic scholars and refers to the idea that a text of Scripture has a "fuller sense", or deeper meaning than the author intended. Many Protestants have also adopted this same basic usage of the term. In his book, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, Douglas J. Moo describes sensus plenior as "the idea that there is in many Scriptural texts a 'fuller sense' than that consciously intended by the author – a sense intended by God, the ultimate author of Scripture."1 Moo continues by stating, "It is this meaning, an integral part of the text, that is discerned and used by later interpreters who appear to find ‘new' meaning in Old Testament texts. This ‘new' meaning is, then, part of the author's intention – the divine author and not necessarily the human author."2 In other words, at various times, New Testament authors appear to understand a "new" and different meaning concerning an Old Testament text. When this takes place, there is sometimes little, if any, connection between the Old and New Testament meanings. Because of this, in his chapter "The Problem of Sensus Plenior", Moo points out that "Sensus plenior is used to refer to a meaning that cannot be demonstrated by means of traditional grammatical-historical exegesis."3 The result: the possibility of multiple meanings within a text. For example, when Matthew writes that young Jesus' protection from King Herod's murderous plans fulfills Hosea's words, "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hos. 11:1), did Hosea have more than one meaning in mind? After all, within the context, Hosea was not even referring to a future event. In fact, he was speaking of the past event when God delivered the Israelites from Pharaoh's tyranny in Egypt. Concerning the possibility of multiple meanings within a text, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard ask some pertinent questions about these two passages, "Did Matthew think that Hosea was speaking of Christ or did he just ‘make up' a new meaning he wanted to find in Hosea's text? Did Matthew convey or perhaps uncover a meaning the Holy Spirit intended even though Hosea was not aware of this meaning? How did Matthew arrive at his interpretation?"4 sensus plenior allows for both a single meaning intended by the original Old Testament author and the "fuller sense" of that meaning, discovered by the later New Testament writer.

As we define sensus plenior, there is also a key distinction that must be made from the related subject of typology. Whereas sensus plenior considers the fuller sense of words and their many applications within various scriptural contexts, typology focuses on corresponding patterns and principles between the Old and New Testaments, intentionally determined by God's progressive work.5 Moo sights this example, "The bronze serpent in the wilderness may be considered a ‘type' of Christ on the cross, but the application to Christ of Psalm 2:7 (‘you are my son') involves a ‘deeper sense' of the words themselves."6 Thus, when considering the text of Scripture, a biblical type (bronze serpent) and its antitype (Christ and the eternal life He offers) focus more on the extended meaning of a symbol, partially revealed to the Old Testament author and audience, but fully comprehended within the context of the New. Whereas sensus plenior deals with a completely hidden meaning in the Old Testament account, thereby allowing for a diverse and dynamic New Testament application that is understood apart from its original context. In other words, the meaning of a biblical type was partially revealed and perceived by the Old Testament author and audience, whereas sensus plenior was completely unrevealed in the Old Testament scripture itself but was utilized in the New to bring greater clarity for newly disclosed truth. Therefore, these Old Testament references in the New serve as visual aids or teaching tools in order for the early Christian hearers to embrace this previously hidden revelation about Jesus Christ – His identity and ministry (e.g. the epistle to the Hebrews contains a few explicit types, such as animal sacrifices and many uses of sensus plenior, as in the visual aid for Jesus' High Priestly ministry exemplified by the king-priest Melchizedek of Genesis 14).

However, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard's previous question must be answered, "How did Matthew arrive at his interpretation" of Hosea's original text?7 A serious consideration of this question, reveals an apparent contradiction inherent within the concept of sensus plenior. Thus, the honest Bible student must also confront the challenges surrounding this theological idea.

Controversy over Sensus Plenior

As we examine the controversy, we must understand that, at its very core, sensus plenior requires multiple meanings within a given text. Also, these hidden meanings cannot be uncovered through a historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Does the very possibility of sensus plenior undermine a literal method of interpretation within our study of the Scriptures? Does sensus plenior validate the New Testament authors' use of an allegorical method for interpreting Old Testament revelation, in place of a historical-contextual principle? If so, how are modern Biblical exegetes impacted by this principle? Some legitimate objections must be examined and adequately responded to, before we validate the use of sensus plenior in our own Biblical exegesis.

As was mentioned previously, Catholic scholars are credited with the conceptualization and specific implementation of sensus plenior. For this reason, considerable objections have been raised against sensus plenior due to its association with the Roman Catholic Church and its traditions. One such implementation by the Catholic Church is found within the concept of "accommodation." In short, this teaching requires the Biblical text to accommodate a specific Church application or tradition never intended by the original authors of Scripture. In other words, the Roman Catholic version of "accommodation" is simply another name for allegorizing Scripture. Reading multiple meanings into the text, thus, validates a specific application by forcing tradition into Scripture itself. As a result, the basis for this "accommodation" is portrayed as being divine authority, rather than human preference. Even the Roman Catholic scholar, Raymond Brown refutes this association between sensus plenior and Roman Catholic "accommodation" when he writes, "[The New Testament writers] certainly give no evidence that they are using the Scriptures in a sense not intended by God (accommodation); on the contrary, they make it clear that their spiritual meaning is precisely that meaning intended by God, but not realized by the Jews."8

Secondly, others object to how Roman Catholic scholars define the "revelation" on which sensus plenior must be based. This authoritative "revelation" becomes the supposed control against excessive allegorizing within the model of sensus plenior. However, as responsible as this defense mechanism might appear, we must ask, "What is actually included within this idea of ‘revelation?'" Concerning the Roman Catholic idea of "authority", necessary for sensus plenior, Douglas Moo comments, "For Brown and other Roman Catholics, this authority includes the church (the ‘magisterium') and the New Testament. The sensus plenior becomes very important, then, for Roman Catholics, in that it provides a way to justify through Scripture the development of Mariology and other such otherwise poorly supported theological concepts."9 In response to this objection, Moo continues by saying, "the sensus plenior approach is also very popular among Protestants – who, naturally, confine the ‘further revelation' on which a fuller sense can authoritatively be based on the New Testament."10 Therefore, it is very reasonable to accept sensus plenior as an accurate approach to understanding the New Testament author's hermeneutic when based solely on the text of Scripture, rather than on the tradition of a church.

A third objection to sensus plenior has been raised by those who believe that the New Testament was primarily an apologetic tool for the Jews to accept the claims of the newly formed church. Concerning this issue, Moo also says that some believe the New Testament authors would not have accepted a hidden meaning behind certain Old Testament texts because doing so would undermine any apologetic value within New Testament revelation. Would skeptical Jews of that day be open to accept this alleged "New revelation" if it was based on a re-defined understanding of their own sacred Scriptures?11 In reference to Hagner, Moo goes on to explain how this objection is refuted by one consideration. He believes that many uses of the Old Testament in the New are designed for the purpose of assuring the newly formed church and not primarily for creating an effective apologetic for the Jewish people. In fact, the relevance of the Old Testament was already assumed by early Christians.12 Though one aspect of the New Testament is apologetic in focus, it is significant primarily as the product of God's new revelation.

Finally, the most significant point for accepting or rejecting sensus plenior is whether or not it is complimentary and coherent to the doctrine of inspiration. In their classic work, A General Introduction to the Bible, Norman Geisler and William Nix give a good working definition of inspiration. They write, "Inspiration is that mysterious process by which the divine causality [God] worked through the human prophets without destroying their individual personalities and styles to produce divinely authoritative and inerrant writings."13 The conflict between sensus plenior and inspiration is based on the assertion that God, the divine author, "caused" His word to be communicated through the instrumentality of the human author, in order to bring about the divine product of Scripture. It is assumed, then, that these two separate entities (both divine and human authors) must have worked together in order for inspiration to have truly taken place. If this is so, it is argued, then the possibility that God embedded within Scripture a meaning unknown to the human author would be in contradiction to inspiration. To be sure, this "fuller sense" cannot be a part of the original text, they say, since the meaning of a text is determined exclusively by both the divine agent and human instrument, working in perfect unison towards the inspired product.

In response to this reasonable objection, we must keep in mind that even though God intentionally used the human authors of Scripture to communicate His intended meaning, in a specific and special way, they were still "instruments" useful only in the hand of the ultimate Author of Scripture. Raymond Brown supports this conclusion when he quotes Manuel de Tuya: "From the fact that God is using an instrument which is capable of knowledge, it does not follow that God can use this intelligent instrument only in as much as he [the human author] actually knows all that God wanted to express."14 The human author, as significant as he was by God's design for inspiration, could in no way limit God's "fuller sense" of meaning that would unfold throughout His progressive revelation. Unlike the human authors, God's intended meaning is timeless.

From these examples it is clear that the usual objections brought against sensus plenior, as reasonable as they may be, cannot be substantiated by sufficient biblical or rational evidence. Having examined the major controversies surrounding sensus plenior, we must consider whether or not the application of sensus plenior could bring greater accuracy and clarity in understanding problematic Old Testament texts in the New.

Applications of Sensus Plenior

As we have already noted, many examples in Scripture exist in which the later author appears to discover a "fuller sense" of meaning beyond what we can reasonably prove the original author fully intended or even partially understood. However, we have also concluded that a given text has only one intended sense perceived by its human author. How then does sensus plenior help resolve this apparent contradiction?

Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard explain the interpretive implication of sensus plenior in the following way: "Along with the literal sense intended by the human author, the Holy Spirit may encode a hidden meaning not known or devised at all by the human author."15 LaSor also comments, "Is it not possible for God to present to the author a revelation which by its very nature contains a deeper significance?". He opines, "But at a later date, in the light of further revelation, the fuller meaning becomes clear to readers under the influence of the Spirit who inspired the original author."16 Thus, whether this "hidden" meaning was encoded within the text itself or "in the light of further revelation", does this model of Holy Spirit influence upon certain New Testament authors not account for the fuller sense of an Old Testament text? In order to validate this conclusion, it must be applied to a text that is better understood by this principle of sensus plenior.

One of these problematic Old Testament passages, uniquely applied by a New Testament author is found in Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." To many, this is one of the most well know texts predicting the virgin birth and incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. And yet, when the student of Scripture comes to this interpretive conclusion, one must recognize that the reader is looking exclusively through Matthew's interpretive lenses (Matt. 1:23) instead of Isaiah's. Concerning the historical context of Isaiah's Messianic prophecy, Dwight Pentecost writes,

The kingdom of Judah was being threatened by a coalition of Israel and Syria. God sent Isaiah to bring King Ahaz of Judah a message of comfort. Isaiah promised that this coalition would fail and Judah would survive. The message was so important that God offered to confirm this promise to Ahaz…It was a sign of the virgin birth. This prophecy had a double reference. The word "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is a broad word that refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The prophecy was intended to convey to Ahaz the promise that before a young woman of marriageable age could be married, conceive, bear a son, and wean that son, Judah would be rid of her enemies. Thus, within about three years Ahaz would see the fulfillment of God's promise to him that the powers allied against Judah would fail.17

When we consider the original context of Isaiah's words, did he truly understand the "fuller sense" interpreted by Matthew, hundreds of years later in Matthew 1:23? Did Isaiah actually perceive that this prophecy was intended for more than just King Ahaz? Again, we must ask, "How did Matthew come to his understanding of Isaiah's original prophecy?" It is obvious, then, that based on the immediate context of Isaiah's Messianic prophecy, we can in no way conclusively verify that Isaiah knew to what extent his prediction would be fulfilled. And yet, to Matthew it was abundantly clear what God's divine intention was for these original words – the announcement of Messiah. A viable way that this author would explain this phenomenon is through the proper application of sensus plenior.

However, we must be clear. To whom does this "fuller sense" belong? Was it only the later human author's perceived meaning of a text? Or was it actually by the Divine Author, through the Holy Spirit's superintending work, that the human author arrived at his new application of the original interpretation? I believe the burden of proof within the context rests with the latter. Concerning the existence of sensus plenior, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard comment,

Only inspired NT writers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, could find a fuller sense. This position must still verify the existence of a deeper level of meaning in the Bible, even when it admits our inability to replicate what the NT writers did with the OT texts. In other words, that interpretive option is not available to us who are not inspired (in the technical sense) interpreters of the Bible."18 Included in their footnotes is a pertinent point wherein R.N. Longenecker "argues that we can reproduce the exegesis of the NT authors only where they employ historico-grammatical methods to understand the OT. We cannot replicate their methods since the NT writers' use of the OT depended upon the Holy Spirit's inspired analysis.19

In conclusion, this author believes the essence of sensus plenior, its controversy and proper application was relevant to the author, Peter, when he wrote, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Peter concurs, then, that for the human interpreter only God's intended meaning can truly be received from the text of Scripture, by means of a literal hermeneutic. In terms of a contemporary application, a consistent hermeneutic is significant to a Free Grace framework of Scripture because of its robust theological distinctives, built on a strong hermeneutical foundation of authorial intent. Such interpretive and theological Free Grace distinctives include the Church and Israel, the heavenly and earthly aspects of the Kingdom, a primarily doxological rather than a soteriological focus of biblical history and the essential difference between justification and sanctification – the free gift of salvation and the sacrificial reward of discipleship, just to name a few. However, it is also true that as the Divine Revealer of His Word, God alone had the prerogative to "move" His chosen authors in both the Old and New Testaments, in order to communicate the "fullest sense" that He intended, and this without bringing disruption or contradiction to the use of a literal method of understanding the intended meaning of any given Bible text. Therefore, we can conclude that the Biblical use of sensus plenior is not a function of mere human interpretation, but of divine application through progressive revelation. Thus, only available through and sourced in the Divine Author Himself. sensus plenior belongs, not to the interpreter, but to the Revealer.

If you read the articles on one Free Grace organization’s website, you might come away thinking that the Apostle John went around just quoting John 3:16 to everyone. But we know that would not be accurate when reading the whole counsel of God's Word. What do I mean? Well, in 1 Corinthians 15 the Apostle Paul clearly tells us the gospel he preached (see vv. 3-4, or more specifically vv. 3-5), and what's more, Paul says in verse 11 that this same gospel message was preached by all the apostles! Paul tells the Corinthians, "This is what we preach and this is what you believed." Paul is saying, this message that I just delivered to you in great detail (1 Cor 15:3-5), namely "the gospel," this is what we preach! Paul doesn't tell them John 3:16, is my point. I don't want to take anything away from John 3:16, and I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. Indeed, we most definitely should use John 3:16, but use it within the framework of the gospel.

First within the framework of its immediate context (John chapter 3), then within the framework of the Gospel of John, and then within the framework of the whole counsel of God's Word. I'm making the point that we shouldn't focus on Bible verses out of context; we shouldn't build an entire doctrine of salvation on one or two Bible verses ripped out of context. And why not? Because first of all, Jesus preached more than John 3:16 to Nicodemus. Read John chapter 3. Among other things, Jesus told Nicodemus about the new birth. Jesus said, "You must be born again." How is a person born again? What does the New Testament say about it? How are we born again? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:15 that we are born again "through the gospel"! So there again it goes back to the gospel that Paul has delivered to us in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. So we need to take into consideration the whole counsel of God's Word, not just proof-text Bible verses out of context.

Don't misunderstand, John 3:16 is very important to use! But to isolate it apart from the whole counsel of God's Word is not only poor Bible interpretation, it is mishandling the Scriptures. A group of Free Grace adherents claim to be especially "focused"; that's the mantra they use now. They've labeled themselves "Focused Free Grace". Well, that's sort of what they're doing actually, because they've focused in so closely on their favorite proof-texts (taken out of context) that they're "missing the forest for the trees"! John 3:16 was not the only thing Jesus shared with Nicodemus. By focusing in so closely on one particular Bible verse to the exclusion of others, they miss the surrounding context and the big picture: which is John chapter 3 (not just John 3:16). I describe this as "missing the forest for the trees."

This is a big problem and a prime example of what NOT to do, but sadly that's exactly what this particular group is doing in terms of their presentation of (or at least their definition of) what they call "the saving message". Their "saving message" is a text without a context. And as someone has famously said, "A text without a context is a pretext for error." So let that be a word of warning about “Focused Free Grace,” that it's not focused! Or if it is, it's not properly focused; it's misfocused. It's "missing the forest for the trees." To say it positively: we need to share the gospel clearly and completely.

Something else to notice in regards to their “saving message” that’s a warning sign, is that they're not even consistent according to their own beliefs. They say, "The Gospel of John," "The Gospel of John". Okay, let's look at the Gospel of John! In the Gospel of John we find much more than John 3:16; an entire chapter 3, right? And then expanding still farther to the Gospel of John in its entirety (not just one verse but the entire Gospel of John), we see something else very interesting, that Paul's gospel is clearly set forth in John's Gospel: Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and manifestation after his resurrection (see John chapters 20-21, cf. Acts 13:28-32; 1 Cor 15:3-5). The appearances of Jesus after His resurrection are actually highlighted by the Apostle John three times and form the climax of his book! (See John 20:19-21:14). The purpose statement of John's Gospel (John 20:30-31) is set in this context. In other words, John's Gospel is written from a resurrection perspective and with the end in view. This is completely consistent with the Apostle Paul's declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthains 15 and consistent with what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:11, that all the apostles preached the same gospel message: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Are you preaching this Good News? (Notice I said "Good News". It's not just good theology, it's Good News!) Are you preaching the Good News that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised, and was seen? The apostles preached it. In fact, according to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:11, all the apostles preached it! So if you're not preaching it then you're not preaching the apostolic gospel.

The “Focused Free Grace” crowd wants to focus exclusively on the Gospel of John (actually only on their favorite proof-texts in the Gospel of John). But what gospel did the apostle John preach? This is where it is very important to take into consideration what we know (or should know) from other passages in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:11), because what we find is that the Apostle John didn't just preach John 3:16, as important as it is. He preached the gospel recorded in 1 Corinthians 15. And that is the same gospel that is narrated in the Gospel of John! Are you preaching it? If not, you can start today. "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, today is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2b). D. L. Moody wisely said, "The closer we stay to the apostles' way of presenting the gospel, the more success we will have."

Although Piper’s book is titled What Is Saving Faith?, after reading it I would say that it should instead be titled: The Poetic Speculations of a Calvinist. I say this because Piper begins with his theological belief system of Calvinism and then looks for proof-texts to support it. Since the Bible does not teach Calvinism, Piper uses a contrived and complicated set of arguments to twist the Bible to line up with what he already believes. Piper’s method of Bible interpretation is not exegetical; he mainly just quotes the Puritan Reformed theologians and other Calvinists. What Is Saving Faith? is religious poetry, not exegesis! The thought that came to mind as I read Piper’s book is when the Bible says, “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2), “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7). It’s very revealing (though not surprising) that in the Introduction of his book: on the very first page, in the first few sentences, Piper appeals to “John Calvin” and a handful of other Calvinists before ever mentioning Jesus Christ or the Word of God! Piper even presses the issue by saying: “My perception is that millions of people who say they have saving faith would hear these voices as though they were a foreign language.” (p. 12). Yes, and I wonder why? Maybe it’s because those voices don’t accurately represent what the Bible teaches on the subject! Although Piper’s book is generally very weak biblically and exegetically, there were a few things that I appreciated about it: (1) Piper seems to be honest and forthright. (2) The book is well organized. (3) Piper attempts to answer some Free Grace objections (but not convincingly). (4) Piper’s definition of repentance is at times relatively good, in that he correctly distinguishes between repentance, which he identifies as a change of mind and heart, and the fruit of repentance, which is behavior change (pp. 241-249). (5) Piper presents a non-Calvinistic view of John 3:16 (p. 223). Commenting on John 3:16, Piper says: “This message is valid and this offer is sincere to every person on the planet.” Although this statement is true, it is quite baffling that Piper would say this considering his Calvinistic view of the Atonement (he believes in “Limited Atonement”), and also his views on predestination and election. After doing a little research, I found that the way Piper explains it is to say, “the reason this is so is that Christ purchased a full and complete and effective and eternal, infallible salvation for the bride of Christ, and everyone who believes [read: who is forced to believe] is part of that bride.” (Piper, “Isn’t Unlimited Atonement More Glorious Than Limited Atonement?” Desiring God website.) So in reality it’s double-talk: although Piper says John 3:16 is valid for everyone on the planet, he thinks it’s really only valid for the elect. (6) There are times when Piper almost sounds like a Free Grace advocate (pp. 206-207, 220-223). But beware lest he beguile you with his subtlety; he speaks with a forked tongue! For more information see the YouTube video titled: “John Piper Is a Wicked False Teacher”. (7) Piper does have several good illustrations in his book (pp. 17-18, 110). Unfortunately the weaknesses of Piper’s book far outweigh any positive aspects of it. Piper basically twists the Scriptures to conform to his Calvinistic presuppositions regarding saving faith, and if I were to give even a cursory response to each and every instance where Piper engages in this, my review would quite possibly be longer than the book itself! So in the interest of time, I will simply highlight some key examples that are representative of his views. Piper’s main premise in the book is that people have to treasure Christ in order to be saved. What exactly does Piper mean by this? Under the heading “Treasuring Is Not Just One Thing” (p. 18), Piper says: “I use the term treasuring Christ as my default summary expression of the affectional nature of saving faith” (p. 18). Piper goes on to explain: “When I say that treasuring Christ is my summary expression of the affectional nature of saving faith, I mean to imply that there are diverse affections in the nature of saving faith, not just one” (p. 19). A repeated theme throughout Piper’s book is that he attempts to read the idea of treasuring Christ into simple gospel invitations, such as when Jesus says, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Commenting on this, Piper says: “There is treasuring like the satisfying of hunger, because Christ is the bread of life” (p. 19). But how is that treasuring? That’s eating! To say that eating is “treasuring” is to write John’s Gospel, not interpret it. Piper is reading too much of his preconceived theology into the text. That’s eisegesis (reading one’s own theology into the biblical text), not exegesis (getting one’s theology out of the text). Piper goes on to say, “There is treasuring like the pleasure of quenched thirst, because Christ is the fountain of living water (John 4:10-11).” Piper concludes by saying, “So it is in the way Christ is received by saving faith” (p. 19). But notice that in both examples, wouldn’t the supposed “treasuring” be the result (not the means) of salvation? For hunger is not satisfied until after eating, and thirst is not quenched until after drinking. The eating and drinking correlate to saving faith; the satisfaction and quenching are the result of it. Piper is conflating the result (what he calls “treasuring Christ”) with the means: faith in Christ. Just to be clear, I’m not even saying that I agree that “treasuring Christ” is the result of salvation (although I would say it could be); I’m just pointing out that Piper’s reasoning is flawed. Amazingly, Piper actually goes on to admit that satisfaction and joy are the effects, not the means, of believing! Concerning this Piper says: “Believing is the heart’s coming to Jesus in such a way that the soul finds the end of its quest for satisfaction. I use the word satisfaction because, even though Jesus said his aim was their joy (John 15:11; 17:13), we don’t usually describe the EFFECT of water and bread as joy. We say of a cold drink on a hot day, ‘That was satisfying.’ That is the analogy Jesus used” (p. 203, emphasis added). I also want to point out that John 15:11 and John 17:13 are clearly in reference to believers, but that doesn’t stop Piper from front-loading these statements into his gospel to unbelievers. Examples of this type of Scripture-twisting abound in Piper’s book. To cite another example, Piper cleverly twists the meaning of the word “assurance” (Gr. hupostasis) in Hebrews 11:1. Piper takes it in the philosophical sense to mean “the same as”, or “the substance or reality of”. Commenting on Hebrews 11:1 & 12:2, Piper says: “What this means for our question is this: when we embrace a hoped-for joy by faith, that joy becomes a substantial element or dimension of our faith, because faith is the substance of things hoped for” (p. 170). Piper is trying to prove that “hoped-for joy” is a part of saving faith. To do this, Piper makes a future benefit (“hoped-for joy”) part of faith itself! Piper justifies it by saying that “faith is the substance of things hoped for.” But in this context faith is obviously the means, not the end. Commenting on Hebrews 11:1, the NT Greek scholar Henry Alford affirms: “There is no ground whatever for saying that our Writer [i.e. the writer of Hebrews] makes faith identical with hope. Faith is the ὑπόστασις [assurance] of ἐλπιζόμενα [things hoped for]: Hope exists independently of it, but derives its reality, and is ripened into confidence, by its means.” So once again, Piper is conflating or confusing the means with the end. Related to this Piper asks the question: “How can the substance of hoped-for joy not itself be joy?” (p. 119). Piper goes on to conclude: “Saving Faith Is the Substance of Hoped-For Joy” (p. 167). But let’s ask Piper’s question more accurately: “How can the hupostasis [assurance] of hoped-for joy [i.e. future joy] not itself be joy?” That’s what Piper is really asking. And my answer is simple: because believing something is different than the thing itself. Having faith in something is different than the thing itself. It’s like saying I believe you will give me $100, but that doesn’t mean I have $100! Maybe I will; maybe I won’t. It depends on how trustworthy the person is who promised it. But my point is: faith and the object of faith are two different things. The same is true if we define hupostasis to mean “title deed” (e.g. Robertson, Word Pictures). Faith is the title deed for the house, but the title deed is not the house. For example, if you lost the title deed you can request to get a replacement deed; you have not lost the house. You may have lost the title deed, but you have not lost the house (cf. Matt. 14:31; Mk. 16:14; Jn. 20:24-29; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:23). Another example of how Piper reads his preconceived theological viewpoint into the biblical text is when Piper says that “Jesus told a story to illustrate how it offends him when we fail to treasure him above the things of the world” (p. 20). Piper then quotes Luke 14:16-21, which is a parable that Jesus told about a certain man who gave a great banquet and invited many guests, but none of them wanted come to the banquet. They all made excuses. What’s interesting is that nowhere in the parable does Jesus ever say anything about “failing to treasure him above the things of the world”! Jesus never mentions “treasure”! But that doesn’t stop Piper from reading it into the text anyway; he retells the parable in his own words: adding in the word “treasure” three times! Piper concludes by saying, “But for those who would not treasure the Master, judgment falls: ‘I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet’ (Luke 14:24).” But this is a blatant example of eisegesis: reading one’s own preconceived theological bias into the text, not getting the meaning out of the text. Piper’s motto should be: “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t bother me with the facts.” The truth is, what Jesus emphasizes in the parable is the invitation to “come” (vv. 17, 20, 23). Herbert Lockyer in his classic book All the Parables of the Bible, says that “the real truth was, they did not want to go. They typify those Jews Jesus spoke of, ‘Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.’ [Jn. 5:40.]” This is the biblical reason why they did not come, and Piper completely misses it! Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of what Piper does throughout his entire book. He basically reads “treasure” into every gospel invitation. Regardless of what the Bible actually says, according to Piper we should just read into it the idea of “treasure”. If the biblical word is “believe”, we should read “treasure”. If the word is “receive”, we should read “treasure”. If the word is “come”, we should read “treasure”. The same is true in regards to repentance. Although Piper does say some things that are true concerning biblical repentance, he unfortunately puts it all under the heading: “Repentance Is the Reversal of What We Treasure”. Piper knows that this is not the true meaning of the biblical word for repentance (Gr. metanoia), because he goes on to give the actual meaning correctly several pages later when he says: “Repentance is the change of mind and heart moving from unbelief to belief” (p. 249). Unfortunately he embellishes that definition, which is typical of Reformed theologians. Piper repeatedly confuses Christian-life truth with how to be born again (pp. 122-126, 140-141, 155-162, 167-169). And similarly, Piper conflates salvation with discipleship in his attempt to prove that saving faith means receiving Christ as our supreme treasure. This is a common error among Reformed theologians. For example, commenting on Matthew 10:37, Luke 14:33, and Philippians 3:8 (which are clearly describing discipleship/Christian-life truth), Piper says: “This book is an argument that such texts are describing dimensions of saving faith” (p. 21; cf. pp. 31, 69, 145, 146, 160, 229-234). This is interesting, especially because Piper also says: “Experience teaches us to probe for distinctions” (p. 17). In light of this statement one wonders why Piper does not probe for the distinction between salvation and discipleship? It’s unfortunate that he completely misses this biblical distinction because it would clear up a lot of his false teaching on the gospel. Indeed, the apostle Paul instructs believers in exactly this duty when he says, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). Piper misrepresents Lewis Sperry Chafer in regards to Chafer’s view of repentance (p. 31). Piper quotes Chafer’s statement, “The New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition for salvation” (Systematic Theology, vol. 3, p. 376). But Piper is taking Chafer’s statement quite out of context. When Chafer’s statement is read in context (and in light of his other statements on repentance), his statement should be understood to mean: “The NT does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a [separate] condition for salvation” in addition to faith in Christ: because repentance is included in believing. This is what Chafer believed and taught. For more information and specific quotes see my article titled “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians” (FGFS, May 28, 2021). See under the heading: “Lewis Sperry Chafer”. Piper likewise misrepresents Charles Ryrie on repentance (p. 31). Piper says that “The Ryrie Study Bible calls repentance a ‘false addition to faith’ when made a condition of salvation”. The truth is, what Ryrie actually says is just the opposite! Ryrie begins by affirming: “Repentance. This is a valid condition for salvation when understood as a synonym for faith.” Then Ryrie goes on to say: “It is a false addition to faith when understood as a prerequisite, requiring the cleansing of the life in order to be saved.” (Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible [Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1978], p. 1950.) Piper is twisting Ryrie’s statement and taking it quite out of context! Rightly did the apostle Paul warn of false teachers such as Piper, who “by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting” (Rom. 16:18). What Piper does in his book is that he basically says that saving faith will have “virtuous affections” in it or else it’s not genuine saving faith. The virtues required by Piper in order for a person to get saved are the following; viz. a person’s faith must have at least some or all of the following: holiness, goodness, delight, gladness, happiness, love, joy, admiration, adoration, treasuring, cherishing, satisfaction, thankfulness, revering, and the list goes on and on (pp. 12, 34, 47, 51, 70, 85-86, 117-119, 179-188, 253, etc.). Piper calls these “virtuous affectional elements” (pp. 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55). According to Piper’s view, these are not additions to faith but “faith itself includes virtuous affectional elements” (p. 47). Piper is quick to point out however, that these are not the ground of our justification. But he says that if faith doesn’t have these elements then it’s not saving faith. But what does the Bible say? According to 2 Peter 1:5-9, the apostle Peter instructs believers to “add to your faith virtue, to virtue, knowledge, to knowledge, self-control, to self-control, perseverance, to perseverance, godliness, to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, love” (vv. 5-7). Thus it’s clear that these virtues are distinct from faith itself. For if they are to supplement or to be added to faith then they are obviously distinct from faith itself. These virtues are clearly the fruits of faith, not faith itself. Peter affirms this when he goes on to say in the very next verse, “For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful” (v. 8), obviously implying that faith itself can be “useless” and “unfruitful”. Piper’s view is in contrast to this. Piper says that faith is not genuine saving faith if it does not include these virtues. But as the apostle Paul says, “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Piper has a false view of saving faith because it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture: that faith can be “useless” and “unfruitful”. That doesn’t mean it’s not faith; that just means it’s not “fruitful”. The corollary to this is that Piper’s view of saving faith is in reality salvation by virtue. Because although he says that these virtues are not the ground of our justification (thus he can claim that his view is distinct from Roman Catholicism), yet in his view these virtues must still be there for salvation to occur. So it’s double-talk. The bottom line is that according to Piper, a person can’t be saved if they don’t have these virtues. That’s salvation by virtue however you look at it. Apparently seeing the obvious conflict with justification by faith alone, Piper is quick to say: “Such faith does not undermine justification by faith alone, because God does not have respect to any virtuousness of the affectional aspects of faith [then why does Piper require it?], but only to faith as ‘uniting us to Christ,’ who is the sole ground of our right standing with God” (p. 54). But Piper’s statement is merely equivocation, because he still requires some or all of these virtues for salvation. How are we to take such tortuous reasoning seriously? In order to preempt the obvious objection, Piper presents a straw-man argument related to Romans 4:5, saying: “The fact that faith may have an affectional dimension does not prove that justification then would be by works, or on the basis of our virtue” (pp. 52-53). But actually it does prove that justification would be on the basis of our virtue if the Bible distinguishes between faith and the “virtuous affectional elements” (i.e. the spiritual fruit): which it does (see 2 Pet. 1:5-9; cf. Gal. 5:22). Piper is a legalistic fruit inspector, so much so, in fact, that he has now made it an up-front condition for justification! But notice that Piper merely says “that faith MAY have an affectional dimension” (emphasis added). This admission by Piper disproves the entire premise of his book which is that (as he has stated), “for trust to be saving, it MUST be a treasuring trust” (p. 59). So which is it? The Bible says, “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8). Piper also promotes the Lordship Gospel (pp. 29-34, 67, 153, 285). Piper says saving faith is “demanding” (p. 37). Piper redefines faith (pp. 59, 90, 134). Piper says: “I do not discount or diminish the importance of real allegiance to King Jesus. No one will be saved without it” (p. 85). Piper says he read John MacArthur’s The Gospel According to Jesus, “like a miser finding gold” (p. 30). Piper says, “I could scarcely put it down for joy” (p. 30). Someone please tell Piper that “not all that glitters is gold”! “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Lewis Sperry Chafer has well said: “Satan’s life-purpose is to be ‘like the Most High’ (Isa. 14:14), and he appears ‘as an angel of light,’ and his ministers ‘as the ministers of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:13-15). His ministers, being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone, unrelated to any human virtue.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, 1918 Edition, p. 101.) Piper argues that the biblical terms faith, belief, and trust are inadequate and ambiguous (pp. 17-18). Piper says that these terms “contain ambiguities that need clarification” (p. 18). Piper says this because these biblical terms do not line up with Piper’s requirements for salvation. So Piper has to clarify the biblical terms, which means that he needs to infuse them with his so-called “virtuous affectional elements” added in to faith itself. It’s very clever though, because by redefining faith to include virtues such as love, and joy, and delight, Piper can still claim that salvation is “by faith alone”. Of course, it is “faith alone” in name only, but it gives a veneer of legitimacy to Piper’s twisting of Scripture. 

Piper is a modern-day Pharisee & a self-righteous legalist (cf. Lk. 15:1-10). This becomes evident when Piper describes how, over the course of forty years, he has talked with hundreds of different people in his inner-city neighborhood, and he basically says in so many words that his neighbors are not good enough to be saved! Piper says: “One of the reasons I am writing this book is that many people ‘receive Christ’ as a sin forgiver [!] because they treasure being guilt-free, not because they treasure Christ. Many people receive him as a rescuer from hell [!] because they treasure being pain-free, not because they treasure Christ. […] I have spoken to hundreds of people in this neighborhood about Christ. And I think I could count on one hand the number of people who have denied Christ. They have all ‘received him.’ Chronically drunk people have received him. Drug dealers have received him. Prostitutes have received him. This kind of ‘receiving’ of Christ is not a joy that I celebrate; it is a heartache that I bemoan” (p. 139). This I find interesting because the Bible says that the angels in heaven rejoice when people like this get saved (Lk. 15:7, 10), yet Piper says he bemoans it! The truth is, no one is good enough to be saved! The Bible says, “all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). Yet Piper makes it sound like people have to clean up their lives in order to be saved. But if we could be good enough then we wouldn’t need Christ, for “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing” (Gal. 2:21). Piper goes on to say that Christ is a reward (p. 162). Piper says heaven is a “reward” (p. 176). Piper says final salvation is a “reward” (pp. 177). Piper says “never thirsting again” (from John 7:37-38) is a “reward” (p. 202). Piper implies that we buy salvation (pp. 143-146); he tries to explain it away by saying, “The point is not that you can buy Christ” (p. 145). Yet that is the logical conclusion of what Piper says. Elsewhere Piper overtly teaches works-salvation (p. 146); he twists the words of Jesus in Luke 18:22 about discipleship and applies them instead to salvation. Notice what Piper says: “In other words, if you value me [Jesus] enough to open your money-grasping fist and let the money fall from your hand onto the poor and put your hand in mine as your new treasure, you will indeed have a treasure forever in heaven—me. But if you value your possessions more than me, you won’t have me or eternal life” (p. 146). Apparently the unsaved must now give to the poor in order to have eternal life! How contrary to the biblical truth that says, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Piper is a Calvinist, and it comes through loud and clear in his book. For example: Piper teaches that regeneration precedes saving faith (pp. 26, 38, 127, 128, 131, 135, 157). This is a typical belief among Calvinists. Related to this Piper says, “You cannot decide not to see” (p. 157). Notice the double-negative in Piper’s statement. Piper is saying: God makes a person see; God forces a person to see. God regenerates them apart from the person having anything to do with it. In Piper’s view, when an unsaved person sees (spiritually), it is not something they do (i.e. it is not them believing): God makes them see, and according to Piper that is regeneration. And in Piper’s view regeneration precedes saving faith. But what Piper fails to mention is that a person can decide not to see! A person can close their eyes to the Light. A person can choose not to come to the Light. For example, in John 12:20-21 some Greeks came to Philip and said, “We wish to see Jesus.” Why didn’t others come? It is because as Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, “you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” (Jn. 5:40). Conversely, when Philip found Nathaniel and told him about Jesus, and Nathaniel said, “Can anything good be from Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:45-46), Philip said to him, “Come and see” (Jn. 1:46). And thus it is a volitional choice. Piper even admits: “Decisions are doable” (p. 252). Piper appeals to 1 John 5:1 as his proof-text that regeneration (being born-again) precedes faith. Piper quotes John R. Stott as an authority on the subject, but Stott is simply another Calvinist. Quoting another Calvinist is unconvincing; and furthermore, what he says does not prove the point. For more information on Piper’s interpretation of 1 John 5:1 and my response to it, see my article: “Does Regeneration Precede Faith?” (FGFS, July 14, 2022). Piper says saving faith is a gift of God, which is another typical belief among Calvinists (pp. 16, 25, 38, 78, 121, 127, 128, 131, 135, 164-165). But as Daniel Wallace has noted: “If faith is not meritorious, then it is not a gift per se.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 335, note 53.)  Piper says that “Saving faith is not a work—not an act of the will” (p. 121). Piper denies that there is any human responsibility involved in saving faith (p. 157). This is the Calvinistic doctrine of “Total Inability”. We can of course agree that saving faith is not meritorious and that it is distinguished from a good work (Rom. 4:4-5), but it is an act of the will: every time the verb believe occurs in the Gospel of John, it’s in the Greek active voice (not the passive voice), which means that the subject does the action; the individual believes! If what Piper is saying is true, the verb believe would be in the Greek passive voice: meaning that the subject is acted upon (this is the Calvinistic view of saving faith), yet this is never true of the verb believe in John’s Gospel. Norman Geisler points out how in the Garden of Eden after the Fall, though Adam and Eve were spiritually dead, they were nonetheless capable of hearing God’s voice and responding to God. For more information, see Geisler’s YouTube video titled: “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”. Piper also promotes the Calvinistic doctrine of “The Perseverance of the Saints” (pp. 121, 137, 141). Piper’s method of Bible interpretation is a complex guessing game. Piper mainly quotes other Calvinists to prove or support his points, not primarily the Scriptures (pp. 57ff, 127, 135, 159, etc.). Thus it’s not surprising when Piper says: “Let’s start with John Calvin.” (p. 60). But quoting John Calvin and other Calvinists is not biblical exegesis (pp. 11, 31, 50-55, 60-71, 188, etc.). At times Piper seems to elevate these men on par with the Scriptures and even like unto God Himself! Such as when Piper says, “[Andrew] Fuller’s insight is foundational to my argument in this book. It is the light that guides us along” (pp. 54). That’s interesting because I always thought that the Bible was the light! “The entrance of Thy Word brings light” (Psa. 119:130). Piper goes on to say: “Andrew Fuller…became my guide” (p. 55). This is an alarming statement. Piper almost sounds like a necromancer channeling Andrew Fuller! Thus it’s not surprising to see how Piper puts an undue emphasis on a certain analogy presented by Fuller in which a mariner’s compass is used to explain saving faith. So once again Piper doesn’t present any biblical basis for his beliefs, just a quote about a compass! How are we as Bible-believing Christians to take this seriously? The Apostle Paul’s concern was: “For what does the Scripture say?” (Rom. 4:3; cf. Gal. 4:30). Where in the Bible do we ever find a mariner’s compass used to illustrate saving faith? I think nowhere. By way of contrast, the illustrations that we do see in the Bible that are used to picture saving faith are not that of a compass but rather are figures of speech such as: Receive (Jn. 1:12), Look (Jn. 3:14-15), Drink (Jn. 4:10, 14; 7:37), Come (Jn. 5:40, 6:35; 7:37), Enter (Jn. 10:9), and Eat (Jn. 6:54, 57). Piper’s compass illustration is actually self-refuting in that even Fuller admits: “whatever other properties faith MAY possess, it is as receiving Christ and bringing us into union with Him, that it justifies” (p. 52). Notice that Fuller didn’t say that saving faith must possess any other properties, but only that it “may”. This is a telling admission and it basically pokes a hole in Piper’s entire argument because it points out (no pun intended) that all that really matters in terms of saving faith is not whether it has any particular “affectional virtues” (as Piper says), but rather the key issue is simply “receiving Christ”! The Apostle John could scarcely have been clearer when he wrote: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (Jn. 12:12, NASB 95). What I noticed throughout Piper’s book is that he repeatedly makes pronouncements but does not provide biblical exegesis to support his claims (pp. 149, 153, 193, 207, etc.). Piper often uses very flowery and at times almost nonsensical language to make his points; his book abounds in pseudo-biblical profundity (e.g. p. 151). Piper’s method of Bible interpretation consists mainly of assumptions (p. 18), guesses (p. 210), and conjecture (p. 230), not biblical exegesis: “a more exegetically thorough foundation [is needed]” (p. 34). Notice what Piper says: “Let’s start with John Calvin” (p. 60). Piper goes on to say, “we will be able to share the good news in simple and comprehensible ways with unbelievers” (p. 65). But then in the very next sentence Piper says, “In this spirit, I cite Witsius’s eight facets of saving faith”! Piper then spends the next several pages explaining Witsius’s eight facets of saving faith, during which time he does not quote more than a single Bible verse (2 Thess. 2:10), but rather, he waxes eloquent upon the words of his Puritan divine. How any of this is “simple and comprehensible” is mind-boggling. Piper also attempts to bolster his view by asking a loaded question saying, “how can this sight of the believer not be a treasuring, cherishing, admiring sight?” (p. 111). The “loaded question” is actually a logical fallacy, and is described as follows: “Loaded question, sometimes called a ‘complex question’, is a type of logical fallacy – an error in reasoning or a trick of thought used as a debate tactic. […] The loaded question fallacy is a question containing an implicit assumption – that is unverified or controversial”. Piper’s complex guessing game of Bible interpretation continues: “In other words” (p. 146), “[this] makes it extremely unlikely” (p. 154), “these verses lead us to think that Paul would say” (p. 154). More assumptions follow, such as Piper’s “four steps” to misinterpret Hebrews 11:24-27 (pp. 160-162). Piper’s guessing game continues as he surmises that “it is fair to say” (p. 160), “[such and such] makes it likely” (p. 161), “the answer seems obvious” (p. 164), “It also seems obvious” (p. 164), “Does it not seem, then….” (p. 181). Piper continues to build his case on inferences and assumptions: “verse 12 suggests” (p. 182), “I am suggesting” (p. 184), “the pointers are there” (p. 186), “Jesus hinted….” (p. 187), “He could have said…” (p. 187), “There is a hint in Matthew 24:12” (p. 188): thus in Piper’s view the meaning of saving faith is apparently a complex puzzle that we must piece together with hints! Piper actually says: “Paul is the one who puts the pieces together in the fullest way” (p.188). Piper’s unorthodox method of Bible interpretation continues in that he strangely appeals to 1 John before the Gospel of John when defining saving faith (p. 189), and he reads his preconceived theological ideas into the biblical text when he writes: “I am saying that saving faith is a composite of different ways that the born-again soul receives Christ. And one of those ways of receiving him is to receive him as superior to everything that makes God’s commandments difficult. John calls this faith” (p. 193). No, John doesn’t call that faith; Piper calls that faith. Piper just inserted his Calvinistic presuppositions into the biblical text. That’s not called faith; it’s called eisegesis! Piper goes on to say concerning the Gospel of John: “Here we find the more [or most] straightforward statements about the affectional dimensions of believing than we find anywhere else in the Bible” (p. 197). But then Piper curiously says: “I do not know with certainty what John was trying to tell us [in his Gospel]” (pp. 197-198). No doubt this has to do with the fact that John’s Gospel doesn’t fit into Piper’s Calvinistic belief system. Piper goes on to once again read his preconceived theological viewpoint into the biblical text when he says: “the desiring heart turns from…one treasure to another. This is the movement implied in the heart’s coming” (p. 207). Piper says it’s “implied” because it’s not actually in the text. It’s not implied; it’s misapplied! An example of Piper’s poetic nonsense is seen when he says: “the soul’s movement is the awakening of desire for the received. That desire is the motion of the soul” (p. 210). Observing “Piper’s pink prose – [his] flowery, ambiguous, and suspiciously pious [language],” one reviewer of Piper’s writings highlighted the dangers involved by saying: “The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology. The music is gay; it will lead you astray: Beware the Pied Piper.” (John W. Robbins, “Pied Piper”, The Trinity Foundation.) More guessing games from The Pied Piper of Calvinism: “I would venture a guess” (p. 210), “What you have just read is my guess” (p. 210), “there is good reason to think….” (p. 230), “There is no reason to think….” (p. 230), “I think Paul’s response to that would be….” (p. 238). Ironically, Piper admits that “for people of integrity, reality governs language choices” (pp. 224-225), but he subtly advocates that Christians need to use “New Language” in evangelism (p. 227). Piper twists the objective truth of redemption by Christ’s “precious blood” (1 Pet. 1:18-19) into a sort of postmodern subjective experience of loving it and treasuring it (p. 286). Whereas in reality, faith is simply accepting something as true (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4-5). A major premise of Piper’s book is that he says that saving faith must include love (pp. 179-188). Piper bases this largely on 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. For a detailed review of Piper’s view on this, see my article: “Must Saving Faith Include Love?” (FGFS, June 11, 2022). Piper says that people have to love the gospel to be saved (pp. 180-181). But Piper’s own illustration about the lecherous brain surgeon (p. 18) disproves his entire premise that trust implicitly includes love, because someone can trust a lecherous brain surgeon without loving him. And this is not just my conclusion, Piper admits this himself! Piper says: “experience teaches us that it is possible, even necessary at times, to trust a person with our lives whom we neither love, nor admire, nor even want to be around.” Piper’s admission highlights the fact that the word trust does not inherently include love. Piper also admits that certain “respected brothers” personally told him that they “were concerned that what I am saying may obscure or even contradict the precious doctrine of justification by faith alone” (p. 22, footnote 11). Gresham Machen and Wayne Grudem (both Reformed theologians!) also push back against Piper’s view of saving faith (pp. 71-73). Some noticeably absent Bible verses nowhere to be found in Piper’s book include the following: Isa. 64:6; Jn. 3:17; Jn. 5:40; Jn. 6:40; Jn. 14:6; Jn. 14:15; Jn. 20:31; Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16-17; Rom. 3:10; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 6:23; Rom. 10:17; Rom. 11:6; 1 Cor. 15:4; Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:15.

Bob Wilkin says that in order for a lost person to be saved, they must interpret the phrase "eternal life" to mean specifically "eternal security".[1] This is the correct interpretation and understanding of "eternal life" according to Bob Wilkin. But besides the fact that he is turning the result of saving faith into the required content of that faith, there is another glaring problem with Wilkin's reasoning. As Lewis Sperry Chafer has said, "The man who refuses to believe anything that he does not understand will have a very short creed"![2] Wilkin's attitude in regards to understanding eternal security up front for salvation reminds me of the three young men in the following story, which illustrates the point well:

'I will not believe anything but what I understand,' said a self-confident young man in a hotel one day. 'Nor will I,' said another. 'Neither will I,' chimed in a third. 'Gentlemen,' said one well known to me, who was on a journey, and who sat close by, 'do I understand you correctly, that you will not believe anything that you don't understand?' 'I will not,' said one, and so said each one of the trio. 'Well,' said the stranger, "in my ride this morning I saw some geese in a field eating grass; do you believe that?' 'Certainly,' said the three unbelievers. 'I also saw the pigs eating grass; do you believe that?' 'Of course,' said the three. 'And I also saw sheep and cows eating grass; do you believe that?' 'Of course,' was again replied. 'Well, but the grass which they had formerly eaten, had, by digestion, turned to feathers on the backs of geese, to bristles on the backs of swine, to wool on the sheep, and on the cows it had turned to hair; do you believe that, gentlemen?' 'Certainly,' they replied. 'Yes, you believe it,' he rejoined, 'BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?' They were confounded and silent, and evidently ashamed, as they well might be.[3]

A lost person can believe the words of Jesus that "whosoever believes in Me should not perish, but have eternal life" (Jn. 3:16) without fully understanding the concept of "eternal life", much less interpreting it as specifically "eternal security"! If a man is drowning and I thrown him a life raft, assuring him that I will pull him to safety if he grabs hold of it, must the drowning person understand the intricacies of the life raft's design and how it floats, or does he simply trust the person to save him? Wilkin is essentially making understanding the life raft a requirement to be saved, when Jesus says rather to simply "believe in HIM" – that is, to simply believe in His person and work!

Endnotes:

1. See the Grace Evangelical Society's "Affirmations of Belief" web page under the heading "What We Believe – Fuller Statement", where it says the under the sub-heading "Assurance of Salvation": "Assurance is of the essence of saving faith. That is, if a person has never been sure that he personally is eternally secure by faith alone, then he has never been regenerated. Assurance is always present at the moment of saving faith, though it is possible that a Christian may later doubt his salvation." ("Affirmations of Belief," emphasis added. https://faithalone.org/beliefs/) Note: Bob Wilkin is the founder and Executive Director of the Grace Evangelical Society.
2. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), vol. 1, p. 75.
3. "Believing, But Not Understanding," Good News, November 2, 1868, no page number. www.google.com/books/edition/Good_news/wBoFAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PP321&printsec=frontcover (accessed January 4, 2023).

Larry, Lisa, Tom, Tiffany, Ellen, and Emil may sound like six people, but they are only three. Each male name matches up to a female name because Larry IS Lisa, Tom IS Tiffany, and Emil IS Ellen. They are 3 people who believe they are the other gender. In our postmodern world, your sex is what you are born with, but your gender is what you determine it to be or what you feel it is. According to contemporary gender ideology, the word “sex” is restricted to just the biological, while “gender” describes the social aspects of sex: how a person feels and experiences his or her sexual identity and how it is shaped by culture.

Transgender people typically change their names, pronouns, and appearance to present as the opposite sex. Many obtain puberty-blocking drugs, opposite-sex hormones, use makeup and clothing as well as surgeries to remove or alter healthy organs in order to copy those of the opposite sex.

How does a local church respond to this phenomenon of perceived gender fluidity? Specifically, how does it best treat families whose adult son or daughter is struggling with this disorder? In order to better understand the landscape, it is helpful to define some terms. Some of these terms come from the GID community, but it’s beneficial for us to know their definitions.

• Transgender – general term for those who believe their “true” gender is different from what they were born with.
• Transsexual – term for those who are seeking (or who have completed) sex reassignment through surgery, hormones, and other means.
• Transvestite (cross dresser) – used to refer to heterosexual men who sometimes wear clothes, makeup, and accessories culturally associated with women. Cross-dressers do not wish to permanently change their sex or live full-time as women.
• Gender Identity Disorder/Gender Dysphoria – Older and newer terms for diagnosis of distress that accompanies the incongruence between one’s assigned gender and the perception of one’s gender. Used by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual For Mental Disorders.
• Gender/Sex Reassignment – The process by which a person attempts to change their sex to match their perceived gender. Done by means of hormone treatments, surgeries, cosmetics, and clothing.
• Gender Queer – One who does not see oneself as male or female; perhaps having a state of fluidity on a continuum between male and female.
• Gender Binary – Seeing male and female as exclusive categories of gender. Basing one’s gender on one’s sex.
• Cisgender - refers to anyone who identifies as and is comfortable with his/her sex assigned at birth. Cis in Latin means “on the side of.”

In recent years, the transgender movement has argued that the binary system of either male or female does not include everyone. Sex should be treated as a continuum. They have used the presence of those suffering from a sexual development condition known as “intersex” as the basis for their theory of Gender Dysphoria. Intersex people (formerly known as hermaphrodites) have a true physical genetic developmental condition where their genitals are ambiguous or clearly conflict with their chromosomal makeup. This phenomenon is extremely rare, occurring in about 2 of 10,000 births. The vast majority of “transgender” persons are not intersexed.

The Cause & Context

Gender Identity Disorder’s (or GID) cause is difficult to determine, but many people with this condition have experienced childhood trauma, abuse, loss, and family disruption. Transgender activists do not see this as a disorder, but as diversity. However, the desire to remove it as a psychiatric disorder conflicts with the need to have it categorized as such so there can be a medical diagnosis leading to insurance coverage for medical procedures and treatment to complete one’s ‘transition’.

In order to develop an accurate response to families in our churches who have a loved one struggling with GID, it is helpful to begin to understand their stresses. The families’ emotions can range from anger to deep sadness and disappointment to shame. People with GID experience many accompanying issues such as personality disorders, suicidal ideation, self-mutilation, schizophrenia, psychotic disorders, and pathological narcissism. They are also more likely to participate in high risk behavior such as the sex industry, drug use, and promiscuity. People who go through the “transition” process are also prone to many medical issues and setbacks such as infections, unsatisfactory results, and deep regret. The deep sadness that the families experience is fueled by their offspring’s GID and accompanying emotional disabilities.

A Christ-like Answer

The person with GID is experiencing a perception that is contradictory to scripture and science, but nonetheless, they insist it is true.

“Having other people refuse to accept that they have changed to the other sex is painful, but that does not obligate society to participate in their fantasy, as feminist Janice Raymond points out: What I do accept is that men and some women who undergo transsexual surgery are terribly alienated from their bodies, so alienated that they think little of mutilating them. I accept the fact that transsexuals have suffered an enormous amount of psychical and emotional pain. But I don’t accept the fact that someone’s desire to be a woman, or a man, makes one a woman or man. Or that the instrumentality of hormones and surgery creates a real woman or man. …Transsexualism urges us to collude the falsification of reality …our suspension of disbelief is required as a moral imperative. 1 Terri Webb was a transgender activist who came to recognize the contradictions inherent in transgender rights. Webb notes, “Looking back over the last ten years of my activism I feel that I am looking at an unsuccessful attempt to get others to legitimize my fantasy… The question we should now be asking ourselves is whether we have the right to pretend to be women, not what ‘rights’ the rest of the world should give us in order to go along with our fantasy.” 2

In order to develop a Christ-like response, the local church has to recognize this dichotomy of truth vs, experience, but still proceed with respect, love, and truth. The personal relational character of Christ gives us a path forward. John 1:14 tells us that Christ is full of “grace and truth”. Christ is not just one or the other, of equal parts of each, but completely full of both. He is 100% gracious, merciful, kind, gentle, and compassionate. But with no conflict or contradiction, He is also full of truth, justice, and objectivity. Our Savior comfortably straddles the seeming contradictions of both important values. As a result, the biblical response of other Christians to their brothers and sisters who are struggling with their children’s struggles must mirror the relational style of Jesus Christ. The extremes of acceptance/validation (incomplete grace) and condemnation (incomplete truth) need to be intentionally and thoughtfully rejected.

The Biblical Response

Jesus frequently showed compassion to those who were sick, blind, lame, or hungry (Matthew 9:35-38, 46, 14:14, 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; Luke 7:12-15). Of course, these afflictions are involuntary and His merciful reaction is universally understandable and applauded. Is GID an affliction or a voluntary subjective, perception? Given the possible experiences of abuse, family disruption, and trauma amongst GID sufferers, grace must be extended to the GID person himself as well as the family. To some extent, they are victims. Jesus also extended mercy to those who voluntarily sinned. The best examples of this category would be the woman caught in adultery in John 8:2-11. Jesus was teaching in the temple courts and the Pharisees brought in the woman. They proclaimed to Jesus that she was caught in the very act and repeated the Law that required stoning for an adulteress. John observed that they were using the scenario to trap and accuse him. Jesus proceeded to write what was believed to be their sins in the soil and said, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” until they all sulked away. Jesus did not condemn her, but He did judge her. He told her to stop sinning. He called her a sinner. Jesus is full of grace and truth. He navigated between those two hard values: mercy and justice.

Another example of poor decision making that resulted in mercy was the parable of the Prodigal Son. Of course, both sons were sinful, albeit in very different ways, but only one was sorrowful. The son who ran away and suffered was the one who was received back with open arms. The son who left experienced hard truth, but also efficacious grace. The other son never left, but seemed bitter and judgmental. His father corrected him, but he had to live with himself.

Other scriptures point us in the right direction on how to respond to the GID person himself and/or to the parents of a GID person. First, a focus on benevolent truth is essential:

• If the GID person is a Christian, meaning he has placed his faith alone in Christ alone for the forgiveness of his sin, then his primary identity is in Christ (Galatians 2:20-1, 3:28-9; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 3:9-10) and not in his maleness or femaleness (Galatians 3:28-29). This should be the source of ultimate contentment and satisfaction. It is the pathway to healing. The Christian should accept the authority and finality of the Bible and there is no place in scripture that encourages the changing of one’s sex; which is an impossibility due to the fact that one cannot change his chromosomal makeup. Scripture is clear that God only created two sexes/genders and He declared them to be good. They are male and female.
• If the GID person is not a Christian, they are lost, but not any more lost than a non-GID person. The gospel needs to be shared. It is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Romans 5:8 states it beautifully: “But God demonstrated His love to us in this, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” By simple faith in Christ, one can have eternal life (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9).
• Ultimately the GID issue is a thinking disorder, not a biological problem. From scripture, there is no such thing as a baby being born into the wrong body; God creates each person’s body exactly as He wants us (Ps. 139:13-16). There is a false dichotomy between the body and the person, as if they could be separated. But God makes us a unified whole with aspects of soul, spirit, and body. All these truths are the fodder for correction in the right time and place, but the truth must be spoken in love (Ephesians 4:15). Oftentimes, how we say something is weightier than what we say. The truth that is spoken must be benevolent truth because the sender must work overtime to be sure it is delivered in such a way that the receiver understands the content of the message to be for his benefit and not for his condemnation.

Secondly, a healthy dose of rational compassion is needed. The world system teaches that the person tempted with transgenderism should be affirmed and reinforced in their thinking. Our response should not be fake and emotional affirmation, but an informed, fact based kindness; one that accepts the person, but discourages any foolish thinking and destructive choices. Rational compassion extends to the families of GID people too because it is devoid of shallow platitudes and trite answers. It thinks before it expresses words, and so its verbal response has depth, authenticity, reflection, and of course…compassion.

• The parents of a GID child will most likely experience shame, anger, disappointment, self-condemnation, distancing, fear, and many other deep seeded emotions. To put it simply, they bear a heavy burden. Galatians 6:1-2 gives us input on the calling for the rest of the body to assist others who struggle with the harshness of a fallen world. We can help others in various ways: by assisting them with physical projects, providing words of encouragement, physical affection, intentional inclusion in events, and sometimes just by listening to them express their feelings and opinions without the listener having to give his in return. Fellow church members should communicate the fact that they pray for loved ones who have GID.
• In interviewing two parents who have a son with GID, they describe the experience to be like a death and absolutely devastating. Some helpful things that they shared were: people making direct eye contact with them, people not judging or blaming, being invited to participate in activities, receiving words of encouragement, and the formation of formal support groups such as “Hurting Moms” (hurtingmomsmendinghearts.org). To encourage “self-care” is eminently important. The parents cannot control what their children do. Many no longer even have any influence over them. Most parents are confounded in what to do with such frustration. One area that they can control is their own mental and spiritual health. Their marriage should not be neglected. Sometimes fissures can be created in that most important relationship because of differing philosophies on how to respond to their GID child. Hobbies, trips, friendships, and careers should not come to a grinding halt due to a crisis you can do little about. One thing these parents aren’t looking for is a “fix” or advice. Usually these parents have done a lot of research on this phenomenon and they do not need unsolicited input. It can be counterproductive.
• Pastoral staff and elders can play helpful roles as they represent the whole congregation to each subgroup of the church. They are the pace cars of the Lord’s Flock. 2 Timothy 2:24 tells us “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.” The pastor can go deeper, as he hopefully has high levels of trust and can muster the church program to offer support groups, resources, and classes to families of GID persons. There are Christian parents of adult children who are going through seriously difficult times due to poor decisions of their children. Tragedies such as homosexuality, drug use, legal/prison, marital disharmony, finances, and the rejection of the faith are all opportunities to ‘cross-train’ with other parents who struggle in those areas. Pastors must teach God’s view of human sexuality to solidify those who do not struggle and to bolster those who may be tempted to doubt their gender identity.

This teaching must be done in the spirit of benevolent truth. 1 Thessalonians 5:11, 14 – “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing…and we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.”

What are our purposes? Our immediate goal is the strengthening of the families who are in our churches. The secondary ultimate goal is the spiritual and physical restoration of their precious loved ones. Both are possible (Psalm 103:2-3; Isaiah 53:5; John 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24). Our world is experiencing mass deception, but the truth of God’s Word will prevail. Larry, Lisa, Tom, Tiffany, Ellen, and Emil may or may not be in our churches, but their parents and siblings definitely are. As the church can be the most effective spiritual hospital, let us respond with benevolent truth and rational compassion so that all who hurt are drawn by the word of God through the spirit of God.

Resources for People Struggling with Gender Identity Disorder and for Their Families

Comprehensive Counseling Services/Institute for Marital Healing Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons http://www.maritalhealing.com/ http://maritalhealing.com/conflicts/genderidentitydisorder.php http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1037

Courage – A Roman Catholic Apostolate: Courage International, Inc. 8 Leonard Street Norwalk, CT 06850 Phone: (203) 803-1564 http://couragerc.net/

Desert Stream Ministries 706 Main Street Grandview, MO 64030 Phone: 866.359.0500 (toll free) 816.767.1730 (tel) 816.767.7221 (fax) info@desertstream.org http://www.desertstream.org/

Harvest USA

http://www.harvestusa.org/

Mastering Life Ministries

http://www.masteringlife.org/

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

http://www.narth.com/

Parakaleo

A Christian ministry in the United Kingdom that reaches out to those with transgender issues.

http://www.parakaleo.co.uk/ http://www.eauk.org/

Restored Hope Network:

http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com/ http://www.facebook.com/RestoredHopeNetwork rhngathering@gmail.com

Sy Rogers Communications

http://www.syrogers.com/

Trading My Sorrows - Walt Heyer

http://www.tradingmysorrows.com/ http://www.sexchangeinfo.com/

Help 4 Families - Denise Schick

http://help4families.com/

Endnotes:

1. Janice Raymond, The Transsexual Empire (NY: Athene, 1994) p. xxiii-xxiv.
2. Terri Webb, “Autobiographical fragments from a transsexual activist,” (in Blending Genders eds. R. Elkins, D. King, Routledge: NY, 1996) p. 192.

Bibliography:

“Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement” Dale O’Leary & Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council, https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS15F01

“Help For Families Introduction” Denise Shick, https://www.help4families.org/what-we-do

https://answersingenesis.org/family/gender/transgender-identity-wishing-away-gods-design/

https://answersingenesis.org/family/gender/

A biblical response to the teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, & the Grace Evangelical Society.

"To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Rev. 1:5b-6)

Preface

I first wrote this article many years ago in response to a Free Grace pastor who taught that not all Christians will rule and reign with Christ in the future 1000-year millennial kingdom. The Free Grace pastor who I'm referring to was influenced by the teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES), who unfortunately teach that not all Christians will reign with Christ in the Millennium.

The title of this paper is adapted from and in response to Joseph Dillow's book The Reign of the Servant Kings, which he has since updated and the book is now titled Final Destiny. Dillow takes the view that only "servant kings" (i.e. faithful Christians) will rule and reign with Christ in the Millennium. But in contrast to Dillow's view, the Bible teaches that all Christians will rule and reign with Christ as "kings and priests unto God" (Revelation 1:6, KJV) not only in the millennial kingdom, but also on into eternity forever and ever!

Although I am a proponent of Free Grace Theology, I do not agree with Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and the GES on this issue. Actually, a lot of Free Grace people (and also many evangelical Christians in general) don't agree with Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow, and the GES on this issue. There are good Bible teachers on both sides, but from my research most of them take the position which I set forth in this paper, which is that all Christians will rule and reign with Christ in His 1,000-year millennial kingdom and on into eternity.

Introduction

In 1 Corinthians 6:3, the apostle Paul says to the carnal believers in Corinth: "Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life!" It's unfortunate that the subject of ruling and reigning with Christ is such a neglected area of biblical and practical theology. As good friend of mine once told me, the subject of reigning with Christ in His future kingdom is “an undeveloped topic in a lot of believers' lives”. In researching this topic, I was surprised to find out how little is actually written on the subject. Furthermore, often what is written is not what the Bible teaches. A true story illustrates this unfortunate reality. Several years ago, I sent an email to twelve Christian men (many of whom were pastors, teachers, and Bible conference speakers) asking them their thoughts on what the role of the church would be in the Millennium as it pertains to reigning with Christ. Would all Christians reign with Christ in His kingdom? Only two men (one a pastor and the other a Bible conference speaker and author) responded to my questions. In part, the pastor's response was as follows: "You asked whether believers of this age will rule with Christ in the Millennium. There is no place in the Bible, to my knowledge, where the Bible explicitly states that." The Bible conference speaker wrote, "I can only give you an opinion, since neither are delineated in Scripture." He went on to tell me that in his opinion reigning with Christ is a reward for only a relatively small number of faithful Christians.

It is my prayer that God will use Every Christian's Final Destiny to help shed some biblical light on this often neglected and much misunderstood prophetic subject.

RELEVANCE

If you’re a Christian, this topic is about you! You’ll be amazed to see what the Bible says about the glorious future God has prepared for each and every Christian in the coming 1,000-year millennial kingdom that Jesus Christ will set up on this earth: “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:6).

RIGHT OR REWARD?

Is reigning with Christ in His millennial kingdom in "the blessed by and by" the right of every blood-bought child of God or is it a conditional reward based upon the believer’s earthly walk in "the nasty now and now"? To put the question another way: Will all church-age Christians reign with Christ in His 1,000-year kingdom or will this be a privilege enjoyed by only a relatively few believers?

Some people in the Free Grace movement teach that reigning with Christ in His millennial kingdom is a special privilege granted to only a few faithful saints. Regarding this teaching one pastor has written the following:

"Participation in this aspect [the 1,000 years] of the kingdom (for church age believers) is a reward based on faithful service and obedience to the commands of Scripture. Ruling and reigning with Christ is granted to those who 'overcome and keep' his deeds; in order to reign with Christ you must endure…Rev. 2:26, 27…2 Tim. 2:12…Authority in this 1000-year kingdom is a privilege and not to be mistaken as a spiritual blessing bestowed upon all Christians at the moment of salvation….You must deny yourself and become worthy in your walk in order to reign in the 1000-year kingdom".[1]

Similarly, another pastor writes that “we will be judges in the Millennial Kingdom ‘if’ we pass the test of a godly walk filled with an abundance of righteous acts….REV. 20:6 A promise for WORTHY Christians. CONDITIONAL.”[2] Likewise, Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society asserts:

"Some mistakenly think that reigning with Christ is synonymous with being a Christian. However, Paul makes it clear in this passage [2 Timothy 2:11-13] that only Christians who endure will reign. While all Christians have life, even faithless ones (vv 11, 13), only persevering Christians will rule with Christ. The Lord Jesus also made it clear that only overcoming Christians will rule with Him. Compare Luke 19:11-26; Rev 2:26; 3:21. While all Christians will be in His kingdom, only Christians who endured in this life will be part of His kingdom administration….If we don’t endure, we shall not reign with Him."[3]

Contrary to the belief which says that reigning with Christ is a conditional reward for only a relatively few faithful Christians, the Scriptures set forth with a divine unity the fact that all church-age believers will reign with Christ in His future 1,000-year millennial kingdom, and on into eternity forever and ever. This amazing privilege is every Christian's final destiny!

Consider the following:

REASONS WHY ALL CHRISTIANS WILL REIGN WITH CHRIST

REASON # 1:

REASON # 2:

REASON # 3:

REASON # 4:

REASON # 5:

REASON # 6:

REASON # 7:

REASON # 8:

REASON # 9:

REASON # 10:

REASON # 11:

REASON # 12:

REASON # 13:

REASON # 14:

I heard an old, old story, How a Savior came from glory, How He gave His life on Calvary To save a wretch like me; I hear about His groaning, Of His precious blood’s atoning, Then I believed what Jesus did And won the victory!

O victory in Jesus, My Savior, forever. He sought me and bought me With His redeeming blood; He loved me ere I knew Him, And all my love is due Him, He plunged me to victory, Beneath the cleansing flood.

I heard about a mansion He has built for me in glory. And I heard about the streets of gold Beyond the crystal sea; About the angels singing, And the old redemption story, And some sweet day I’ll sing up there The song of victory!

REASON # 15:

REASON # 16:

REASON # 17:

In Revelation 21:7-8 the apostle John speaks of only two groups of people:

1. the overcomer who is God’s son (Rev. 21:7) – i.e. the saved
2. the unsaved who experience the second death in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8) – i.e. the unsaved

Notice that in Revelation 21:7-8 John does not speak of three groups of people:

1. the overcomer (i.e. the faithful, enduring believer – as some define it)
2. the non-overcomer (i.e. the unfaithful believer – as some define it)
3. the unsaved

In both 1 John 5:4-5 and here in Revelation 21:7-8 the apostle John views all Christians as overcomers.

REASON # 18:

In Revelation 2:11 a strong promise is given to the overcomer. Christ declares: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death”. The word “not” is actually a double negative in the Greek language (ou me) and can literally be translated: “not at all” or “in no way”. Therefore Revelation 2:11 teaches that the overcomer shall “not at all be injured” by the second death! Revelation 2:11 is consistent and harmonious with Revelation 20:6 which says that the second death has “no power” over those who have a part in the first resurrection – i.e. all believers (Jn. 5:25-29; 1 Cor. 15:20-23; Rev. 20:4, 20:5b, 20:6). Thus, the promise given to “he who overcomes” in Revelation 2:11 is true of all believers (cf. Rev. 20:6, 20:14-15, 21:7-8).

Some non-traditional Free Grace teachers say that Revelation 2:11 and Revelation 20:6 should be understood to mean that Christians who are unfaithful in evangelism can be “indirectly hurt” by the second death of the unsaved. Unfaithful believers, they say, can be hurt by the second death. For example, one pastor writes:

"Smyrna is known as the persecuted church. Notice that they are not told to repent, but to be faithful unto death. If they are killed for their testimony they will be given a Crown of Life (Purple Heart). If they overcome, they will not be hurt by the second death. Now, if you are saved, how are you hurt by the second death? True believers do not go to the Lake of Fire. So what does this mean? If you, as a believer, are not faithful to the King of Kings, you will see those people who you were ashamed to witness to DROP INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE. SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THIS."[14]

This teaching fails to recognize the fact that the second death has “no power” over those who have a part in the first resurrection. In other words, the second death has no power over those who believe in Christ. Revelation 20:6 does not say that the second death has some power, a little power, indirect power, influential power, or slight power. But Revelation 20:6 does say: “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years" (emphasis added).

There is something else to notice in the quote mentioned above. In regards to the crown of life, the quote says: “If they [the church in Smyrna] are killed for their testimony they will be given a Crown of Life (Purple Heart).” However, in the Bible “the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10) has more to do with enduring trials than winning souls (see James 1:2-4, 12; Rev. 2:10). (The apostle Paul refers to the soul-winner’s crown as a totally different crown altogether. He calls it the “crown of rejoicing” in 1 Thessalonians 2:19.) If Christ had (as some suppose) been speaking of evangelism in Revelation 2:8-11, why did He not promise the church in Smyrna the crown of rejoicing (i.e. the soul-winner’s crown)? Instead, Christ promised the church in Smyrna “the crown of life” (i.e. the martyr’s crown). Could it be that in Revelation 2:8-10 Christ wasn’t speaking of winning souls but of enduring trials?

The differences of reward crowns (relating to Rev. 2:8-10), as well as the fact that no Christian will be hurt in any way by the second death (Rev. 2:11) – for it has “no power” over them (Rev. 20:6) – are further reasons why many believe that all Christians will reign with Christ in the Millennium.

REASON # 19:

REASON # 20:

Revelation 2:28 begins with the connective word “and,” joining it to verses 26-27. Since all church-age believers will enter into the promise of Revelation 2:28 and be raptured, it’s reasonable to conclude that these same people also enter into the promises spoken of in Revelation 2:26-27 because of the coordinating conjunction word “and” linking verses 26-27 with verse 28.

REASON # 21:

REASON # 22:

REASON # 23:

REASON # 24:

"All believers will receive some inheritance, simply because God chooses to bestow it on all (cf. John 3:3, 5, 16, 36; Rom. 5:1, 9; 8:1, 31-39; 1 Cor. 15:53-57; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:13-17; 1 Pet. 1:9)."[17]

REASON # 25:

"Begin at verse 12 [of Colossians 1], which shews where we (I mean all believers) are: 'Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet [i.e. qualified, worthy].' He has made us meet [i.e. qualified, worthy] – that is all settled. You will always find this in Scripture; you will not find anything there about growing up to be meet [i.e. qualified, worthy]; it speaks about growing up to Christ in everything; but this is a different thing. 'Which hath made us meet [i.e. qualified, worthy] to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son'."[18]

REASON # 26:

REASON # 27:

The heavenly armies that return to earth with Christ at His Second Coming consist, at least, of angels (Matt. 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7; cf. 2 Kings 6:16-17; Matt. 26:53; Lk. 24:4; Rev. 5:11, 12:7, 15:6, 19:14) and church-age believers (Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 3:13, 4:17b; Rev. 17:14, 19:7-8, 19:14, 19:19-20:4).

Revelation 19:19 describes in a general way those who fight in the battle of Armageddon (cf. Rev. 16:13-16, 17:11-14). Then Revelation 19:20-20:3 implies the victory of the Lamb and His armies by describing those who are defeated in the battle. And finally, in context Revelation 20:4 describes the victorious ones as those who sit on thrones and the authority to judge is given to them.

There are several things to notice in this passage that help to identify those who sit on thrones and receive the authority to judge:

1. Revelation 20:4 begins with the connective word “and” which functions as a linking word connecting Revelation 20:4 with the previous verses.
2. Revelation 20:1 also begins with the connective word “and” which links it with the previous verses in Revelation chapter 19.
3. The chapter division of Revelation chapter 20 is man-made (as are the rest of the chapter divisions in the New Testament).[19]
4. The word “they” in Revelation 20:4a is a pronoun. A pronoun is a word used in place of a noun. What noun does the pronoun “they” replace? It probably doesn’t make very much sense to say that the pronoun “they” refers to the kings of the earth deceived by Satan because those kings and their armies were defeated and killed (Rev. 19:20-20:3; cf. Rev. 16:13-16). Rather, in light of the context it becomes clear that the pronoun “they” in Revelation 20:4a refers to the victorious “army” (Rev. 19:19) of Christ – particularly His bride the church (1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 17:14).[20] “Lamb of God, when Thou in glory Shalt to this sad earth return, All thy foes shall quake before Thee, Then shall we, at Thine appearing, With Thee in Thy kingdom reign: Thine the praise and Thine the glory, Lamb of God, for sinners slain.”[21]

REASON # 28:

Regardless of when the judgments of 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 occur, the truth that judgment will be committed to all Christians due to their position in Christ emphasizes every believer’s exalted position and place of privilege in Christ. John Nelson Darby writes the following:

"It is strange to see how the church of God has lost the sense of all things; and I refer to these passages to shew how the saints are associated with Christ, even with reference to those extreme cases. 'Do ye not know,' says Paul to the Corinthians, 'that the saints shall judge the world?' He tells them just to think of that, and then to consider whether they were not worthy 'to judge the smallest matter' (speaking of saints going to law with one another). Are you not able, any of you, to settle the commonest things between yourselves? 'Know ye not that we shall judge angels?' It was necessary to tell them this, because they had not got hold of a right understanding of the place in which Christ has put the saints because they did not see their association with Christ in all the fullness of its meaning." (J. N. Darby, "The Second Coming of Christ," Lecture 2.)

In 1 Corinthians 6:2-3, Paul says to the carnal Corinthians, “the saints will judge the world” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2), and “we shall judge angels”. The apostle does not make exceptions or distinctions. He does not say, for example: “the faithful saints,” “the spiritual saints,” “the enduring saints,” “the deserving saints,” “some saints,” or “a few saints”. Instead, he simply says “the saints will judge the world”. Concerning this, one Free Grace pastor wrote the following (but thankfully he changed his position after I discussed it with him), he said:

"I don’t think that 1 Cor. 6:2-3 is necessarily teaching that each and every saint in Christ will exercise rule with Christ in the millennium and into eternity. It could simply be a reference to believers in Christ generally speaking (ie – 'don’t you know that we as Christians will…') or it could be a reference simply to the fact that we’ll be present to consent to the final judgment of unsaved mankind (Matt. 12:41-42) and the fallen angels."

In 1 Corinthians 6:2-3, does the apostle Paul speak of believers consenting or does he speak of believers judging? Is Paul saying that the saints will simply assent or agree with the judgments of someone else, or is he teaching that the saints will actually make judgments themselves? Paul is clearly teaching that the saints themselves will make judgments, for he says, “the saints will judge the world” (1 Cor. 6:2) and “we shall judge angels” (1 Cor. 6:3). In both cases the verb “judge” in the original Greek is a future tense, active voice, indicative mood verb. The Greek future tense corresponds to the English and indicates that the event has not yet occurred. The active voice represents the subject as the doer or the performer of the action. The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. William R. Newell affirms:

"The Church will reign with Christ in glorified bodies like His (I Corinthians 6:2, 3) ... Judgment, and not the mere execution of it, will belong to—be 'given to'— the Church." (Newell, Revelation Verse-By-Verse, p. 324, emphasis his.)

The apostle Paul reasons that the carnal Corinthians were competent to judge “matters of this life” before the millennial kingdom is set up, as well as “judge angels” after the Millennium.[22] If all Christians are “competent” (1 Cor. 6:2, NASB) and “worthy” (KJV) to judge things in this life prior to the Millennium, and these same people will judge angels at the conclusion of the Millennium, wouldn’t it be appropriate to place these believers in places of authority during the Millennium as well? And this is indeed the case, as 1 Corinthians 6:2 and Revelation 20:4-6 indicate.

REASON # 29:

REASON # 30:

REASON # 31:

REASON # 32:

REASON # 33:

REASON # 34:

REASON # 35:

REASON # 36:

Notice in Revelation 3:21 that church-age believers will be seated with Christ and that they will be seated on His throne. One pastor suggested the following analogy to me in an attempt to support his belief that not all Christians will rule and reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom: “A two year old prince may be seated upon the lap of his father the king, and yet, all the subjects know that the prince is not exercising any rule, yet he is to be honored along with the king.” But this analogy is unbiblical for the following reasons:

1. Christians are adopted into God’s family with all the rights and privileges of adult sons (Gal. 3:22-4:7).[26]
2. Christians will be kings who reign in the Millennium, not simply honored princes (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 20:4, 20:6).
3. Christians will be seated with Christ (not upon Christ) on His throne (Rev. 3:21).
4. Christ is not the Christians’ father; Christ is our brother (Psa. 22:22; Jn. 20:17; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11-12).

REASON # 37:

"Oh! Wonderful grace which has saved us! Grace which has saved us in Christ and through His ever precious blood delivered us from eternal perdition! Grace which saved us from Satan’s power, from sin and all its curse! Grace which has lifted into such heights of glory and has made us the sons of God and the joint-heirs of the Lord Jesus Christ! And how little after all we enter into all these things, which ought to be our daily joy and delight. How little we know of the power of the coming glory of being with Christ and reigning with Him!"[27]

REASON # 38:

In 2 Timothy 2:12 the apostle Paul says that Christians must “endure” in order to receive the reward of reigning to a greater extent or degree with Christ.[29] Exactly what are Christians called to “endure”? From the immediate context, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about enduring suffering, hardship, and persecution for Christ (see 2 Tim. 1:12, 2:3, 2:8-10, 4:5).

It’s important to point out that Paul’s statement “if we endure” (2 Tim. 2:12), is not true of all Christians. Although all Christians suffer for Christ and experience tribulation in this life as a result of their faith (Jn. 16:33, 17:14; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:17-18, 8:23; 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 5:9-10; 2 Pet. 2:7-8; Rev. 1:4, 1:9, 3:14-18), it’s clear that not all Christians endure suffering for Christ or persevere through tribulation (2 Tim. 4:5; Heb. 12:1-3; Jms. 1:4; 2 Pet. 1:5-11). For example, if all Christians automatically endured suffering, hardship, and persecution for Christ, then it would be unnecessary for the apostle Paul to command us to “endure hardship” (2 Tim. 4:5).[30]

REASON # 39:

REASON # 40:

Ezekiel 44:10-14 describes how the resurrected Levites will serve God in the future millennial temple. The faithful Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of God’s sanctuary when the sons of Israel went astray from God during the reign of King Josiah, will be privileged come near to God to minister to Him in the Millennium (Ezek. 44:15). These faithful Levitical priests will stand before God to offer Him the fat and the blood (Ezek. 44:15). In other words, one of their duties in the future Millennium will be to keep charge of the altar (Ezek. 40:46).

The unfaithful Levitical priests, those who went far from God after idols and became a stumbling block of iniquity to the house of Israel during the reign of King Josiah, will “bear their iniquity” (Ezek. 44:10, 12, KJV) and “the shame of their detestable practices” (Ezek. 44:13, NIV).[31] In other words, they will “bear the consequences of their sin” (Ezek. 44:10, 12, NIV). These Levites are eternally saved and forgiven – for they enter into the Millennium in their resurrected bodies to minister in God’s sanctuary (Ezek. 40:45, 44:10-14; Rev. 20:6). Although these unfaithful Levites will be priests in the Millennium, they will be excluded from the higher priestly duties (Ezek. 44:13).

From the example of the unfaithful Levitical priests it becomes clear that unfaithful Old Testament believers are still given a place of service in the millennial kingdom. Matthew Henry comments, “Those who may not be fit to be employed in one kind of service, may yet be fit to be employed in another; and even those who have offended may yet be made use of, and not quite thrown aside, much less thrown away.”[32] No wonder the apostle John can say, “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:6).

REASON # 41:

When interpreting parables, one must “validate truths observed with what the Scriptures teach elsewhere”. Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest has noted: “No conclusion must be gathered from any part of a parable or type which is in its doctrine inconsistent with the clear revelation of Scripture.”[33] Likewise, Dr. Paul Lee Tan in his book The Interpretation of Prophecy is emphatic when he says: "Do not prove doctrine with parable.—Parables may be used to illustrate doctrines, but never to prove them." (Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy [Winona Lake, IN: Assurance Publishers, 1978], p. 150, emphasis his.)

This principle is important because some Free Grace Bible teachers are trying to use the parables of Jesus to prove that not all Christians will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom. For example, they say that the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 proves that attending the wedding feast at the beginning of the Millennium is a reward given only to faithful and obedient Christians. But that conclusion is unbiblical because the clear teaching of Scripture does not validate such an interpretation. The clear teaching of Scripture in regards to the church is set forth in the New Testament epistles, not in the four Gospels.[34]

REASON # 42:

REASON # 43:

Many dispensational Bible teachers, pastors, and theologians agree that all Christians will reign with Christ in His millennial kingdom. Those who teach that all Christians will reign with Christ in the Millennium include men such as: Donald Grey Barnhouse,[36] E. W. Bullinger,[37] Lewis Sperry Chafer,[38] John Nelson Darby,[39] Charles L. Feinberg,[40] Arno C. Gaebelein,[41] Billy Graham,[42] Oliver B. Green,[43] Robert Gromacki,[44] M. R. DeHaan,[45] Herman Hoyt,[46] Thomas Ice,[47] H. A. Ironside,[48] Grant R. Jeffrey,[49] William Kelly,[50] Tim LaHaye,[51] Clarence Larkin,[52] John MacArthur,[53] Alva J. McClain,[54] James H. McConkey,[55] J. Vernon McGee,[56] Dwight L. Moody,[57] William R. Newell,[58] William Orr,[59] Rene Pache,[60] J. Dwight Pentecost,[61] William Pettingill,[62] John Phillips,[63] John R. Rice,[64] Charles Ryrie,[65] C. I. Scofield,[66] Thomas Scott,[67] Renald Showers,[68] J. B. Smith,[69] Lehman Strauss,[70] John Walvoord,[71] John Whitcomb,[72] Warren Wiersbe (see his commentary on Revelation), Leon J. Wood,[73] Kenneth Wuest,[74] and George Zeller.[75]

RELATED TOPICS

Why Even Carnal Christians Will Be Married to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:1-4)

The apostle Paul betrothed the Corinthian Christians to Christ through the gospel, not through their good works (2 Cor. 11:2; cf. Rom. 6:1-5, 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:23). As the Corinthians spiritual father (1 Cor. 4:14-15), Paul desired that they be completely pure and devoted to Christ (2 Cor. 11:2-3; cf. 2 Cor. 12:20-21). But Paul feared that the Corinthians might be deceived into accepting a false gospel (2 Cor. 11:3-4; cf. Gal. 1:8).

In this world the church is often sinful and impure (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 2 Cor. 12:21). But when Christ returns to take His bride to heaven, the church will be glorified in the twinkling of an eye and will be as pure as Christ is pure (1 Cor. 1:7-8, 15:50-58; Phil. 1:6, 3:20-21; 1 Jn. 3:2-3). Then in heaven the church will be rewarded at the Judgment Seat of Christ in preparation for the marriage of the Lamb (1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 19:7). After the church is glorified and rewarded, Christ will present the church to Himself in heavenly marriage as a completely pure and spotless bride (Eph. 5:26-27; 1 Jn. 3:2-3; Rev. 19:7-8),

Here are three more points to consider in regards to why all Christians will be married to Christ:

1. In 2 Corinthians 11:2 the verb translated “might present” (NASB) should more literally be translated “to present” (HCSB) because in the original Greek the verb is an infinitive.
2. In 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul compares the Corinthians to Eve, Adam’s wife. Several times in the Bible Adam is compared and contrasted with Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 15:45-47). Just as Eve was still married to Adam after she was deceived, the carnal Corinthians would still be betrothed to Christ even if they should be led astray. This is because Christians are betrothed to Christ through the gospel, not through good works (Rom. 6:1-5, 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:23).
3. The Judgment Seat of Christ is part of the church’s preparation for the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7), and every Christian will be present at the Judgment Seat of Christ (Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10).

Christ’s Message to the Church in Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6)

It’s evident that in Revelation 3:1-6 Christ is addressing people who are eternally saved. There are several reasons for this conclusion:

1. Christ’s message to the church in Sardis concerns rewards for good deeds. The Bible makes it clear that the unsaved have no deeds that are truly good (Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:7-9).
2. Unbelievers cannot “strengthen the things that remain” (Rev. 3:2), for they are “without strength” (Rom. 5:6).
3. Most of those in the Sardis church had soiled their clean garments (Rev. 3:4). The unsaved never had clean garments to soil (Isa. 64:6).
4. Believers can be “dead” (Greek nekros, see Lk. 15:24; Jms. 2:17).
5. Christ can come “as a thief” for believers (Lk. 12:40; 1 Thess. 5:2-11; Rev. 3:3, 16:15).

Although the church people in Sardis are eternally saved, they are for the most part “carnal” (or “fleshly,” see 1 Cor. 3:1-3). Notice what Christ says to them: “I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead [Greek nekros]” (Rev. 3:1). The apostle James says something similar to the Christians he’s writing to in his epistle. He writes: “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead [Greek nekros], being by itself” (Jms 2:17, also see 2:14, 2:16). This dead faith that James talks about is a near fruitless faith, a faith “by itself” – much like the faith of the carnal Christians in the Sardis church.[76] The Christians in Sardis are told to “wake up” (Rev. 3:2) or “be watchful” (Rev. 3:2, NKJV). They are challenged to “strengthen the things that remain” (Rev. 3:2).

As mentioned above, Christ can come “as a thief” upon unspiritual carnal believers (Rev. 3:3, also see Lk. 12:40; 1 Thess. 5:1-11; Rev. 16:15). This simply means that when Christ returns – either for His church at the Rapture prior to the Tribulation (1 Thess. 5:1-11; Rev. 3:3) or for those left behind on earth at the end of the Tribulation (Lk. 12:40; Rev. 16:15), some believers will not be ready for Christ’s return and will not be looking for Him nor expecting Him.

Only a “few” people in the Sardis church were spiritual (Rev. 3:4) and walking in a manner worthy of their heavenly calling, like it says in Ephesians 4:1. These few are described as those “who have not soiled their garments (Rev. 3:4). The implication is that most of the Christians in the Sardis church had soiled their clean garments.[77]

The phrase “and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy” (Rev. 3:4) speaks of reward (compare also 1 Tim. 5:18; Rev. 22:12).[78] Although all Christians will be physically with the Lord forever following the Rapture (see Jn. 14:3, 17:24; 1 Thess. 4:15-17), walking with Him seems to be a reward for those who are “worthy” (Rev. 3:4) and “deserving” (Rev. 16:6). Pastor Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church believes that the term “walk” in Revelation 3:4 teaches the following principle: “My walk and service for Christ after salvation will determine my walk and service for Christ in the future.” Rokser goes on to add: “The whole concept of rewards comes into play here.”

Concerning the term “worthy” in Revelation 3:4, notice that it is not connected with the idea of reigning with Christ (that is, the right of reigning with Christ which all believers are promised), but with walking with Christ. Unworthy and worthy Christians will reign with Christ (1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 20:6, 21:6-8); worthy Christians will also “walk with Christ in white” (Rev. 3:4). This may indicate a higher position of rule and responsibility in the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.

The promises to the overcomers in the Sardis church begin in Revelation 3:5. Keep in mind that the promises to the overcomers in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 act as encouragements, incentives, and motivations to repent (appropriate for the churches in Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, and Laodicea), or to press on in faithfulness (appropriate for the churches in Smyrna and Philadelphia) based on what the Christian already possesses in Christ (see Eph. 4:1; Col. 3:1-11; Titus 2:12; Heb. 12:28).

In Revelation 3:5 it says, “He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments”. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) reads: “In the same way, the victor will be dressed in white clothes” (Rev. 3:5). The “victor” (or overcomer) refers to each and every Christian (see Jn. 16:33, Rom. 8:37, 1 Jn. 5:4-5, Rev. 2:11, 20:6, 21:6-8). Notice that the promise to the overcomer in Revelation 3:5 is about wearing white garments and says nothing about walking with Christ.[79] In other words, all Christians will wear white garments, but walking with Christ seems to be a reward for only those Christians who are worthy. There are many Bible verses showing that each and every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ will be clothed in white apparel (compare Job 29:14, Isa. 61:10, Jn. 9:7, 13:10, 1 Cor. 3:15, 6:11, Gal. 3:27, Eph. 5:27, Rev. 1:5, 4:4, 7:9-10, 7:14, 19:8, 22:14). So the wearing of white garments in Revelation 3:5 is a promise to all believers.

The promise to the overcomer continues: “and I will not erase his name from the book of life” (Rev. 3:5).[80] This is not a threat but a promise! Christ is not implying that a Christian can have his or her name erased from the book of life. Instead, Christ is emphasizing that He will never erase the name of any Christian out of the book of life! This has to do with the eternal security of the believer. Every Christians name is permanently recorded in the book of life (see Jn. 5:24-25, 6:37, 6:39, 6:40; Rev. 20:6, 20:15).

Christ also promises the overcomer: “and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5). Keep in mind that each part of this three-part promise is exactly that – a promise (not a warning). In other words, each part is true of all Christians. How can the promise that Christ will confess the name of every overcomer to the Father be reconciled with Christ’s warning of denial in Matthew 10:32-33, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, and Luke 12:8-9? While Christ’s words in Revelation 3:5 are spoken to the church (which was a “mystery” in the Old Testament and a parenthesis between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel), Christ’s words in the Gospel accounts were spoken to those living under the Mosaic Law and during the 70 weeks of Daniel – that is, Old Testament Jewish believers (see Matt. 10:1-5; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 11:29-32, 11:45-54, 12:1, 12:11).[81] Notice the context of Matthew 10:32-33, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, and Luke 12:8-9:

• the exclusively Jewish emphasis (Matt. 10:5-6, 10:23; Mk. 7:27)
• the special gifts (Matt. 10:8; Lk. 9:2)
• the ministry requirements of the twelve disciples (Matt. 10:9-14; Lk. 9:3-5)
• the proclamation of the kingdom gospel (Matt. 10:7; Lk. 9:2)
• Christ’s command of silence that He is the Messiah (Mk. 8:30; Lk. 9:21)
• the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Lk. 12:10)
• the unique ministry of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 12:11-12)
• the focus on the Second Advent of Christ to the earth as opposed to the Rapture of the church (Matt. 10:22-23; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26)

In the Gospels, Christ’s confession and denial of men is said to occur after His Second Coming to earth (Matt. 10:22-23; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26), not after the Rapture at the Judgment Seat of Christ. As His Second Coming to the earth, Christ will not deny His wife (Rev. 19:7), for she is:

• already glorified (1 Cor. 15:50-58; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2-3)
• already judged (1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 22:12; cf. Rev. 4:4-10, 19:7-8)
• altogether holy and blameless (Eph. 5:27; 1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 19:8, 19:14, 20:6)
• victorious with Him (Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 3:13, 4:17b; 2 Thess. 1:10; Jude 14; Rev. 2:26-27, 17:14, 19:14)

It seems that the confession and denial of individuals spoken of in the Gospels will occur at the Rod Judgment of Israel (Matt. 24:29-31; Ezek. 20:33-38) – which occurs after the Second Coming of Christ to the earth (Matt. 24:29-51, 25:31).

It is true that believers can be personally ashamed before Christ “at His coming” at the Rapture (1 Jn. 2:28). Christians can suffer loss of a reward (1 Cor. 3:14-15), lose their crown (2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11), be disqualified for a prize (1 Cor. 9:24-27), and denied the reward of an exalted position of rule and reign in the millennial kingdom (2 Tim. 2:12b).[82] Yet Christ’s direct promise to church-age believers still stands, and will stand: “I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5). What amazing grace from the God of all grace (Eph. 2:4-7; 1 Pet. 5:10)! “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever” (Rev. 5:13). Amen!

Will Unfaithful Christians Be Naked and Ashamed in Heaven? (Revelation 16:15)

Revelation 16:15 reads as follows: “Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garments, lest he walk about naked and men see his shame.”

Does this Bible verse teach that certain unfaithful Christians will enter into the millennial kingdom and maybe even enter into eternity naked and ashamed? Some Bible teachers think it does. For example, one non-traditional Free Grace author puts it this way:

"The question is: 'When we stand before Him, will we be presented holy, blameless and beyond reproach, or will we be presented before our Father with shame…Rev. 16:15…?'” "They [Christians] will enter into eternity in shame." "Where will people be walking around naked? They will be walking around outside the city on the new earth in eternity."[83]

However, in Revelation 16:15, God is not directly speaking to church-age believers (Christians). Instead, He is speaking to believers living during the future seven-year Tribulation period. This is true for at least three reasons:

1. The context of the passage has to do with the end of the seven-year Tribulation. Revelation 16:15 takes place after the sixth bowl judgment (the Euphrates River dries up, Rev. 16:17) and before the seventh bowl judgment (the destruction of the city of Babylon, Rev. 16:17).
2. The church is not on earth during the Tribulation, for the Rapture of the church occurs prior to the Tribulation - most likely in Revelation 4:1 (also see 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16-17).[84]
3. The coming of Christ spoken of in Revelation 16:15 refers to the Second Coming of Christ to the earth at the end of the Tribulation (see Rev. 17:14, 19:1); it does not refer to the Rapture of the Church nor does it have to do with the Judgment Seat of Christ.[85]

Although Christ’s announcement in Revelation 16:15 is addressed to believer’s who will be living during the coming seven-year Tribulation, what Christ says to them is similar to His message to the believers in the Sardis church (see Revelation 3:1-6). In both instances, Christ encourages believers to be watchful for His return and faithful and pure so that they will not be ashamed when He comes.

Christians can be carnal and “naked” in their condition in this world like it says in Revelation 3:17-18. Christians can be “ashamed” at Christ’s coming at the Rapture like it says in 1 John 2:28. Christians can “suffer loss” of a reward like it says in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 and 2 John 8. But praise God that we will one day be completely sanctified through glorification (1 Cor. 15:50-58; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Jn. 3:2-3) and prepared (Rev. 19:7) by the Judgment Seat of Christ to marry the Lamb of God, the blessed Lord Jesus (Rev. 19:7-8), judge angels and the world (1 Cor. 6:2-3), and reign with Christ for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:6) and then on into eternity forever and ever (Rev. 22:5)! “Not to us O LORD, not to us, but to Thy name be the glory, because of Thy righteousness, and because of Thy truth!” (Psa. 115:1).

The Christians’ Wedding Garment (Revelation 19:8)

Revelation 19:8 says that all Christians will be given fine linen to wear as part of the wedding garment and that the fine linen of the wedding garment “represents the good deeds of God’s Holy people” (Rev. 19:8, NLT; also see Eph. 5:27; 2 Cor. 11:2). Yet 1 Corinthians 3:15 indicates that some Christians will only get through the Bema Seat Judgment by the skin of their teeth and “be saved yet so as by fire”. In other words, they may not have done any good works during their Christian lives and they are “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18; also see Rev. 3:14-18). How does all this add up?

In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the apostle Paul teaches that “if any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.” These Christians will still be included as part of Christ’s one bride (see Rom. 7:4; 1 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:22-33), and they will even be clothed with the wedding garment of fine linen (Rev. 19:7-8).

While Revelation 19:8 speaks of fine linen in the singular, the terms “righteous acts” and “people” are plural. This is because the Bible says that although we are one body we are individually members of it (Rom. 12:4-5, 1 Cor. 12:27). William R. Newell concludes: “Now, although for our service each one in the kingdom will ‘receive his own reward according to his own labor [1 Cor. 3:8],’ yet all the works wrought through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in and by the saints of the Bride will all belong alike to that holy Bride: for the whole Church is the Bride.”[86]

The Judgment Seat of Christ (Romans 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:10-15, 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10)

What is the Judgment Seat of Christ?

The Judgment Seat of Christ is the judgment of the church of Jesus Christ.[87] The Bible says that “judgment must begin with the house of God” (1 Pet. 4:17). The Judgment Seat of Christ is also called the Bema Seat Judgment because the Greek word for “judgment seat” in Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10 is bēma.[88]

When is the Judgment Seat of Christ?

Concerning the timing of the Judgment Seat of Christ, C. I. Scofield writes: “THE WORKS OF BELIEVERS ARE TO BE JUDGED. – Time, when Christ comes [1 Cor. 4:5]. Place, ‘In the air [1 Thess. 4:17].’”[89] When Christ returns at the Rapture, all Christians will be caught up together with the Lord in the air and will be transformed into the very image of Christ (Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 15:43, 15:49-58; 2 Cor. 3:18, 5:2-4; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Jn. 3:2-3) and then rewarded for their good works (1 Cor. 3:13-15, 4:5; 2 Tim. 4:8).[90] And so, the Judgment Seat of Christ occurs after the church is resurrected and caught up to be with the Lord in Heaven (1 Thess. 4:16-17; Rev. 22:12).

The Purposes of the Judgment Seat of Christ

The Judgment Seat of Christ has at least four purposes:

1. revelation of each Christian’s earthly works, including the things hidden in the darkness and the motives of men’s hearts (1 Cor. 3:13, 4:5),
2. evaluation of the quality of each Christian's earthly work (Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:12-13; 2 Cor. 5:10),
3. compensation for “deeds in the body,” according to what he had done, whether good or bad (1 Cor. 3:13-15, 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Jn. 8), and
4. preparation of the bride for the marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7-8).

The Judgment Seat of Christ does not involve purification of the Christian as some people think.[91] Every Christian arrives at the Judgment Seat of Christ already fully purified from the presence and power of sin (1 Cor. 15:50-57; Phil. 3:21; 1 Jn. 3:2-3). In the words of F. W. Grant, the Christian arrives at the Judgment Seat of Christ “in resurrection glory, and in the image of His Lord”.[92] Although all believers will be glorified (Matt. 13:43; Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 15:40, 49), some may shine brighter than others (see Daniel 12:3).[93]

Regarding the supposed purification of the Christian at the Judgment Seat of Christ it has been said, “Christians will have to face fire!”[94] But in light of the truths set forth above it would seem more accurate to say, “The earthly works of Christians will have to face fire!” Although the Judgment Seat of Christ does not exist for the purpose of further purifying glorified believers, it should have a purifying effect on the daily lives of Christians now (Rom. 14:13; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; 2 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 3:23-25; Heb. 10:35, 12:28-29; 1 Pet. 1:17; 1 Jn. 2:28; Rev. 2:10).

Furthermore, the Judgment Seat of Christ does not involve damnation of the Christian, or of anyone for that matter. Writing to Christians about “the Day” (1 Cor. 3:13) of their judgment (the day of the Judgment Seat of Christ), the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15, “If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” Paul likewise says in 1 Corinthians 4:5: “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.”

Sins and the Judgment Seat of Christ

It is true that concerning salvation, judgment is over for the Christian (see John 5:24). However, concerning rewards all Christians still face judgment (Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:17). Christians will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ so that each one may be recompensed for the deeds done in the body for which one might expect to receive a reward and to see whether those deeds were truly good (2 Cor. 5:10-11; cf. 1 Cor. 3:14, 4:5; Col. 4:23-24; 1 Tim. 5:25) or if they just looked good but were actually bad (2 Cor. 5:10-11; cf. 1 Cor. 3:15, 9:27; Col. 3:25; 1 Tim. 1:19-20, 5:24; 2 Tim. 4:14; 1 Jn. 2:28; 2 Jn. 8).

The Judgment Seat of Christ is not for the purpose of judging sin because Christ has put away our sins by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). “He has removed our sins as far from us as the east is from the west” (Psa. 103:12, NLT). Yet the Judgment seat of Christ necessarily involves sin because the apparent “good” works of some Christians were in reality done with sinful motives or attitudes and in the end will be judged to be actually bad works (1 Cor. 3:15, 4:5; Phil. 1:15-17; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 1:19-20, 5:24-25; 2 Tim. 4:14; Heb. 4:12-13; Jms. 5:9; Rev. 2:23).

Some people say that according to 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Colossians 3:25, unconfessed and unforsaken sin will be judged at the Bema Seat.[95] This teaching implies that sin (at least unconfessed sin) is the focus of judgment at the Judgment Seat of Christ. It must be clearly stated here that it is Christian works which are the focus of judgment at the Bema Seat of Christ, not sins per se (see 1 Cor. 3:13-15; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17). The purpose of the Judgment Seat of Christ is not to judge sin but Christian works—works for which one might expect to receive a reward (1 Cor. 3:10-12; cf. Gal. 1:8; Col. 4:17; Jms. 3:1; 1 Pet. 4:11). In light of Colossians 3:25, the bad works of 2 Corinthians 5:10 are seen to be works that are apparently or outwardly good, such as outward obedience, external service, and pleasing people (Col. 3:22; cf. Eph. 6:6-7).[96] But these works are actually judged to be “bad” (Greek kakos, 2 Cor. 5:10) and “wrong” (Greek adikeo, Col. 3:25) due to the underlying attitude of the worker.[97] So what happens when the works of a Christian are judged to be “bad” and “wrong” at the Judgment Seat of Christ? The apostle Paul says: “But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect [favoritism] of persons.” (Col. 3:25, KJV) This seems to speak of a loss of reward, like Paul makes clear elsewhere when he says: “If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15, ESV; cf. 1 Cor. 3:14; 2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11).

Does James 5:9-10 teach that Christ will judge the sins of Christians on the Day of Judgment? James 5:9-10 reads: “Murmur not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the Judge standeth before the doors. Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spake in the name of the Lord.” The word “murmur” (Greek stenazō) in James 5:9 literally means “groan”.[98] This Greek word is used in other places in the Bible where it is said that Jesus groaned (Mk. 7:34), the Holy Spirit groans (Rom. 8:26), and godly Christians groan for heavenly glorified bodies (2 Cor. 5:2, 4). And so while godly groaning is good, apparently Christians can groan with a wrong attitude and then this work for which one might expect to receive a reward is really not good, but bad. The Greek word for “judged” in James 5:9 is katakrino, which means “judged against”. So while this verse says that Christians can be judged against when the Lord returns for His church, it doesn’t say that sins will be the focus of judgment. Rather, the focus is on the apparent good works of groaning (Jms. 5:9; cf. Mk. 7:34; Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:2, 5:4; Heb. 13:17) and suffering (Jms. 5:10). The afflicted Christians spoken of in James chapter 5 probably appeared to be meek and patient (see James 5:4, 6, 7ff). However, Christ will judge against these believers because their groaning was actually done with an impatient attitude, for it was “against one another” (Jms. 5:9; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10; Col. 3:25). Their groaning involved an impatient, irritable, critical, and condemning spirit (Jms. 5:7-11), and an anxious heart (Jms. 5:8).[99] And so James 5:9 simply gives an example of the “bad” deeds spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Punishment and the Bema Seat of Christ

Will Christians be punished by the Lord at the Judgment Seat of Christ? According to the Bible, it doesn’t appear that believers will be punished by Christ at the Bema Seat. However, Christians can be punished during their earthly lives by the local church (2 Cor. 2:6), the government (1 Pet. 2:14), by their own hearts (1 Jn. 4:16-18), and by God Himself (Heb. 10:26-31).[100] The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ will punish the unsaved in the afterlife (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Pet. 2:9; Jude 7).

Blessed Are Those Who Wash Their Robes (Revelation 22:14)

Revelation 22:14 in the New American Standard Bible reads this way: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.” I remember quoting this verse to a Christian brother in an attempt to show him that since all Christians have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, all Christians therefore have a right to the tree of life and may enter by the gates into the city. The brother responded by asking me if the washing of the robes referred to justification or sanctification? In answer to this question, I would say that the phrase “wash their robes” in Revelation 22:14 is referring to justification, not sanctification. There are at least three reasons for this conclusion:

1. Those who “wash their robes” (Rev. 22:14) are contrasted with those “outside” the city (Rev. 22:15). The word “outside” is often used to describe the unsaved (Mk. 4:11; Jn. 12:31; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:12; Rev. 20:10). Those who are “outside” in Revelation 22:15 are outside of God’s eternal kingdom in Hell (see Jn. 12:31; Rev. 20:10, 20:14-15, 21:8).
2. Revelation 22:14 is consistent with what the apostle John had written earlier on the same subject (see Revelation 7:9-14).[101] In Revelation 7:13 one of the elders asks the apostle John, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they…?” The answer is given by the elder that they are the ones who have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).[102] This speaks of “salvation” (Rev. 7:9-10) – that is, salvation in the sense of going to Heaven (see Rev. 7:15-17), which is justification.
3. Human volition is involved in salvation, that is, justification (see Jn. 7:37-38; Rev. 22:17). The verb “wash” (Gr. pluno) is in the active voice in Revelation 7:14 and Revelation 22:14. This simply means that the subject is the doer or performer of the action. In the New Testament, the term “wash” (Gr. pluno) is used figuratively of those who through faith so appropriate (take possession of) the results of Christ’s propitiation (satisfactory payment or sacrifice) that they are regarded by God as pure and sinless (see Rom. 3:24-26; Rev. 1:5, 5:9).

Who Has a Part in the Tree of Life and in the Holy City? (Revelation 22:18-19)

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19, NASB).

Saved or Unsaved?

The false prophets who add to and take away from God's Word: are they saved or unsaved?

There are three reasons showing that the warnings of Revelation 22:18-19 are directed toward and referring to the unsaved.[103] These three reasons all begin with the letter “c” – they are: context, characteristics, and consequences.

First, concerning the context surrounding Revelation 22:18-19, the unsaved are referred to in the verses preceding Revelation 22:18-19. Notice that in Revelation 22:15 the unsaved are referred to as those “outside” God’s eternal kingdom in Hell.[104] The unsaved are also addressed in Revelation 22:17. In verse 17 they are given four invitations to “take the water of life without cost”.[105] In light of the immediate context, verses 18-19 of Revelation 22 are probably written to the unsaved.

Second, the characteristics of those described in Revelation 22:18-19 are typically those of the unbeliever, particularly false prophets (see Matthew 24:11, 24). In contrast, believers are typically described as “those who heed the words of this book” (see Revelation 22:7, 22:9, 22:18-19).

Third, the consequences for adding to the words of the prophecy of Revelation are that God shall add to him “the plagues which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18). These plagues are none other than the plagues of the Great Tribulation! These plagues are the plagues of God’s wrath poured out upon the unsaved world! These plagues include:

• Evil angels are released to lead an army of 200 million horse-like creatures with demonic riders to plague and kill one-third of mankind (Rev. 9:13-21). This is the sixth trumpet judgment of the Tribulation. Obviously, these plagues will not smite unfaithful church-age believers because the church will not be on earth during the Tribulation (see 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 4:1, 17:14, 19:7-9). The church will be “caught up” (raptured) prior to the Tribulation (Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10, 5:9-11; Rev. 3:10).
• God grants His two witnesses the authority to devour their enemies with fire, shut up the sky, turn water into blood, and smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire (Rev. 11:3-6). As stated, unfaithful Christians will not be on earth during the Tribulation to undergo the plagues of God’s two witnesses.
• Seven angels pour out seven bowl judgments upon the earth which are the plagues of God’s wrath (Revelation chapters 15 and 16). If in Revelation 22:18 God was speaking about church-age believers it would mean that Christians would be destined to go through the Great Tribulation and worse yet it would mean that Christians would directly experience God’s wrath as He pours out judgment plagues upon the earth!

The consequences for taking away from the words of the prophecy of Revelation are that God shall “take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19). Concerning the phrase, “God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city” (Rev. 22:19), it cannot mean that Christians will be banned or restricted from the New Jerusalem, for all Christians will have access to the city (see 1 Cor. 6:11; Jn. 13:10; Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 7:10, 7:14, 20:15, 21:9, 21:14, 21:27, 22:14). Clearly, the consequences for taking away from the words of the prophecy of Revelation can only be true of the unsaved. Commenting on Revelation 22:18-19, Donald Grey Barnhouse affirms:

"Let us not forget that the Apocalypse was written not only to inform the believer of the events which close the history of time and open the history of eternity, but it was also written to warn the lost of their eternal doom and to bid them seek the Savior who alone can deliver them from a godless eternity."[106]

In light of the consequences for adding to and taking away from the words of the prophecy of the book of Revelation, it becomes clear that verses 18-19 of chapter 22 are written to the unsaved.

A Universal Opportunity To Be Saved

Anyone can potentially have a part in “the tree of life” and “the holy city,” the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:19, also see Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 20:15, 21:27) – for a part has been purchased for all (see Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:2; Rev. 22:17). John R. Rice says:

"Rev. 22:19 mentions a 'part' in the book of life [or 'tree of life' (NASB)]....Every man in this world has a part in the book of life if he will take it (1 John 2:1, 2), but one’s name is not written down in the book of life unless he is saved."[107]

Similarly, he writes:

"Verse 19 means that Christ has died for sinners everywhere and everyone has a part in the book of life [or 'tree of life' (NASB)] bought for him by the blood of Christ, but one will lose that opportunity to be saved by rejecting the things written in the Bible."[108]

Revelation 22:17 speaks of universal opportunity: “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. 22:17, KJV, also see Jn. 7:37) An individual can choose to have a “part” of life or death (Rev. 20:6, 21:7, 22:19).

The Marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7-8)

In Revelation 19:7-9, the apostle John refers first to “the marriage of the Lamb” (v. 7) and next to “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (v. 9). These two events will be considered in the Biblical order, first the Marriage of the Lamb, and second, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

The Time of the Marriage of the Lamb

When does the Marriage of the Lamb take place? In Revelation 19:7, the apostle John declares that the Marriage of the Lamb “has come”. The phrase “has come” is significant, for it tells the timing of the marriage. J. Dwight Pentecost explains, “The aorist tense, elthen, translated ‘is come,’ signifies a completed act, showing us that the marriage has been consummated.”[109] The popular Biblical Greek scholar William D. Mounce affirms that “the aorist…describes an undefined action normally occurring in the past.”[110]

Hence, the Marriage of the Lamb takes place before Revelation 19:7.

Additionally, it can be shown that the Marriage of the Lamb takes place after the catching away of the church to Heaven at the Rapture, which occurs at the beginning of Revelation chapter 4. Notice that in Revelation 4:1 the apostle John writes: “After these things” – that is, after the church related things of Revelation chapters 2 and 3, or after the church-age. The prolific Baptist author and evangelist John R. Rice affirms: “Compare verses 1-3 [of Revelation chapter 4] with 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and 1 Cor. 15:51, 52. The similarity could not be accidental. Notice the door opened in heaven, the trumpet, the call ‘come up hither.’ If chapters 2 and 3 [of Revelation] picture the church age, then obviously chapter 4 pictures the rapture.”[111]

Furthermore, it can also be seen from the Bible that the Marriage of the Lamb takes place after the Judgment Seat of Christ. Concerning the timing of the Bema Seat Judgment, J. Dwight Pentecost writes:

"The bema of Christ takes place immediately following the translation of the church out of this earth’s sphere. There are several considerations that support this. (1) In the first place, according to Luke 14:14 reward is associated with the resurrection. Since, according to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, the resurrection is an integral part of the translation, reward must be a part of that program. (2) When the Lord returns to the earth with His bride to reign, the bride is seen to be already rewarded. This is observed in Revelation 19:8, where it must be observed that the 'righteousness of the saints' is plural and can not refer to the imparted righteousness of Christ, which is the believer’s portion, but the righteousnesses which have survived examination and have become the basis of reward. (3) In 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:8; and Revelation 22:12 the reward is associated with 'that day,' that is, the day in which He comes for His own. Thus it must be observed that the rewarding of the church must take place between the rapture and the revelation of Christ to the earth."[112]

And so it can be shown from the Bible that the Marriage of the Lamb must occur after the Rapture of the Church (pictured in Revelation 4:1) and after the Judgment Seat of Christ, but before Revelation 19:7 and before the Second Coming of Christ to the earth with His bride (see Rev. 19:11-16).

The Location of the Marriage of the Lamb

Where does the Marriage of the Lamb take place? The location of the marriage can be nowhere else but Heaven itself. In Revelation 19:1 John’s attention is drawn to Heaven, and this is the stage for the Marriage of the Lamb (in vv. 7-8). After the marriage, the bride accompanies the Lamb as He descends to earth for the Battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-19; cf. Jude 14-15; Rev. 17:14).

The Bridegroom of the Marriage of the Lamb

Who is the Bridegroom in the Marriage “of the Lamb”? The Lamb is a reference to Jesus Christ. This is made clear in John 1:29, where the apostle John writes: “The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming to him, and said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” Likewise, the Lamb is clearly identified with Christ in Revelation 5:5-10. The Lamb can be none other than the person of Christ. The Marriage of the Lamb is the marriage of Jesus Christ.

The Bride of the Marriage of the Lamb

Now that the Bridegroom has been identified, who is the bride? There are those who advocate that Israel is the bride, as she is called the “wife” of Jehovah (see Isa. 54:6; cf. Ezek. 16; Hosea 2:19-20). However, Revelation 19:7 is not speaking of the wife of Jehovah but the bride of Christ. Concerning this, Clarence Larkin states:

"We must not forget that there are 'Two Brides' mentioned in the Scriptures. One is in the Old Testament, and the other in the New. The one in the Old Testament is Israel, the Bride of Jehovah; the one in the New Testament is the Church, the Bride of Christ.”[113]

Similarly, W. A. Criswell writes:

"The bride is not the Old Testament Israel. Old Testament Israel in Isaiah, in Ezekiel and in Hosea is described as the wife of Jehovah who is now a put-away wife. Israel is a forsaken wife, she is a repudiated wife. Because of her idolatries and her adulteries and because of her rejection of her great Maker to whom God married her, she is a divorced wife. The prophets say that some day she will be restored. But when she is restored, when she comes back, even then she will not be a bride. No restored wife is ever referred to as a virgin. But this bride in Revelation is a virgin."[114]

In Revelation chapter 19, Christ is not marrying Israel, for that nation is presently rejecting Him in unbelief (see Rom. 11:15, 20), and will continue to do so throughout the 7-year Great Tribulation. It is only when the Deliverer comes from Zion at the Second Coming (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:29-30; Rev. 1:7) that ungodliness will be removed from Jacob and all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26). In other words, the salvation of Israel does not occur until after the Marriage of the Lamb (which occurs in Heaven while the Great Tribulation is taking place on earth) and after Christ’s Second Coming to the earth. Thus, it is impossible for the heavenly Marriage of the Lamb to be referring to the union of Christ and the unbelieving (and earthly) nation of Israel. It is clear that the bride of the Lamb can only be the church. In Ephesians 5:22-32, the apostle Paul speaks of the husband and wife relationship as picturing Christ and the church (v. 32). Paul, speaking to the church in Corinth says, “For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin” (2 Cor. 11:2). J. Dwight Pentecost affirms: “The marriage of the Lamb is an event which evidently involves only Christ and the church”.[115] Clarence Larkin adds:

"Many assume that the 'Bride' is composed of all the saints from Abel down to the time of the taking out of the Church, but this cannot be so, for the Church did not exist until the Day of Pentecost, and only those who live and die in Christ between Pentecost and the taking out of the Church [at the Rapture] belong to the Church."[116]

It's clear from God's Word that the bride of the Lamb is the church of Jesus Christ.

The Preparation for the Marriage of the Lamb

What is meant in Revelation 19:7 when the apostle John says that the “bride has made herself ready”? Has the bride made herself ready for the marriage or has she made herself ready for the marriage supper? It seems that the bride’s preparation has more to do with the marriage than the marriage supper. The bride’s preparation in verse 7 is related to her wedding gown in verse 8. The fine linen of the gown is “the righteous acts of the saints” (Rev. 19:8). So the Judgment Seat of Christ (which occurs immediately prior to the Marriage of the Lamb) plays an important part in readying the bride. It seems best to interpret the Judgment Seat of Christ as the means by which the bride prepares herself for the marriage. Lehman Strauss writes: “The wedding gown, then, will be made up of the good works that remain after the testing of the Judgment Seat of Christ. Now you can see how the wife makes herself ready”.[117]

The Participants in the Marriage of the Lamb

Who are the participants in the heavenly Marriage of the Lamb? According to the Bible, it appears that only Christ and the church actually participate in the marriage. 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16 indicates that only believers “in Christ” will be resurrected and caught up to Heaven at the Rapture. Those “in Christ” are those in the body of Christ – the church. Since the Day of Pentecost, believers are placed into the body of Christ through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13). Old Testament and Tribulation believers are never said to be “in Christ”. They are not part of the church, Christ’s body. Such passages as Isaiah 26:19-21 and Daniel 12:1-3 and 12:13 show that the resurrection of Israel and other Old Testament believers will not take place until after the Second Coming of Christ to the earth at the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11), which occurs after the Marriage of the Lamb. Like the Old Testament believers, the Tribulation believers will also be resurrected after the Second Coming and take part in the 1,000 year kingdom (Rev. 20:4-6).

So there are several reasons indicating that Old Testament and Tribulation believers will not be the ones married or given in marriage:

1. They are not part of the church, Christ’s bride.
2. They are not resurrected with the church, so they are not rewarded nor prepared for the marriage at the time it occurs.
3. They are not raptured with the church, so they are not physically present for the marriage - although they could observe since their souls are present in Heaven.

Referring to the Marriage of the Lamb, J. Dwight Pentecost writes: “While it would be impossible to eliminate these groups [i.e. Old Testament and Tribulation saints] from the place of observers, they can not be in the position of participants in the event itself.”[118] Thus it is clear that only church-age believers “in Christ” will participate in the Marriage of the Lamb.

The Guests at the Marriage of the Lamb

Who attends the Marriage of the Lamb? Here one should not confuse the marriage with the marriage feast. The marriage occurs in heaven, but the marriage feast occurs on earth. The marriage is wholly heavenly. First, “a great multitude” (Rev. 19:1) is seen in attendance at the marriage. Second, the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures are also present at the marriage (Rev. 19:4).[119] Third, “servants” are seen to be present at the Marriage of the Lamb (Rev. 19:5, KJV). This is possibly a reference to the souls of martyred Tribulation saints (see Revelation 6:9-11, 7:15).

The Duration of the Marriage of the Lamb

While the church is presently united with Christ spiritually (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 5:30), after the Rapture when the bride is taken to be with Christ in the Father’s house, she will then also be united with Him physically (Jn. 14:3; 1 Thess. 4:17). While it may be impossible to know the exact duration of any ceremony that takes place when the bride is presented to the Bridegroom (Eph. 5:27, 5:32), the marriage occurs while the seven-year Tribulation is unfolding on earth. Renald Showers writes:

"As the Jewish bride remained hidden in the bridal chamber for seven days after arriving at the bridegroom’s father’s house, the church will remain hidden for seven years after arrival at Christ’s Father’s house in heaven. While the seven-year Tribulation period is occurring on the earth, the church will be in heaven, totally hidden from the sight of those living on Earth."[120]

The important thing to remember is that the marriage is an eternal union between Christ and the church, for then “we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17b).

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9)

In Revelation 19:9, an angel speaks to the apostle John, saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” The subject now shifts from the Marriage of the Lamb to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.

The Time of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

When does the marriage supper take place? It almost goes without saying that the marriage supper takes place after the marriage (Rev. 19:7-9).

The Location of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Where does the marriage supper take place? While the announcement of the marriage supper takes place in heaven (Rev. 19:9), it declares an event which is about to take place on earth. The marriage supper takes place on earth during the Millennial Kingdom, after the heavenly marriage. After the Marriage of the Lamb, Christ descends to earth with His bride (Zech. 12:10, 14:1-4; Matt. 24:27-30; Jude 14-15; Rev. 19:11-19). Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice write: “the Marriage Supper of the Lamb does not commence until after the second coming of Christ, during the first part of the Millennium, when all believers throughout the ages will be present to enter into the festivities (Matthew 8:11; Mark 14:25; Luke 13:29; 14:12-15).”[121]

The Host of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Who hosts the great marriage feast? The host of the marriage supper is none other than God Himself! The prophet Isaiah identifies Him as Jehovah, saying: “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain [that is, on Mount Zion in Jerusalem (Isa. 24:23)]; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine” (Isa. 25:6). Although the feast will be given by the Father for His Son (Matt. 22:2), it appears that Christ will help serve at His own marriage feast. Luke 12:37 says, “Blessed are those slaves whom the master [equated with the Son of Man in verse 40] shall find on the alert when he comes [to earth at His Second Coming]; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.” During the Last Supper, Jesus said to His disciples: “For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. And you are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22:27-30).

The Guests at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

Who are the guests at the Marriage Super of the Lamb? Clearly, the bride is not a guest at her own wedding supper! She does not need to be “invited” (Matt. 22:4), for there could be no wedding supper without her. The guests are not to be equated with the bride. The guests at the marriage supper appear to be all the saints of all time – excluding church-age believers because these people are the bride of Christ – who have been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. These guests include Old Testament believers like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, as well as all the prophets (Matt. 8:11; Lk. 13:28-29, 14:14-15; cf. Job 19:25-26; Dan. 12:1-3, 12:13). John the Baptist considered himself a guest, saying that he was not the bride nor the bridegroom, but a “friend of the bridegroom” (Jn. 3:29). Those redeemed during the Tribulation period will also be guests at the marriage supper. Clarence Larkin summarizes:

"Thus we see that the righteous of all the past Ages and Dispensations, and all the Saints of God who shall be worthy, and who are not included in the Bride (The Church), will be 'Guests' at the 'Marriage Supper of the Lamb.' Angels will be 'spectators' of the scene but they cannot be 'Guests,' for that honor is reserved for only those who have been redeemed by the 'Blood of the Lamb.'”[122]

As Larkin noted, it does not appear that angels will be guests at the marriage feast. Although the angels will probably be spectators, “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:9) has special significance and reference to those redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.[123] Angels are not included in this group (Heb. 1:14, 2:16; 1 Pet. 1:9-12).

The Duration of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb

How long does the marriage supper last? In Old Testament times, the wedding festivities might last a day or longer (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12; Esth. 2:18; Jn. 2:1-2). In Matthew 22, the marriage supper seems to be equated with the Millennial Kingdom. It is possible that the marriage supper will extend the entire 1,000 years! What a glorious future awaits every believer in Christ!

"…just as it is written, 'THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND WHICH HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.' For to us God revealed them through His spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God." (1 Corinthians 2:9-10.)

The Identity of the Overcomer (1 John 5:4-5)

God’s Word sets forth the fact that every Christian is an overcomer (Rom. 8:37; 1 Jn. 4:4, 5:4-5; Rev. 2:11, 20:6, 21:6-8) because of the fact that we are in Christ, and Christ overcame (Jn. 16:33; cf. Psa. 68:18; Jn. 12:31, 16:11; Rom. 8:37; Gal. 1:4). And so the overcomer is simply one who has believed in Christ as their Savior.

A key verse in connection with the identity of the overcomer is 1 John 5:4-5 which says, “For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” George Zeller comments:

"Please note that this is the only place in the New Testament where the question, 'Who is he that overcometh?' is asked and answered. Also note that the answer was given by the Apostle John, the same man who was the human penman for Revelation chapters 2-3. [Zane] Hodges goes so far as to say that it is 'totally illicit' (illegal!) to appeal to 1 John 5:4-5 in order to understand who the 'overcomer' really is (Grace in Eclipse, p. 108). Is it illegal to let God’s Word explain its own terms? Is it illegal to compare Scripture with Scripture? Is it illegal to allow the Apostle John to define the word 'overcomer'? Hodges is concerned because the Apostle John’s definition of an 'overcomer' in 1 John 5:4-5 is not in agreement with his own definition of an overcomer. For my part, I choose to agree with the Apostle John.”[124]

It will be interesting to notice the following similarities between the overcomer and the believer in Christ in order to highlight the fact that every Christian is an overcomer:

1. The overcomer is someone who has believed in Christ (1 Jn. 5:5). Likewise, the Christian is anyone who has believed in Christ (Jn. 7:38; Eph. 1:13-14; 1 Jn. 5:13).
2. The overcomer is a child of God (1 Jn. 5:4; Rev. 21:7). Likewise, the Christian is a child of God (Jn. 1:12).
3. The overcomer has received undeserved favor, namely the gift of eternal life (Rev. 3:5, 21:6-7, 22:17). Likewise, the Christian has received undeserved favor, namely the gift of eternal life (Jn. 7:37-38, 20:31; 1 Jn. 5:5).
4. The overcomer will be allowed “to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). Likewise, the Christian will be granted “the right to the tree of life” in the new heaven and the new earth (Rev. 22:1-2, 22:14, 22:17) and presumably in the Millennium as well (Ezek. 47:12; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:8). Just as the first Adam had the right to the tree of life and could eat freely of it (Gen. 2:9, 2:16, 3:24), so those in the Last Adam – those in Christ (1 Cor. 15:22, 5:45; Eph. 1:3) – will again have the right to the tree of life (Rev. 22:14) and be granted the privilege of eating its fruit (Rev. 2:7, 22:2).
5. The overcomer will not be hurt by the second death (Rev. 2:11, 3:5, cf. 20:14-15, 21:8). Likewise, the Christian will not be hurt by the second death, for it has “no power” over him or her (Jn. 3:16, 5:24, 11:25; Rev. 20:6, 20:14-15, 21:8).
6. The overcomer partakes of the hidden manna, and is given a white stone with a new name on it (Rev. 2:17). Likewise, the Christian partakes of the living manna (Jn. 6:31-33, 6:48-51, 6:58; cf. Ex. 16:11-15; Psa. 78:24) and is given a white stone with a new name on it (2 Cor. 1:20). What is the white stone with a new name on it that Christians will receive? In Greek courts of the New Testament era, jurors would use black stones to vote for a person’s guilt but white stones to vote for innocence (cf. Acts 26:10).[125] Of course, every Christian is forgiven and innocent in God’s sight, not guilty (Rom. 4:6-8; 1 Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5, 7:14). The white stone could also signify friendship. White stones were given by the Romans as badges of friendship and alliance, and on which some device was engraved, as a testimony that a contract of friendship had been made between the parties.[126] Concerning the new name written on the stone, Merrill Unger notes: "Princes often changed their names on their accession to the throne (2 Kings 23:34; 24:17). This was also done in the case of private persons on entering upon public duties of importance (Num. 13:16; cf. John 1:42; Acts 4:36). So the prophet Nathan, on assuming the charge of Solomon’s education, gave him the name Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12:25)."[127] Christians also will ascend to sit on thrones (Rev. 1:6, 3:21, 5:9-10, 20:4, 6) and enter into public duties of importance in the Millennial Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:2) and serve Christ into eternity (1 Cor. 6:3; Rev. 22:3). Commenting on Revelation 2:17, Tim LaHaye similarly writes: "The stone indicates acquittal from our sins, and our new name, just as Christ renamed Peter and Paul after their conversion, points to the new life we have in Him." (LaHaye, Revelation Unveiled [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999], p. 94.) Although the exact meaning of the white stone with a new name on it is somewhat unclear, there are many interpretations of it that are consistent with every Christian being an overcomer.
7. The overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end will be given "authority over the nations; and he shall rule them. . . and I will give him the morning star" (Rev. 2:26-28). The promise given to the overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end begins in Revelation 2:26. Christ's promise given here to the overcomer who keeps His deeds until the end contains three main parts: (a) authority over the nations (Rev. 2:26b), (b) rule (Rev. 2:27), and (c) the morning star (Rev. 2:28). Looking at the first two parts of this three part promise, it is stated that the overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end will be given authority over the nations and will rule them "with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father" (Rev. 2:26-27). In Revelation 2:26-27, Christ quotes from Psalm 2:8-9. Psalm 2:8-9 has reference to Christ returning to earth to put down all rebellion and set up His millennial kingdom (cf. Rev. 12:5, 19:15). Then, at His second coming to earth, Christ will return as Judge (Psa. 2:9; Rev. 19:15). In Revelation 2:26-27, the overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end is promised authority and rule over the nations as promised to Christ (Psa. 2; Isa. 11:10; Rom. 15:12; Rev. 12:5, 19:15), the tribulation saints (Rev. 20:4b), all the saints of all time (Psa. 149:5-9; Dan. 7:18, 7:22, 7:27; Rev. 20:4-6), and His very own Church (1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 1:5-6, 4:4, 5:9-10, 17:14, 19:14, 20:4, 20:6). As mentioned above, the promises given to the overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end in Revelation 2:26-27 are not exclusive promises. They are not given only to "he who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end". Notice that Christ does not say, "he who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, only to him I will give authority over the nations; and only he shall rule them". The promises in Revelation 2:26-27 are addressed to the overcomer who keeps Christ's deeds until the end, but the promises do not exclude others from partaking of them. The Bible makes it clear that all Christians will return with Christ at His Second Coming to the earth and will share in His victory and rule (Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 3:13; 2 Thess. 1:10, 1:12; Rev. 17:14, 19:11-20:6) and will be given authority and rule over the nations (1 Cor. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:5-6, 4:4, 5:9-10, 20:6). To repeat for clarification: The promises found in Revelation 2:26-27 are true of "he who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end," and (as seen from other Scriptures) these promises are also true of those who simply overcome (that is, all Christians). The bride of Christ will partake of these promises when she returns with Christ at His Second Coming (Dan. 2:40-45; Zech. 14:5; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 3:13, 4:17b; 2 Thess. 1:10; Jude 14; Rev. 17:12-14, 19:11-20:6) when she shares in His rule over the earth (1 Cor. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:5-6, 4:4, 5:9-10, 20:6). If the Bible indicates that all Christians enter into the promises of Revelation 2:26-27 (cf. 1 Cor. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:5-6, 4:4, 5:9-10, 17:14, 19:14, 20:6), then why are these promises (in Revelation 2:26-27) specifically given to the overcomer who keeps Christ’s deeds until the end? The answer it seems is because Christ wants to motivate the believers in the church of Thyatira (and by extension all Christians) to keep His deeds as opposed to the deeds of Jezebel (cf. Rev. 2:20-22). It reminds me of how in the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon while he was hiding from the Midianites in a winepress and yet the angel of the Lord still addressed Gideon by saying, "Oh mighty man of valor!" (See Judges 6:11-12, ESV.) Notice that in Judges 6:12, God does not call Gideon what he is - a fearful man, but instead God calls him what He plans him to be - a valiant warrior! How gracious is our God! Similarly, in the New Testament the apostle Paul says that the believers in Corinth are "saints by calling" (1 Cor. 1:2). He goes on to instruct these carnal believers in proper conduct by pointing out how God sees them and drawing attention to the wonderful future they have in Christ. "Don't you realize," Paul says, "that someday we believers will judge the world? And since we are going to judge the world, can't you decide even these little things among yourselves? Don't you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life" (1 Cor. 6:2-3, NLT). I’ve found that people who think Revelation 2:26-27 contain exclusive promises for the super-saints are not really consistent with their interpretation of Scripture when it comes to the promise contained in Revelation 2:28. They seem to forget that without verse 28, verses 26-27 are an incomplete sentence and thought. Revelation 2:28 is the conclusion of the three-part promise begun in Revelation 2:26. In Revelation 2:28, Christ promises that the overcomer who keeps His deeds until the end will be given “the morning star” (Rev. 2:28). This is a reference to Christ Himself (cf. Rev. 22:16) and it seems to refer to Christ as the One coming for His church (Rev. 22:7, 22:12, 22:17, 22:20) before the establishment of His glorious kingdom on earth (Num. 24:17; Mal. 4:2; 2 Pet. 1:17-19; Rev. 22:16). John Walvoord writes, “The morning star (2:28) refers to Christ returning before the dawn, suggesting the Rapture of the church before the establishment of the kingdom (cf. Rev. 22:16; 2 Peter 1:19).”[128] Similarly, George N. H. Peters writes: "We have in the 'Morning Star' an implied reference to the first state of the Advent, the thief-like coming for the saints, and to obtain it indicates that we are worthy of the better [i.e. first] resurrection, or (if living) of the translation. The mention of this in such a connection is also exceedingly significant of the exaltation of the saints to coheirship with Christ when the morning breaks."[129] All church-age believers will participate in the promises of Revelation 2:26-27 (“authority” and “rule”), so it would be consistent to also see all church-age believers partaking of the last portion of this three-part promise found in Revelation 2:28 (“the morning star”). This in fact is the case, as all Christians – whether spiritual or carnal – will be “caught up [raptured] . . . to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17; cf. 1 Cor. 15:22, 15:51; 1 Thess. 5:4-11) in His kingdom (Col. 1:12-13; Heb. 12:28; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). Let us “encourage one another with these words” (1 Thess. 4:18)!
8. The overcomer will “be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels” (Rev. 3:5). This three-part promise is true of all Christians. Every Christian will be clothed in white garments (Job 29:14; Isa. 61:10; Jn. 13:10; 1 Cor. 3:15, 6:11; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:27; Rev. 1:5, 4:4, 7:9, 7:10, 7:14b, 19:8, 19:14, 22:14). Every Christians’ name is permanently recorded in the book of life. In Philippians 4:3, the apostle Paul describes Christians as those whose names are “in the book of life”. The preposition “in” (Greek en) has the primary idea of rest.[130] It denotes a fixed position and signifies something that remains in place. Similarly, Christ says, “I will not erase his name from the book of life” (Rev. 3:5). If the name of any believer could be erased from the book of life it would mean that “brethren” (Phil. 4:1) could be “thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15) and experience the second death (Rev. 21:8). Such is impossible however, for the second death has “no power” over believers (Rev. 20:6). Lastly, Christ will confess the names of all Christians before His Father and before His angels (cf. Rom. 2:29; 1 Cor. 4:5b).
9. The overcomer will be made “a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name” (Rev. 3:12). William R. Newell comments, “Pillars (like Boaz and Jachin) in Solomon’s temple, exhibited permanency, strength, and beauty.”[131] Similarly, the Bible teaches that like immovable pillars, all Christians will be forever and permanently with the Lord following the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 3:12) and specially associated with the New Jerusalem (cf. Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 21:9, 21:14, 21:27). Christians “like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5, NIV). We are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. Rev. 1:4-6, 3:12, 5:9-10, 20:6).
10. To the overcomer, Christ declares: “I will grant him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21). Similarly, the Bible teaches that Christians will be seated with Christ in the millennial kingdom (Eph. 1:20-23, 2:6-7; Col. 3:1-4). The victorious church (1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 17:14, 19:14, 19:19, etc.), composed of all Christians, will sit on thrones (Rev. 20:4a; cf. 1 Cor. 6:2) in the Millennium and “will reign with Him for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:6), and even into eternity (Rev. 22:5).

Who Will Not Inherit the Kingdom? (Rom. 7-8; 1 Cor. 6; Gal. 5; Eph. 5; Rev. 21, 22)

Some Free Grace people teach that not all Christians will inherit the millennial kingdom. This teaching stems in part from failing to distinguish between the believer’s condition in this world and his position in Christ, as well as failing to recognize the believer’s exalted and glorious position in Christ. Notice what Zane Hodges writes:

"There is no difficulty at all in speaking of people who live in the Kingdom of God but who do not inherit that Kingdom...the heirs of the Kingdom, then, are its owners, not merely its residents or citizens."[132]

Similarly, Joseph Dillow says:

"All Christians will enter the kingdom, but not all will rule there, i.e., inherit it....They will, having been justified, be in the kingdom; however, they will not inherit it...There is a difference between being a resident of the kingdom and inheriting it."[133]

"They [the residents of the kingdom who do not inherit the kingdom] will be in the kingdom but not at the wedding feast."[134]

Also, Merrill F. Unger writes:

"The apostle warns that believers failing to separate from this polluted paganism, [1 Cor. 6:] 9-10, 'shall not inherit the kingdom of God,' i.e., shall suffer loss of reward (cf. 3:11-15)...."[135]

"These sins characterize the unsaved, [Eph. 5:] 5-7, upon whom the wrath of God rests, 6, (cf. Rom. 1:18). Should they characterize the professing believer, if truly regenerate, he forfeits any reward or inheritance in the kingdom of God..."[136]

Concerning these statements, the question must be asked, “But what does the Scripture say?” (Gal. 4:30).

Romans 7-8

The Bible makes a distinction between the Christian’s condition in this world and the Christian’s position in Christ. In regards to the Christian’s condition in this world, the Christian can choose to live either “according to the flesh” (Rom. 8:4, 8:12-13) or “according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4-6, 8:13).[137] However, in regards to the Christian’s position in Christ, the Christian is not “in the flesh” (Rom. 7:4-6, 8:8-9), but “in the Spirit” (Rom. 8:9; cf. Gal. 4:6). These distinctions will be important in this study.

1 Corinthians 6

In 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, the apostle Paul reproves the Corinthian Christians because “brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers” (1 Cor. 6:6). The Corinthians were apparently taking each other to court and the cases were being judged by unsaved judges (1 Cor. 6:1, 6:4, 6:6). This was a problem and it prompted the apostle Paul to ask: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 6:9). The word “unrighteous” in 1 Corinthians 6:1 and 6:9 is the Greek word adikos. It refers to the unjust or unjustified - those who have not been justified or declared righteous by God (1 Cor. 6:11). These people are unsaved, and God still sees these unsaved people in their sins (Jn. 8:24; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul goes on to say to the Corinthians: “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame.” (1 Cor. 6:1-5)

The Corinthian Christians were carnal in their condition in this world. They were even committing some of the same sins that the unsaved were committing which are listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (see 1 Cor. 5:1, 11:19, 11:21). Yet the Corinthian believers had a position in Christ in which God still saw them as washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 1 Cor. 1:2; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10)! Commenting on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Joseph Dillow writes:

"All Christians will enter the kingdom, but not all will rule there, i.e., inherit it....They will, having been justified, be in the kingdom; however, they will not inherit it....There is a difference between being a resident of the kingdom and inheriting it."[138]

Unfortunately, Joseph Dillow makes a false distinction between entering (or being a resident in) the kingdom and inheriting (or ruling in) the kingdom. No such distinction exists in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. The apostle Paul contrasts the saved carnal Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:11) with the unsaved who will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:1, 6:4, 6:6, 6:9-10) – implying that the saved carnal Corinthians will inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 20:4, 20:6). The contrast is not between the sins of the saved and the sins of the unsaved because the sins of the saved and the sins of the unsaved are the same (compare 1 Cor. 5:1, 11:19, 11:21 with 1 Cor. 6:9-10)! The contrast is between how God views the saved (as washed of their sins, sanctified, and justified – forgiven of sin and legally declared to be perfectly righteous) and how God views the unsaved (as still in their sins). Even though the carnal Corinthians were living “according to the flesh” (Rom. 8:4, 8:12-13), God did not view them as “in the flesh” (Rom. 7:4-6, 8:8-9), but as “in the Spirit” (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 6:11). The unsaved, however, are viewed by God as “in their sins” (Jn. 8:24) and “in the flesh” (Rom. 7:5), regardless of how moral or religious they might be (Isa. 64:6; Phil. 3:8-9).

Galatians 5

Another passage that relates to the topic of not inheriting the kingdom is Galatians 5:16-26. For the purposes of this study, only verses 19-21 of Galatians chapter 5 will be specifically discussed. Here the apostle Paul writes: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you beforehand, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21, KJV).

It must be clearly stated here that the carnal Corinthian believers were committing many of the sins listed in Galatians chapter 5 (see 1 Cor. 3:3-4, 5:1, 11:21). Yet the apostle Paul teaches that the Corinthians will inherit the kingdom of God, and even be given positions of authority in that kingdom: “Or do you not know,” the apostle Paul says to the Corinthians, “that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we shall judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:2-3).

The apostle Paul does not have Christians nor even carnal Christians in view when he says in Galatians 5:21, “of the which I tell YOU beforehand, as I have also told YOU in time past, that THEY which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Who is Paul talking about when he says, “THEY which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”? Paul is clearly not referring to the Galatian Christians because (a) Paul changes pronouns from “you” to “they” (b) Paul has already said that the Galatians are “heirs” (Gal. 4:30-31) of “the Jerusalem above” (Gal. 4:26). Someone might insist that the apostle must be referring to other believers like the sinful Corinthians. But it has already been shown from the Scriptures why this cannot be (see above). What Paul says in Galatians 5:19-21 is very similar to what he says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In both passages, Paul speaks of the unsaved as those who will not inherit the kingdom.

Ephesians 5

Ephesians 5:5-8 is another Bible passage that should be considered in regards to the question, “Who will not inherit the kingdom?” In this section of Scripture, the apostle Paul writes: “For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolator, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light”. Notice what George Zeller says about this passage:

"In considering the Ephesians 5:5 passage, the very next verse speaks of God’s wrath coming upon THE UNSAVED because of their sins: 'Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things (see v.5) cometh the wrath of God upon the CHILDREN OF DISOBEDIENCE' (Eph. 5:6). If the Hodges/Dillow view were correct, we might expect Paul to discuss how God’s wrath will come upon saved people, the carnal ones who are persisting in such sins; but instead Paul discusses God’s wrath upon the children of disobedience (the unsaved)."[139]

It is true that believers can be disobedient in their walk and condition in this world. However, in their position in Christ, God views believers as children of light (Eph. 5:8; cf. Jn. 12:36; 1 Thess. 5:5), not sons of disobedience (Eph. 5:6). The phrase “sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6) does not refer to carnal believers, but to the unsaved (Eph. 2:1-7).

Revelation chapter 21

Revelation 21:7-8 is another Bible passage that relates to the subject of inheriting and not inheriting the kingdom. There are only two groups of people referred to in this passage: the overcomers who are sons and who have an inheritance (Rev. 21:7), and the non-inheritors who have a part in the Lake of Fire and the second death (Rev. 21:8). God’s Word contrasts the overcomer with the unbeliever. The approved student of God’s Word would do well to do likewise (2 Tim. 2:15).

Appendix 1: Questions and Answers

Question # 1: “One thing I’m curious about...is this, and please, if you’re able to look at it, tell me if it works well: since John (1 Jn. 2:13-14; 4:4; 5:4-5) and Christ (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21) both say that one overcomes the world through faith, could [it] be said that LS [Lordship Salvation] exegetes’ commentaries on Rev. 22:14 (assuming, for the sake of argumentation, they use the Majority Text reading)--as though this were an indictment against our views and an aid to theirs--is an example of a non-sequitor? In other words, to say that the one who keeps the commandments of God (22:14) can enter the city and eat from the Tree of Life is not, however, to say that those who don’t do these things won’t inherit (compare Rev. 2:7; 21:7), but is perhaps just focusing on the positive with an affirmation that we should live godly in Christ because of being reconciled to the Lord. Yet, one thing I’m just a bit confused on (and why I ask) is about the texts of Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:11, 15, 19 (which appear to place some contingency on reigning and/or kingdom entrance via obedience, which we know is false, as we’re saved, adopted into the family of God, overcome the world, et al, on account of our faith in Christ and not works). Furthermore, what about the Lord’s promises of ‘thrones’ (Rev. 3:21; also see Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4a) or even white garments (Rev. 3:4-5; also see Rev. 3:10; 4:5; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 19:8, 14), or His other promises for that matter? Are all these also ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’ in nature?”

Answer: Good thoughts on Revelation 22:14. I've come across a couple interpretations that I think are consistent with Free Grace theology. I address that Bible verse in my article Every Christian's Final Destiny, but let me just clarify that what you said is, I think, a plausible interpretation (i.e. it could be that it is descriptive, not prescriptive, or just emphasizing the positive for reasons of encouragement). Also, we could take the non-Majority Text reading and work with that instead of building a case on the Majority Text (MT). If we take the non-MT reading of Revelation 22:14 it says, "Blessed are those who wash their robes". Okay, well that could mean wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb like it says in Revelation 7:10-14, and is I believe, a reference to "salvation" (verse 10). Another interpretation I've heard (getting back to the MT reading of Rev. 22:14) is that some think there is a difference between doing God's commandments (as in "blessed are those who do His commandments") and keeping His commandments. In other words, repentance and faith in Christ are God's commandments and the unsaved should "do" them, i.e. get saved (see Jn. 6:28-29, Acts 16:30-31; 17:30, etc.). But keeping God's commandments is something different, and verse 14 doesn't say "keep", only "do".

The way I understand Revelation 21:8, 21:27; 22:11, 22:15, and 22:19 is that these are descriptions of the unsaved based on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Although the Corinthians were still committing some of the very sins named in verses 9-11 (fornication, idolatry, drunkenness, etc.), the apostle Paul specifically says "such were some of you". God still sees the unsaved in their sins, but Christians have been washed, (positionally) sanctified, and justified "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). Praise the Lord! Furthermore, if you do a study on "those that are outside" like it says in Revelation 22:15 (or "without" as the KJV says) - in other words, if you do a study on "outsiders" in the New Testament, you will see that it’s a description of the unsaved. For example, see Colossians 4:5.

In regards to when you ask: "Furthermore, what about the Lord’s promises of 'thrones' (Rev. 3:21; also see Rev. 4:4; 11:16; 20:4a) or even white garments (Rev. 3:4-5; also see Rev. 3:10; 4:5; 6:11; 7:9, 13-14; 19:8, 14), or His other promises for that matter? Are all these also 'descriptive' and not 'prescriptive' in nature?" I would say the short answer is yes. I get into this more in my article Every Christian's Final Destiny, but one thing that I can share briefly that might be helpful is that I believe all Christians will rule and reign with Christ in some capacity (see 1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 20:6, etc.), but there are different positions of rule and authority assigned to individuals based upon one's faithfulness to the Lord. For example, Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 19:28: "You who have followed me will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel". Jesus is referring to a higher position of rule and authority (over Israel) for the 12 disciples (Judas being replaced by Matthias, see Acts 1:15-26).

Question # 2: “You assert that Matt. 10:32-33; Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; 12:8-9 were said under the Mosaic Law dispensation and thus, if I might say it this way, for I’m not sure how else to word it, don’t apply in relation to Rev. 3:5. Yet, how is this correct, for it was said to the Apostles? I don’t mean to say that I don’t agree with it, but I’m just wondering: if we argue that the above doesn’t connect with Rev. 3:5, how do we understand Jn. 15:1-6? Why should one not apply across dispensations while the other does? I hope you understand what I’m trying to ask."

Answer: My basic response is that the contexts of Matthew 10:32-33; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26, and Luke 12:8-9 indicate a different dispensation than John 15:1-6. Or to say it another way: in John chapters 14-15, Jesus is looking ahead to when the Holy Spirit will come and indwell believers on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. So Jesus is looking ahead to the dispensation of grace and that's the context of John chapters 14-15. But as I understand the passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that I mentioned, the contexts of those passages have to do more with the nation of Israel and with the return of Christ to the earth at the end of the Great Tribulation. And so the contexts of those passages are in regards to those people who will be living on the earth when Jesus returns for the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-21). In my understanding of prophecy, the people living on the earth at that time are not the church because the church has already been "caught up" (1 Thess. 4:17; cf. 1 Cor. 15:52; Rev. 4:1) in the air to be with Christ previous to the battle of Armageddon.

Question # 3: “Furthermore...what do we make of 2 Tim. 2:12b (that says if we deny Him then He will deny us)?....In relation to the above, you say that 2 Tim. 2:12a is about the 'reward of an elevated position of reign' (page 19). Yet, how so? The text, as it appears, paints everything in a very black-and-white way. If we endure then we’ll reign, but if we don’t endure we (presumably) won’t. Please, if you could, might you give me your reasons for saying that? Is there something in the context or even in the original Greek that lends itself to that interpretation? Thanks."

Answer: As to your first question about why I say the "reward of an elevated position of reign" - you are right that the text doesn't explicitly say this, but an elevated position of reign is still reigning with Christ as 2 Timothy 2:12a says, and so I believe that my interpretation is consistent with what the text says. Furthermore, Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. And other Scriptures indicate that those who endure trials and suffering for the Lord will be given an elevated position of reign in Christ's future kingdom. For example, in Matthew 19:28 Jesus says to His disciples, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." In my paper Every Christian's Final Destiny, I mentioned some other Scriptures that indicate degrees of reign. I'm not sure if I mentioned Ezekiel 34:34 in my paper, but it indicates an elevated position of rule in Christ's future kingdom. It says, "And I, the LORD, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I the LORD have spoken."

Second, Paul doesn't state the negative of what happens if believers don't endure. In other words, he doesn't say "if we don't endure we won't reign". So I'm hesitant to conclude that, especially when I don't believe that it best fits the whole counsel of God's Word. To be more specific, I believe the Bible clearly indicates that all Christians - even carnal Christians like the Corinthian Christians - will reign with Christ in one capacity or another (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:10, 20:6). So I'm hesitant to presume to conclude the opposite based on one Bible verse.

I just thought of an example of how I understand 2 Timothy 2:12 where it says, "if we endure we will reign with Him, if we deny Him, He will also deny us". The apostle Peter denied Christ, yet according to Matthew 19:28, the Lord still promised that Peter would reign with Christ in His future kingdom and even be given an elevated position of rule and reign. And so this is a good example, I think, to show that 2 Timothy 2:12 doesn't mean that Christians who deny Christ won't reign - because the apostle Peter denied Christ three times and Christ knew this all along and still promised in Matthew 19:28 that the twelve apostles would reign with Christ in His coming kingdom. By the way, I think that the place of Judas Iscariot was given to Matthias according to what the Bible says in Acts 1:12-26.

The apostle Peter no doubt will be denied some rewards because he denied Christ, but he confessed his sin and went on to endure great suffering and persecution for the name of Christ even to the point of being killed for his faith. And so because Peter endured, he therefore will receive an exalted position of rule and reign in Christ’s future kingdom.

FOOTNOTES

1. This quote is attributed to Pastor Chet Schmear of Good News Messengers Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (www. gnmc.us). Note: Good News Messengers Church was formerly located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
2. Richard Tenaglia, Reward According To Works, pp. 21, 40. The late Richard Tenaglia was co-pastor of Good News Messengers Church in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and later he was pastor of Truth Bible Church in Waukesha, WI.
3. Bob Wilkin, “If We Endure, We Will Reign with Him,” Grace In Focus Magazine (January/February 1996): p. 2.
4. See: Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 462; C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, pp. 5-12.
5. The phrase “that you may be married to another” in Romans 7:4 (NKJV) speaks of the legal privilege of all believers (cf. Rom. 6:1-5), as opposed to being some kind of conditional statement.
6. C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, p. 50.
7. For more information regarding the church-age believer’s position and condition, please read: Salvation by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth by C. I. Scofield, The Complete Green Letters by Miles Stanford, “The Difference Between The Believer’s Standing and State” (middletownbiblechurch.org) and “215 Things That Are True Of Me Now That I Am Saved” (middletownbiblechurch.org).
8. Romans 8:17 is often misunderstood, largely due to the phrase “if indeed we suffer with Him”. It is important to note that Paul uses the first class conditional “if” when he writes “if indeed we suffer with Him,” as he does earlier in the verse as well (“if children”). Daniel B. Wallace, a prominent Greek scholar, defines the first class condition this way: “The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The normal idea, then, is if – and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument – the….” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 690). While the “assumption of truth” is not necessarily “truth,” there are several reasons to believe that Paul’s assumption of truth (“if indeed we suffer with Him”) actually corresponds to reality, i.e. all Christians suffer with Christ: (1.) The Apostle Paul’s initial use of the first class conditional “if” (“if children”) in Romans 8:17 corresponds to reality – the Christians in Rome and Paul himself actually are “children of God” (Rom. 8:16). Since Paul’s initial use of the first class conditional “if” in Romans 8:17 corresponds to reality, it would be consistent for his second use of the first class conditional “if” in the same verse (and in the same sentence and thought) to also correspond to reality. (2.) All believers in Christ will be glorified with Christ. If, as Romans 8:17 indicates, God’s children have to “suffer with Him” in order to be “glorified with Him,” then all Christians suffer with Him because all Christians will be glorified with Him (Rom. 8:30; Phil. 3:21; 2 Tim. 2:10b; 1 Jn. 3:2). (3.) The Bible teaches that all Christians indeed suffer with Christ (see Jn. 16:33, 17:14, 16, 18:36, 8:23; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18, 23; 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 5:9-10; 2 Pet. 2:7-8; compare Rev. 1:9 with Rev. 1:4a and Rev. 3:14-18). (4.) Various Bible translations interpret the first class conditional “if” clause (“if indeed we suffer with Him”) in Romans 8:17 as corresponding to reality. For example, Romans 8:17 in the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) reads as follows: “and if children, also heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ – seeing that we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” Similarly, the Jerusalem Bible reads, “And if we are children we are heirs as well: heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, sharing his sufferings so as to share his glory.” (5.) Various Bible teachers interpret the first class conditional “if” clause (“if indeed we suffer with Him”) in Romans 8:17 as corresponding to reality. For example, J. Vernon McGee writes: “‘If so be’ assures the fact that the child of God will suffer with Him. I believe it could be translated ‘since we suffer with Him.’ I don’t think the ‘if’ is as important as some folk make it out to be.” (McGee, Thru The Bible, Vol. 4, p. 701.) Similarly, William MacDonald aptly writes: “When Paul adds, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together, he is not making heroic suffering a condition for salvation. Neither is he describing some elite inner circle of overcomers who have endured great afflictions. Rather, he sees all Christians as being co-sufferers and all Christians as glorified with Christ. The if is equivalent to ‘since.’ Of course, there are some who suffer more than others in the cause of Christ, and this will result in differing degrees of reward and glory. But all who acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior are seen here as incurring the hostility of the world, with all its shame and reproach.” (MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, p. 1711.)
9. William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 316.
10. Quoted by Miles J. Stanford, Position Papers, A Spiritual Anthology, Vol. 2, p. 252.
11. John C. Whitcomb, “Preparing for the Rapture” lecture (August 28, 2004).
12. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, p. 1208.
13. Pastor Chet Schmear of Good New Messengers Church writes: "In Rev. 2:7, Christ tells them ‘to him who overcomes, (runs and finishes the race, II Tim. 4:7), to him I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.’ Remember that no one has eaten from the tree of life yet. This is not salvation!!! This has to do with reward.” (Schmear, Will All Christians Inherit the Kingdom?, pp. 2, 3.) Similarly, “[Zane] Hodges and [Joseph] Dillow…teach that a large number of saved people will not qualify as overcomers. They also teach that being an overcomer is something that must be earned and achieved by faithful living.” (George Zeller, “Who Is The Overcomer of Revelation 2-3?,” p. 4.)
14. Chet Schmear, Will All Christians Inherit the Kingdom?, p. 3, emphasis his. (This pamphlet is a publication of Good News Messengers Church.)
15. Arno C. Gaebelein, Gaebelein’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1227.
16. For example, see: J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, pp. 207-209, 252-258; C. I. Scofield, Will the Church Pass Through the Great Tribulation?, p. 13; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ pp. 105-107; and The Scofield Study Bible, 2002 Edition, Revelation 4:4 footnote, p. 1724.
17. Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, pp. 551-583.
18. J. N. Darby, Lectures on the Second Coming of Christ, Lecture 2, Ephesians 1.
19. The chapter divisions in the New Testament where added by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, in A. D. 1227.
20. This is the view of several dispensational Bible expositors. For example, see: William Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the New Testament, Volume III, pp. 557, 559; William Kelly, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, pp. 414-415; Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation, pp. 176-179; William R. Newell, Revelation: A Complete Commentary, p. 324.
21. H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, p. 331.
22. When Paul says “we shall judge angels” (1 Cor. 6:3), he is likely referring to the judgment of Satan and the fallen angels (see 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6, and Revelation 20:7-10). This judgement occurs after the Millennium. (For more information see Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 515.)
23. This is a reference to Old Testament believers like John the Baptist, who called himself “a friend of the Bridegroom” (Jn. 3:29). The Bridegroom is, of course, a reference to Jesus the Messiah (Jn. 3:28).
24. Notice that Revelation 20:6 does not say, “…those who reign with Christ have a part in the first resurrection….” This statement could imply that only a select number of believers will reign with Christ. However, Revelation 20:6 is actually a statement that is true of all Christians, for it says: “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection [i.e. every Christian, see Jn. 5:28-29, 6:28-29]; over these the second death [i.e. the lake of fire, see Rev. 20:14] has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years” (emphasis added).
25. The church age is also called “the age of grace”.
26. Concerning the biblical term “adoption” The Scofield Study Bible (2002 Edition, p. 1619) summarizes: “‘Adoption’ (Greek huiothesia, meaning placing as a son) is not so much a word of relationship as of position. In regeneration a Christian receives the nature of a child of God; in adoption he receives the position of a son of God. Every Christian obtains the place of a child and the right to be called a son the moment he believes (Gal. 3:25-26; 4:6; 1 John 3:1, 2). The indwelling Spirit gives the realization of this in the Christian’s present experience (Gal. 4:6); but the full manifestation of his sonship awaits the resurrection, change, and translation of saints, which is called ‘the redemption of our body’ (Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; 1 John 3:2).” Tim LaHaye notes, “Under Roman law an adoption ceremony officially and openly designated a person as a full heir. Hence, all children, even adopted ones, shared an inheritance, though Hebrew law gave the firstborn a double portion.” (Tim LaHaye, The Prophecy Study Bible, Romans 8:17 footnote, p. 1334.)
27. Arno C. Gaebelein, Gaebelein’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1227.
28. 2 Timothy 2:12 is not the only place in Scripture that speaks of the reward of an elevated position of reign. Other Scriptures include: Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24, 40:46, 44:10-15, Daniel 12:2-3, Matthew 19:28, Hebrews 11:35, and 1 Peter 4:13-17.
29. The word “endure” (2 Tim. 2:12) in the Greek is hupomeno, which literally means “to remain under”. It can be translated as “endure” or “persevere”. Endurance is often associated with reward in Scripture (for example, see: 2 Tim. 2:10, 4:6-8, Jms. 1:2-4, 1:12, Rev. 2:10, and 2 Pet. 1:5-11).
30. Someone may think that because the “if” clause in 2 Timothy 2:12 is a first class condition, Paul’s statement must then be true of all Christians. Thus it might be thought that all Christians endure suffering. While it’s true that the first class condition “if” is used in 2 Timothy 2:12, it is not true that the first class condition means “since” (as some suppose), nor is it true that the “if” statement corresponds to reality. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace defines the first class condition this way: “The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of the argument. The normal idea, then, is if – and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument – then. . . .” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, p. 690.) Notice that the “assumption of truth” is not necessarily truth, and the assumption does not necessarily correspond to reality. Dr. Wallace goes on to say, “The first class condition is popularly taken to mean the condition of reality or the condition of truth. Many have heard this from the pulpit: “In the Greek this condition means since.” This is saying too much about the first class condition. For one thing, this view assumes a direct correspondence between language and reality, to the effect that the indicative mood is the mood of fact. For another, this view is demonstrably false for conditional statements: (a) In apparently only 37% of the instances is there a correspondence to reality (to the effect that the condition could be translated since). (b) Further, there are 36 instances of the first class condition in the NT that cannot possibly be translated since.” (Ibid.) If not all Christians endure suffering, why does the apostle Paul use the first class condition in 2 Timothy 2:12? At least three reasons seem possible: (1.) Paul was optimistic and assumed the best. In 2 Timothy 1:2, Paul calls Timothy his “beloved child,” and genuine agape love inherently “believes all things, hopes all things” (2 Cor. 13:7). (2.) Paul was near the end of his life when he wrote the letter we know today as 2 Timothy. The aging apostle knew that he had endured (see 2 Tim. 2:10, 4:7), and it’s possible he assumed Timothy would endure as well (2 Tim. 1:8, 3:10, 3:14-15, 4:5) – due in part to Timothy’s godly reputation and character. History tells us that Timothy did, in fact, endure suffering, hardship, and persecution for Christ. See page 13 of the book The New Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s. (3.) Paul sought to motivate Timothy and all Christians reading 2 Timothy 2:12 to endure suffering for Christ!
31. Some people believe that the unfaithful Levitical priests went astray during the reign of King David. At that time, Zadok was a faithful priest who stood by King David during Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 8:17, 19:11). But Ezekiel chapter 44 looks back to an event that occurred after the time of David and Zadok because the Bible says, “But the Levitical priests the sons of Zadok, who kept charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel went astray from Me” (Ezek. 44:15, emphasis added). Ezekiel 44:15 speaks of “the sons of Zadok,” not Zadok himself. Therefore, Ezekiel 44:15 seems to describe an event that occurred some time after David and Zadok.
32. Matthew Henry, Henry’s Exposition, Vol. 4, p. 780.
33. Angus-Green, “INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE”. (These class notes on the "INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE" were compiled by professor Kenneth S. Wuest who taught New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago from 1929 until his death in 1962. I acquired these class notes from my great-grandfather William G. Storz who took night classes at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago in 1932.)
34. In the Gospel accounts, the church had not yet come but was still future (see Matthew 16:18). The beginning of the church is recorded in Acts chapter 2 with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit baptizing both Jews and Gentiles into one body (Jn. 7:37-39; Acts 1:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:13).
35. Angus-Green, Ibid.
36. Donald Gray Barnhouse, Revelation, pp. 383-385.
37. E. W. Bullinger, Things to Come, pp. 20, 36, 37.
38. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol 4, p. 378.
39. J. N. Darby, The Second Coming of Christ, Lecture 2 on Ephesians 1.
40. Charles L. Feinberg, A Commentary on Revelation: The Grand Finale, p. 145.
41. Arno C. Gaebelein, The Conflict of the Ages, p. 167.
42. In a gospel tract titled The Coming World Ruler, Billy Graham writes: “Do you know Jesus? Are you ready for His coming? Thanks be unto God, the real Ruler of the world is going to be Jesus Christ, and then shall men know war no more. You can know Christ and reign with Him if, as a guilty and condemned sinner before a holy God, you open your heart and let Him come in at this moment.” (This gospel tract is published by Evangelical Tract Distributors, Edmonton, AB, Canada. The tract code is SC06.)
43. Oliver B. Green, The Revelation, p. 486.
44. Robert Gromacki, Called to Be Saints, pp. 74-75.
45. M. R. DeHaan, Revelation, p. 267.
46. Herman A. Hoyt, The End Times, p. 110.
47. Thomas Ice, Charting The End Times, p. 69.
48. H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, p. 336.
49. Grant Jeffrey, Heaven: The Last Frontier, p. 140.
50. William Kelly, Lectures Introductory to the New Testament, Vol. 3, pp. 557, 559; Kelly, Revelation: A Complete Commentary, p. 324; Kelly, Lectures on the Book of Revelation, p. 433.
51. Tim LaHaye, Revelation Unveiled, p. 31; Prophecy Study Bible, pp. 1350, 1503.
52. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation, pp. 176-179.
53. John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, p. 138; John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Revelation, p. 105.
54. A. J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, pp. 464, 484-485, 497.
55. James McConkey, The End of the Age, pp. 118-121.
56. J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible, Vol. 5, p. 1057; J. Vernon McGee, Reveling Through Revelation, Part I, p. 48; J. Vernon McGee, Reveling Through Revelation, Part II, p. 76.
57. D. L. Moody, Heaven, pp. 44-45, 58, 71, 82, 111; D. L. Moody, Moody’s Notes From My Bible and Anecdotes & Illustrations, pp. 199, 208.
58. William R. Newell, Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter, pp. 318, 324.
59. James Orr, A Simple Picture of the Future, p. 27.
60. Rene Pache, The Return of Jesus Christ, p. 413.
61. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, pp. 208, 255-258, 543, 546.
62. William L. Pettingill, Bible Questions Answered, p. 389.
63. John Phillips, Exploring The Future, pp. 102, 319.
64. John R. Rice, Bible Lessons on the Book of Revelation, p. 38.
65. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 509; Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 149-150.
66. C. I. Scofield, Prophecy Made Plain, pp. 136, 148.
67. Thomas Scott, Scott’s Bible, Vol. 6, pp. 693, 716, 776.
68. Renald Showers, The Most High God, pp. 88-89.
69. J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 80-81, 270-271.
70. Lehman Strauss, The Book of Revelation, p. 334.
71. John F. Walvoord, End Times, p. 198; The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 297.
72. John C. Whitcomb, Daniel, pp. 100, 105-106, 169.
73. Leon J. Wood, The Bible & Future Events, p. 175.
74. Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 56.
75. George Zeller, “Who Is The Overcomer of Revelation 2-3?,” p. 8.
76. In the Bible, death speaks of separation. The dead faith in James 2:17 is “by itself,” separated from good works.
77. The soiled garments seem to be a reflection of the believer’s earthly works or walk in this world (Rev. 3:1, 2, 4, 3:18, 16:15).
78. 1 Timothy 5:18 says “The laborer is worthy of his reward.” This shows the principle that a reward or wage is owed to those who labor or work.
79. It may be that all believers will walk with Christ in the future millennial kingdom (although to the author’s knowledge no verse in the Bible explicitly says this). But still only those who would be “worthy” (Rev. 3:4) would enjoy a special place of fellowship with the Lord – much like Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24) and Noah (Gen. 6:9) in the Old Testament.
80. In the New Testament, the book of life is God’s written record of those who will dwell in the heavenly New Jerusalem, as opposed to the Lake of Fire (Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15, 21:10-27, 22:19). In regards to the book of life, some people teach that it is “a list of those for whom Christ died, that is, all humanity who have possessed physical life. As they come to maturity and are faced with the responsibility of accepting or rejecting Christ, their names are blotted out if they fail to receive Jesus Christ as Saviour; whereas those who do accept Christ as Saviour are confirmed in their position in the book of life, and their names are confessed before the Father and the heavenly angels” (John Walvoord, The Revelation Of Jesus Christ, p. 82). But this teaching contradicts what the Bible says in Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. In both passages it’s clear that the names of the unsaved have “not been written” in the book of life. Notice the Bible doesn’t say that the names of the unsaved have been written and erased, as Walvoord indicates in his statement. Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 help clarify what it says in Revelation 20:15 that “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” In other words, certain names are “not found written” in the book of life (as it says in Revelation 20:15) precisely because they have “not been written” in the book of life (Rev. 13:8, 17:8) – even from the foundation of the world!
81. In Mark 8:38, Christ specifically declares that He is speaking to “this adulterous and sinful generation”. This is a clear reference to the unbelieving nation of Israel (see Matt. 12:39, 12:45, 16:4, 17:17; Mk. 9:19; Lk. 9:41, 11:29; Acts 2:22, 2:36, 2:40). The nation of Israel continues in national unbelief up to the Second Coming of Christ to the earth at the end of the seven-year Great Tribulation period (Zech. 12:10; Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7). In Mark 8:38 the term “generation” (Greek genea) refers to the nation of Israel as a whole, even looking ahead and speaking of the unbelieving nation of Israel during the Tribulation period – the unbelieving nation of Israel that witnesses the Second Coming of Christ “when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38, also see Matt. 23:36-39, 24:34; Lk. 9:26, 21:32). At that time Christ will regather (Matt. 24:31) and judge Israel. This end-time judgment of Israel is known as the Rod Judgment (see Ezek. 20:37-38; Zech. 13:8-9). The saved Israelites will enter the millennial kingdom in their physical bodies, but the unbelieving ones will be cast out of God’s eternal kingdom and into Hell (Matt. 8:10-12; Lk. 13:22-29). Dwight Pentecost believes that the judgment of the nation of Israel will include only those Israelites physically living at the time of the Rod Judgment (Pentecost, Things To Come, 414), whereas Chafer interprets the judgment of Israel to include not only living Israelites surviving the Tribulation, but also those raised from the dead “throughout all her generations” (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4 Vols., 4:399). Concerning the term “generation” (Greek genea) and it’s reference to the nation of Israel as a whole both now and in the future, C. I. Scofield writes the following footnote on Matthew 24:34 that is applicable to this entire discussion. He says: “Gr. genea, the primary definition of which is, ‘race, kind, family, stock, breed.’ (So all lexicons.) that the word is used in this sense here is sure because none of ‘these things,’ i.e. the worldwide preaching of the kingdom, the great tribulation, the return of the Lord in visible glory, and the regathering of the elect, occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The promise is, therefore, that the generation – nation, or family of Israel – will be preserved unto ‘these things’” (Scofield, The Scofield Study Bible, p. 1034). Similarly, Dwight Pentecost writes the following concerning the term “generation” (as used in Matthew 24:34): “the word generation is to be taken in its basic usage of ‘race, kindred, family, stock, breed,’ so that the Lord is here promising that the nation Israel shall be preserved until the consummation of her program at the second advent” (Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 281).
82. 2 Timothy 2:12 speaks of the reward aspect of reigning to a greater extent or to a greater degree with Christ, not the right of reigning with Christ which all believers are promised (1 Cor. 6:2-3; Rev. 1:5-6, 5:9-10, 20:6, 21:6-8).
83. These quotes are attributed to Pastor Chet Schmear of Good News Messengers Church, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Note: Good News Messengers Church was formerly located in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
84. Compare with Revelation 11:12, which refers to the Rapture of God’s two witnesses during the Great Tribulation.
85. Dave Hunt (The Berean Call, November 2003, p. 4) argues that Revelation 16:15 has reference to the Rapture, not to the Second Coming of Christ. In attempting to prove that Christ cannot come as a thief at His Second Advent, Hunt applies Matthew 25:1-13 and Luke 12:35-40 exclusively to the church and sees both passages as referring only to the Rapture. Of course, the general principles of these passages are transferable to the Rapture of the Church (that is, Christ comes as a thief on both occasions to those who are not ready for Him, people are to be ready, etc.). However, Matthew 25:1-13 and Luke 12:35-40 are nonetheless specifically referring to the Second Coming of Christ to the earth, not to the Rapture of the Church. In regards to Matthew 25:1-13, notice Matthew 25:1 begins with the word “then,” a term that directs the reader back to the preceding Bible verses. Looking at the surrounding context, Matthew 24:42 speaks of Christ’s coming, and Matthew 24:29-31 is a clear reference to the Second Coming of Christ to the earth, not the Rapture of the Church. And so in light of the context, Matthew 25:1-13 does, in fact, show that Christ can come as a thief at His Second Coming to those who are not expecting Him. Similarly, Luke 12:35-40 also is in reference to Christ’s Second Coming to the earth. Luke 12:37 speaks of the time when after Christ returns at His Second Coming, He will gird Himself to serve at His own marriage supper (compare with Isaiah 25:6). In attempting to prove that Revelation 16:15 does not refer to the Second Coming of Christ to the earth at the end of the Tribulation, Dave Hunt further goes on to say: “Why would Christ suddenly change the subject to the Rapture between two verses about Armageddon? He seems to be warning that those who are not taken to heaven at the Rapture will be on the wrong side at Armageddon.” But notice that Revelation 16:15 actually contains no warning about “being on the wrong side at Armageddon” as Hunt asserts. On the contrary, in Revelation 16:15 Christ is specifically addressing believers (who will be on the right side at Armageddon according to Revelation 19:11-21). Consider at least the following three reasons: (1) Christ says that those in Revelation 16:15 are “Blessed”. The unsaved are not blessed but “cursed” (see Galatians 3:10). (2) Christ encourages those in Revelation 16:15 to “stay awake”. The unsaved cannot stay awake for they are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). (3) Christ encourages individuals in Revelation 16:15 to “keep his garments”. The unsaved have no garments to keep – theirs are only filthy rags (see Isaiah 64:6). Christ does not want the unsaved to keep their filthy garments! Instead, He wants to clothe them with “garments of salvation” like it says in Isaiah 61:10! In light of these truths, it becomes clear that Hunt’s reasoning is without Scriptural support.
86. William R. Newell, Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter, p. 305.
87. The church began in Acts chapter 2 with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The church will continue on earth until it is “caught up” to Heaven to be forever with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17).
88. Literally bēmati and bēmatos respectively.
89. C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth [Findlay, Ohio: Durham Publishing Co., 1961], pp. 30-32.
90. Concerning 1 Corinthians 4:5, C. I. Scofield writes: “It is very comforting, in view of that inevitable scrutiny of our poor botch-work, to learn that in His patient love He is so leading us now as that He can then find something in it all for which to praise us. (Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth [Findlay, Ohio: Durham Publishing Company, 1961], p. 32, emphasis his.)
91. For example, John Whitcomb takes the position that the Judgment Seat of Christ involves the purification of the Christian. He says, “But the Bible makes it clear dear friends that the Bride will not be completely purified from the presence and power of sin until she appears at the great judgment seat of Christ” (Whitcomb, “The Second Coming of Christ,” audio CD-set, “Judgment Seat of Christ” CD). Similarly, he declares, “. . . after the church has been raptured to the air and has passed through the Bema of Christ (that’s the Judgment Seat of Christ, for purification and for judgment for the purpose of rewards), then the great Second Coming of Christ to the earth will occur” (“The Second Coming of Christ,” audio CD-set, “The Second Coming of Christ” CD).
92. F. W. Grant, Man and the Future State, p. 187.
93. When the apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:41 that “star differs from star in glory,” it appears that he is contrasting the glory of the earthly body with the glory of the heavenly body (1 Cor. 15:40, 42-49); he is not contrasting the heavenly body of a carnal believer with the heavenly body of a spiritual believer.
94. John Whitcomb, “Preparing for the Rapture” audio CD.
95. For example, see Kenneth F. Dodson, The Prize of the Upcalling, pp. 86-88, and Carl Johnson, Prophecy Made Plain, p. 123.
96. Robert Gromacki offers some helpful comments on Colossians 3:22-25 in his book Stand Perfect in Wisdom, An Exposition of Colossians & Philemon (see pages 151-153).
97. Also see Hebrews 4:12-13 and Revelation 2:23.
98. Greek scholar A. T. Robertson explains: “Murmur not (μη στεναζετε — mē stenazete). Prohibition with μη — mē and the present active imperative of στεναζω — stenazō old verb, to groan. ‘Stop groaning against one another,’ as some were already doing in view of their troubles. In view of the hope of the Second Coming lift up your heads.” (Robertson, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on James 5:9.) Jamieson-Fausset-Brown has this helpful commentary on James 5:9: “Grudge not—rather ‘Murmur not’; ‘grumble not.’ The Greek is literally, ‘groan’: a half-suppressed murmur of impatience and harsh judgment, not uttered aloud or freely. Having exhorted them to patience in bearing wrongs from the wicked, he now exhorts them to a forbearing spirit as to the offenses given by brethren. Christians, who bear the former patiently, sometimes are impatient at the latter, though much less grievous.”
99. For more information see Davidson, Stibbs and Kevan, The New Bible Commentary, p. 1127, and D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James, p. 300.
100. For more information about Hebrews 10:26-31 see Robert Gromocki, Stand Bold in Grace, An Exposition of Hebrews, pp. 173-176.
101. The term “washed” in Revelation 7:14 is the Greek word pluno. This term appears only once again in the New Testament – in Revelation 22:14.
102. Throughout the Bible, “the Lamb” is a title for Jesus Christ (see Isa. 53:7; Jn. 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 7:14).
103. The apostle John may indeed be addressing believers and unbelievers when he says, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book” (Rev. 22:18). Both saved and unsaved can hear “the words of the prophecy of this book” (Rev. 22:18). However, in light of the consequences of adding to or taking away from the prophetic words of the book of Revelation, it seems best to understand “anyone” in Revelation 22:18-19 as meaning “anyone who is unsaved”.
104. Also see Mk. 4:11; Jn. 12:31; 1 Cor. 5:12-13; Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:12; Rev. 20:10. In regards to whether or not those outside the city are saved or unsaved, it has been argued: “Verses 14 and 15 of [Revelation] chapter 22 are not referring to unbelievers in the lake of fire, they are talking about disobedient Christians who will be outside the city. That word ‘outside’ means ‘just’ outside or ‘in the immediate proximity.’” (Vince Cullen, Will All Christians Inherit the Kingdom?, p. 6.) But that statement must be rejected as false in light of the Greek grammar. As to the Greek grammar of Revelation 22:15, Bruce M. Metzger (one of the world’s best-known scholars on the Greek text of the New Testament) writes, “‘Outside’ does not mean that they are in close proximity to the city; for the idea of ‘outside’ we should compare Jesus’ reference to ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt. 8:12). This list of those who are excluded resembles in some respects the earlier list of those consigned to the lake of fire ([Rev.] 21:8), but here [in Rev. 22:15] the first category is ‘the dogs’ – a reference to sodomites. The sentence in the original [Greek language] is abrupt, as expressing abhorrence” (Metzger, Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation, pp. 105-106).
105. Compare Revelation 22:17 with John 4:10, 7:37-38; Rom. 3:24, 6:23.
106. Donald Gray Barnhouse, Revelation, p. 413.
107. John R. Rice, Bible Lessons on the Book of Revelation, p. 10.
108. Ibid., p. 44.
109. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 226.
110. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, First Edition, p. 177.
111. John R. Rice, Bible Lessons on the Book of Revelation, p. 11.
112. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, pp. 220-221.
113. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation, p. 168.
114. W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on Revelation, 5 Vols., 5:28.
115. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 227.
116. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation, p. 168.
117. Lehman Strauss, Revelation, p. 321.
118. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, p. 227.
119. Many believe that the twenty-four elders represent the church. If this is so, then of course they would not be guests at their own marriage!
120. Renald Showers, Behold, The Bridgroom Comes!, p. 9.
121. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, Charting the End Times, p. 124.
122. Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation, p. 170.
123. W. A. Criswell explains that “the Lamb” is a description of Christ’s “blood-bought, redemptive relationship with us who have been saved by His grace.” (Criswell, Expository Sermons on Revelation, 5 Vols., 5:28.)
124. George Zeller, Who Is The Overcomer of Revelation 2-3?, p. 4.
125. See Donald Gray Barnhouse, Revelation, p. 56.
126. See Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible.
127. Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 903.
128. John F. Walvoord, Every Prophecy of the Bible, p. 522.
129. George N. H. Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 418.
130. See William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, Second Edition, pp. 60-62, 328; cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 358; Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 579.
131. William R. Newell, Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter, p. 73.
132. Zane C. Hodges, Grace In Eclipse, p. 71.
133. Ibid., pp. 62, 64, 78.
134. Ibid., p. 389.
135. Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook, p. 631.
136. Ibid., p. 681.
137. In Romans 8:14, the apostle Paul writes: “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God”. The Spirit of God leads all believers, but not all believers follow the Spirit’s leading (see Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19).
138. Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, pp. 62, 64, 78.
139. George Zeller, “Those Who Do Not Inherit The Kingdom . . . Are They Saved or Unsaved?,” p. 4.

RECOMMENDED LITERATURE

• LaHaye, Tim, and Thomas Ice. Charting The End Times. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2001.
• McGee, J. Vernon. Reveling Through Revelation, Part I. Pasadena: Thru The Bible Books, 1979.
• McGee, J. Vernon. Reveling Through Revelation, Part II. Pasadena: Thru The Bible Books, 1979.
• McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake: BHM Books, 1983.
• Newell, William R. Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994.
• Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964.
• Ventilato, James M. A Scriptural Refutation of the Teachings of Zane Hodges, Joseph Dillow and the Grace Evangelical Society, with Respect to the Future Inheritance, Glory, and Destiny of the Church – Christ’s Beloved Body & Bride. (Available from Middletown Bible Church: middletownbiblechurch.org.)
• Whitcomb, John C. Daniel. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
• Whitcomb, John C. The Rapture, The Great Tribulation, and The Millennium.
• Whitcomb, John C. The Thousand-Year Reign of Christ Over the Earth STUDY-GRAPH. Etna Green: Whitcomb Ministries, Inc., 1994.

I recently purchased John Piper's new book What Is Saving Faith? I bought it because I want to read it and write a book review on it from a Free Grace perspective. I took the book out of the packaging and began to flip through some of the pages. A few of Piper's statements really puzzled me because I know they're contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. For example, commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Piper says: "In 2:10, people perish because they do not 'love the truth.'"[1] After a few comments, Piper goes on to elaborate by saying: "Paul is saying that people perish not only because they do not love the truth, but also because they do not want to love the truth."[2] Piper then asks this question: "would it not be right to say that saving faith includes a love for the truth, the gospel?"[3] Piper goes on to answer this question by saying: "So Paul again [in v. 12], as in verse 10, calls attention to the affectional nature of saving faith. It includes a love of the truth, the gospel."[4] But is this what the apostle Paul is saying? Let's take a closer look.

Notice first what Dean Henry Alford (a leading New Testament Greek scholar from the 19th century) has written on 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Alford writes:

I mention these comments by Henry Alford because Reformed theologians (such as John Piper, for example) commonly teach that people must love God in order to be saved.[6] But that's not what the Bible teaches. The gospel is not about us loving God, but rather it’s about God loving us! Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The truth of the Gospel is that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but has everlasting life" (John 3:16). This is what the apostle Paul is talking about in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 when he says that "they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved" (NASB). In other words, people are perishing because "they did not receive" (v. 10) the gospel message of God's love.

The New International Version (the NIV) and the English Standard Version (the ESV) really "drop the ball" (mishandle the text) in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:10. For example, the NIV says, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." Notice that in the NIV, the word "love" is an infinitive verb. It says: "they refused to love" (v. 10b, NIV). But in the Greek, the word "love" is actually a noun! In Greek it is tēn agapēn, meaning "the love" (as in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, the 1901 ASV, the 1885 Revised Version, Young's literal translation, Tyndale's translation, etc.). The word "love" is a noun in the accusative case in the Greek, signifying that love is the direct object, not a verb. Thus, Paul is not describing something the unsaved must do, but rather he's describing something they must receive, i.e. the gospel message of God's love. I like how the NET Bible translates 2 Thessalonians 2:10. It says that people "are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:10 in Mounce's Reverse Interlinear translation reads similarly. It says that people "are perishing, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved." In other words, "[they] are perishing, because they did not accept" the gospel message.[7] But of course Piper loves to quote the ESV (a favorite among Reformed theologians) and he takes that ball and runs with it! Unfortunately, Piper doesn't realize that the ESV "dropped the ball" in their translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:10, and therefore whatever points he may score from his use of the ESV will be of none effect because it's not what the Greek text actually says.

Appendix 1: WHAT ABOUT THE “OBJECTIVE GENITIVE” IN 2 THESSALONIANS 2:10?

If we understand "the love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10) as an objective genitive, then the phrase could be translated "the love in the truth".[8] In other words, in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 the apostle Paul is saying that unbelievers will perish because they did not accept the love of God demonstrated "in" the gospel! A similar example of the objective genitive is found in Luke 11:29: "the sign of Jonah" means "the sign shown in Jonah". Concerning this, A. T. Robertson affirms: "So το σημειον Ίωνα (Lu. 11:29) may be the sign shown in Jonah".[9] Thus in 2 Thessalonians 2:10, "the love of the truth" may be understood to mean "the love shown in the truth"—i.e., the love shown in the gospel! What is the love shown in the gospel? Is it our love for God or rather His love for us? The apostle Paul says: "But God demonstrates Him own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Likewise, the apostle John (the apostle of love) writes: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn. 4:9-10).

Appendix 2: WHAT ABOUT LOVING GOD IN JOHN 3:19?

Somebody might respond by saying, "Doesn't Jesus say in John chapter 3, 'And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil.' Doesn't this show that a person has to love God in order to be saved?"

No, not at all. Notice that Jesus doesn't say, "And this is the way to heaven." But what does He say? Look at the text. He says, "And this is THE JUDGMENT, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil" (Jn. 3:19). This is simply a description of those who reject Christ. In the words of the prophet Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isaiah 5:20).

Read John chapter 3. Nowhere in the whole chapter does Jesus say that salvation is obtained by loving Him (although this should follow after a person is saved, but it does not always do so in proper measure), but rather Jesus emphasizes that salvation is GIVEN to the one who believes in Him (see John 3:12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 36). Eternal life is given to those who "believe"!

William R. Newell has rightly said: "To preach devotion first [i.e. love God to be saved], and blessing second, is to reverse God's order, and preach law [see Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:36-40], not grace. The Law made man's blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure."[10] Newell goes on to say, “Only those can and do really love God whose hearts have been ‘sprinkled from an evil conscience’—delivered from fear of God’s just judgment. The question therefore, comes right back to this: Have we believed, as guilty lost sinners, on this propitiation by the blood of God’s Son on the cross? Is that our only hope? If so, 1 John 4.16 becomes true: ‘We know and have believed the love which God hath in our case,’ and verse 19 follows: ‘We love, because he first loved us.’ We cannot work up love for God, but His redeeming love for us, believed in, becomes the eternal cause and spring of our love to God.”[11]

This does not mean that there will be no emotions in the salvation experience. Roy Aldrich, a Free Grace advocate and the author of Holding Fast to Grace, is correct to say: "it should not be concluded that the experience of salvation will be devoid of emotion. Psychologists say that every important decision of the mind is accompanied by emotion. Surely there will be emotion with the great change of mind that takes place when a sinner first believes in Christ. However, this emotional experience will vary with circumstances and temperament and it should not be demanded either as a condition or proof of salvation."[12]

FOOTNOTES

1. John Piper, What Is Saving Faith? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2022), p. 180.
2. Ibid., p. 181, emphasis his.
3. Ibid., p. 181, emphasis his.
4. Ibid., p. 182, emphasis his.
5. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: 1897), 4 vols., vol. 3, p. 292, emphasis his, brackets added.
6. For example, see the article by John Piper on the Desiring God website titled "Love Is the Main Thing in Saving Faith". Piper begin the article by saying, "Love is the main thing in saving faith. Those are the words of Jonathan Edwards, and if they are true, life and ministry are changed forever. By love, he means love to God. And by main thing, he means 'the life and power of [saving faith], by which it produces its great effects' (Writings on the Trinity, 448)." (Piper, "Love Is the Main Thing in Saving Faith" [February 29, 2016], Desiring God website, italics and brackets his. www.desiringgod.org/articles/love-is-the-main-thing-in-saving-faith)
7. Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:10, A. T. Robertson (another noteworthy NT Greek scholar from the 19th century) affirms this when he writes: "The love of the truth (tēn agapēn tēs alētheias). That is the gospel in contrast with lying and deceit." (See Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:10.)
8. See A. T. Robertson's discussion of the objective genitive in his book: A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, pp. 499-500.
9. Ibid., p. 500.
10. William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse (Chicago: Moody Press, 1938), p. 247.
11. Ibid., p. 328.
12. Roy Aldrich, "Some Simple Difficulties of Salvation" (Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1954), p. 160.

Is there a difference between the words "heart" and "mind" in the New Testament? What is the difference (if any) between these two words? I want to address this topic because of something Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) said in his article "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2". In that article, Wilkin made the following comment in reference to Charlie Bing's GraceNotes 92 & 93 articles titled "Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind". Wilkin writes:

They [Dr. Bing and the present writer] never explain the difference between a change of mind and a change of heart. Nor do they explain why these are two different ways to be born again. [?!] Seemingly if they are different, then both would be required. If they are the same, there is no need to mention the change of heart. [But what if the Bible mentions it?] Dictionary.cambridge.org says that change of heart means "you change your opinion or the way you feel about something." Their first five synonyms are: "180, about-face, about-turn, back away, back out." Freedictionary.com gives these examples of the expression: "At the last minute, she had a change of heart about selling it. It had been in her family for generations. The government’s change of heart on debt relief for the poorest countries is very good news." The expression normally refers to a decision to change one's actions. Possibly I'll address the change-of-heart view of repentance in a future blog. It does not strike me as being consistent with Free Grace Theology.[1]

There are several problems with Wilkin's line of reasoning. First of all, as Roger Post has correctly pointed out: “modern English dictionaries are not reliable sources for theological definitions."[2] This is true because the New Testament was not written in modern-day English, but in Koine Greek -- the common Greek language of the 1st century. So, if we today want to know what is meant by the words "heart" and "mind" in the New Testament, we have to look at the meaning of those words in the original language (the Koine Greek) rather than in the English dictionary. So Wilkin's appeal to the Cambridge (English) Dictionary misses the point entirely. Instead of using a modern-day English dictionary, Wilkin should instead reference a NT Greek lexicon in order to rightly understand the meanings of New Testament words.

Another problem with Wilkin's statement is that he's assuming that the words "heart" and "mind" refer to two different things, when the Scriptures indicate exactly the opposite! The New Testament evidence indicates that the words "heart" and "mind" are often used interchangeably in Scripture. Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold (an advocate of traditional Free Grace Theology) has pointed this out admirably in his book The Gospel Driven Man.[3] Notice what Yankee Arnold says, it is an excellent analysis:

Is your heart something different from your head? Is there some clear distinction between heart and mind? WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE MEAN BY HEART? Does it mean your pumping organ? We do not always mean the pumping organ of our body when we say heart. For instance, if you speak of doing something "from his heart", you mean he did it sincerely. He did it from how he really felt and thought INSIDE. You do not mean his pumping organ performed the action instead of his brain.

It is the same in scripture. The word heart (kardis) refers to the INNER BEING of a man: his thoughts, feelings, and decisions. The word kardia may often be translated MIND! The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon says of this word kardia (Capitals ours) "Heart as the seat of physical, spiritual and mental life:" as the center and source of physical life....satisfying our hearts with food Acts 14:17...as the center and source of the WHOLE INNER LIFE with its THINKING, FEELING, and VOLITION, in the case of the natural man as well as the redeemed man...of the faculty of THOUGHT, of the THOUGHTS themselves, of understanding, as the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment (I Kings 10:2, Job 12:3, 17:4) IN THIS AREA KARDIA MAY OFTEN BE TRANSLATED MIND: II Cor. 4:6, Eph. 1:18, II Peter 1:19."

The word kardia translated "heart" in the Bible refers to your mind or whole inner life. Do not confuse a person with, "Now are you believing with your heart or head?" His heart is his mind; his heart believes. If he believes, he is saved! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).[4]

Someone might argue that Yankee Arnold is not specifically talking about repentance in the above quotation. But elsewhere in his book (in the chapter titled "Repentance"), Yankee Arnold says exactly the same thing! Commenting on Acts 2:36-38, Yankee Arnold says: "The Jews were pricked in their heart [Acts 2:37]; your heart is the part of you that THINKS, feels, and wills (Ardnt and Gingrich Lexicon), it is your mind. They needed to change their mind and believe that Jesus is the Lord. He is God! He is the promised Messiah who would save them from their sins."[5] Thus it is evident that "the change-of-heart view of repentance" is not "a decision to change one's actions" (as Wilkin wants us to believe), but rather it refers to a change of mind! Yankee Arnold's comment also makes it clear that "the change-of-heart view of repentance" is consistent with Free Grace Theology (because Yankee Arnold is a Free Grace advocate and that is his view). This highlights the error of Wilkin's statement when he says: "It [the change-of-heart view of repentance] does not strike me as being consistent with Free Grace Theology." So the "change-of-heart view of repentance" is consistent with Free Grace Theology. What's more, it's Biblical! Commenting on Acts 2:37-41, Charles Ryrie similarly affirms: "Change of mind is the meaning of the word repent....and is perhaps best conveyed by the phrase 'change of heart' (cf. Rom. 2:5, where lack of repentance is described as an 'unrepentant heart')."[6] Ryrie goes on to say: "For these people repentance meant a whole-hearted change of mind about Jesus of Nazareth, thinking of Him no longer as merely the carpenter's son, a religious imposter, but now receiving Him as Lord (Divine) and Messiah."[7]

Thus, it can be concluded that the words "heart" and "mind" are often used interchangeably or synonymously in the New Testament, and this is how the words are used in reference to Biblical repentance.

FOOTNOTES

1. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2," GES blog (November 8, 2021), see footnote ii.
2. Roger Post, "The Meanings of the Words Translated 'Repent' and 'Repentance' in the New Testament" (Master's Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972), p. 4.
3. Incidentally, Wilkin did a GES book review on The Gospel Driven Man and described the book in very positive terms. For example, Wilkin writes: "There is much in this book that JOTGES readers will like....Many in the Free Grace camp have been influenced by Florida Bible College and by Yankee Arnold. They will be delighted by this book. For those who are not familiar with Yankee Arnold, this book would be a nice addition to their Free Grace library." (Wilkin, https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-gospel-driven-man/)
4. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man (Hull, GA: Send the Light, 2005), pp. 186- 187, emphasis his. See: Bauer, "καρδία", BDAG, pp. 508-509.
5. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, The Gospel Driven Man, pp. 157-158, emphasis his.
6. Charles C. Ryrie, The Acts of the Apostles, Everyman's Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1961), p. 21, ellipsis added.
7. Ibid., p. 21

EDITOR'S PREFACE

The quotes presented in this article describe and explain repentance in its true Scriptural signification & meaning, as a change of mind or heart. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments, and of Jesus and the apostles (Matt. 4:17; Mk. 1:15; Lu. 13:3, 15:7, 24:47; Acts 2:38, 3:19, 17:30, 20:21, 26:20, etc.). In the context in which Jesus and the apostles used the word repentance (Gr. metanoia) in the New Testament, it signifies a change of mind about sin, salvation, and the Savior (as Robert Lightner has said in his book by that title). It is not sorrow, although sorrow may, and oftentimes does, lead to and accompany biblical repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9-10).

Some of the quotes in this article use King James English that is over four-hundred years old. I have endeavored to retain as much as possible the spelling and punctuation of the original statements. In some of the older quotes from the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, the words are often archaic (e.g. bade, betokeneth, doth, ye, etc.) and the spelling can be somewhat different from the way that we spell those same words today (e.g. “hart” for heart, “minde” for mind, “agayn” for again, “beleeve” for believe, “eternall” for eternal, etc.). Please take this into consideration when reading the quotes. These words are probably not misspelled; it’s just old English.

As you read this article, I hope you enjoy this trip through time in regards to The Meaning of Repentance!

—J. PERREAULT.

Download Paper in PDF above.

Recently a friend of mine alerted me to two articles by Bob Wilkin that he wrote in response to Charlie Bing’s GraceNotes 92 and 93, which are excerpts (quotes) from an article I wrote titled "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians". Wilkin’s critique is posted in a two-part series on the GES blog.[1] After reading Wilkin’s two articles, I would like to share a few thoughts in reply.

Only three quotes in our articles suggest that repentance is a change of heart?

In his article "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1," Wilkin writes: "In their second article, they mention a change of heart six times, once each by Bing in the introduction and conclusion, and four times in a quote by Weymouth. Therefore, only three of their fifty-one quotes suggest that repentance is a change of heart. If their quotes are any indication, very few pastors or scholars have called repentance a change of heart."[2]

So much could be said in response to Wilkin's statement above, but I will try to be brief. First of all, in regards to repentance being called "a change of heart", it was not my primary intention to show that repentance is a change of heart. Rather, my primary intention was to show that repentance is "a change of mind." This is what Wayne Grudem challenged in his critique of Bing’s "change of mind" view of repentance, and so that’s what I was responding to.[3]

Second, Wilkin seems to be quite mistaken in his analysis of our articles, in regards to all the references to "change of heart" (and/or "heart"). Dr. Bing made it very clear in the introduction to GraceNotes 92 (Part 1 of 2) that he was only mentioning a sample of quotes from the full article ("The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians"). In other words, Dr. Bing made it clear that the selection of quotes cited in his article was only a small sampling of the total number of quotes from my article. So for Wilkin to not take these other quotes into consideration in his analysis shows that he is not being fair nor objective in his analysis. There are many more statements in the full article which indicate that repentance is a change of heart, not simply the three statements mentioned by Wilkin.

Are we contradicting the faith alone message?

I don’t believe that Wilkin is accurate when he says: "To suggest that one must change his mind concerning his sins in order to be born again is to contradict the faith-alone message. Changing our minds about our sins is not a synonym for faith in Christ."[4] Wilkin goes on to say that "a change of mind concerning one’s sins is not the same as the traditional change-of-mind view of repentance, which is about changing one’s mind about Christ, not his sins."[5]

To begin with, Wilkin is quite mistaken in his understanding of "the traditional change-of-mind view of repentance" when he says that it "is about changing one’s mind about Christ, not his sins." That is incorrect. The traditional Free Grace "change of mind" view of repentance affirms that in order to be saved an individual must recognize that he or she is a lost sinner and that his or her sins separate them from a holy God.[6] This realization is an integral part of saving repentance. In 1950, Dr. Ironside set forth this understanding of biblical repentance when he wrote the following for an article in The Sunday School Times:

"Repentance. Some Gospel preachers seem to be afraid to stress the importance of repentance, evidently thinking of it as meritorious, and therefore contrary to the grace of God. Repentance is simply a change of mind which involves a changed attitude toward self, sin, and God. In other words, it is the sinner’s confessed recognition of his lost condition and his need of a Saviour. Apart from repentance there can be no saving faith."[7]

Robert Lightner (another traditional Free Grace author) wrote similarly concerning repentance in his book Sin, Salvation, and the Savior:

"The word repentance means a change of mind.…many make repentance a separate and additional condition for salvation. This is not true in the Word. There is no question about it: repentance is necessary for salvation. However, Scripture views repentance as included in believing and not as an additional and separate condition to faith. All who have trusted Christ as Savior have changed their minds regarding Him and their sin."[8] "Repentance in Scripture has to do with a change of mind. Evangelicals [largely] agree no one can be saved who does not change his mind about himself and his need, his sin which separates him from God, and about Christ as the only Savior."[9]

The Theological Wordbook (written by Free Grace authors) also affirms the same understanding of biblical repentance (as including a change of mind about one’s sins). In the entry for "Repentance" on page 297 it says:

"The primary New Testament word for repentance is metanoia, ‘to change one’s mind.’ The context determines the purpose for the change. One other word, metamelomai, ‘to regret, to be sorry’ (2 Cor. 7:8-10), adds little to the understanding of the doctrine of repentance. As stated above, the early occurrences of the term repentance pertained to the approaching kingdom (Matt. 3:2) and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3). ‘Forgiveness’ and ‘kingdom’ were well-known subjects to the Israelites, but with the coming of Christ some distinctions became apparent and the people needed to change their thinking about these issues."[10]

The entry for "Repentance" in The Theological Wordbook goes on to say:

"Jesus spoke about repentance in relation to several subjects: the kingdom (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15); judgment (Matt. 11:20-21; 12:41; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5); faith (Mark 1:15); forgiveness of sins by unbelievers (Luke 5:32; 24:47); and forgiveness of believers’ sins (17:3-4). The context of each of these verses shows why a change was necessary. In some cases the context mentions the consequences for those who do not repent (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10). Repentance and faith are closely related concepts, as seen in Acts 20:21. From the teachings of Christ in the above passages, in the Gospels, it appears that when the term repentance was used in relation to salvation it was almost an interchangeable synonym for faith, rather than an action distinct from faith."

"In their preaching of the gospel the apostles often mentioned repentance (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). Peter related human repentance to God’s forgiveness of sins (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22). In Paul’s defense before King Agrippa he declared that the message God gave him to preach included ‘repentance’ and ‘turning to God’ (implying faith in God). He also stated that the way believers lived should give evidence of their repentance (26:20)."[11]

I made a similar point in my blog post titled "‘Free Grace’ Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance" when I said (in regards to the traditional Free Grace "change of mind" understanding of repentance): "Yes, like Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit, unsaved people must understand that they are sinners who have sinned! This is part of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3)." I went on to say that "in order to be converted a person realizes that he or she is headed toward a Christless eternity, and has ‘a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction’ of going to that Christless eternity. They see their need for a Savior and trust in Christ alone to save them from sin, death, and Hell."[12]

Of course I don't agree with the Lordship Salvation understanding of repentance. They teach that repentance involves turning from sins in the sense of cleaning up one’s life (meaning a change of behavior) in order to be saved. That's what I’m arguing against! This is why in my article "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians"[13], I repeatedly clarified or corrected some of the quotes when the authors were unclear about what it means to turn from sins. For example, notice the brackets that I inserted in the following statement from Abbot-Smith’s Lexicon for clarification:

"metanoeo...to change one's mind or purpose, hence, to repent; in NT...of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9]…."[14]

Similarly, in the following statement by John Bunyan, notice the brackets that I included to clarify the proper (i.e. biblical) understanding:

"Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a turning of it from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], and the devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in him."[15]

I made the same clarification several other times throughout the article. For example, notice the brackets that I inserted in the following statement by John R. Rice:

"The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, meaning literally a change of mind. That is, a change of heart attitude. But the change is from unbelief to faith. To repent means to turn from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9]. Saving faith means to turn to Christ, relying on Him for salvation."[16]

So for Mr. Wilkin to say that I am suggesting something "to contradict the faith-alone message" is hardly the case! What I said in my blog post "Is the Grace Evangelical Society Misunderstanding McGee on Repentance?" bears repeating: "If anything, the ‘turning from sins’ (to use Shawn Lazar's words) is when the unsaved turn from their false confidences to trust in Christ alone for salvation (see John 16:8-9)."[17]

Are we not allowed to quote "the church fathers"?

In his article "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1," Wilkin writes: "The church fathers were not clear on the grace of God. They believed in and taught works salvation. So did about half of the fifty-one people cited [in GraceNotes 92 & 93]". Wilkin seems to be missing the point in regards to why we quoted the church fathers.[18] Just because we may agree with some of the church fathers on specific points of doctrine does not mean that we completely endorse everything they taught. Another way to say it would be: Just because the church fathers were not always clear on the grace of God doesn’t mean that we throw out everything they ever said. That would be like the proverbial "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"! Even the apostle Paul tells us to "examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21).

I have discussed this same issue with a dear brother in Christ named Holger Friedrich, who translated Dr. Bing’s GraceNotes numbers 92 & 93 (and others) into the German language. Mr. Friedrich made the following very insightful comment. He said: "So it looks like a lot of people have understood the meaning of metanoia over the centuries but surprisingly few have applied it to teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Or the ones who did were just not famous enough so that their teachings have not been preserved in writing. Or they were persecuted and their writings burned."[19] Personally, I think Mr. Friedrich’s analysis is a better way to frame the discussion, rather than the way Wilkin portrayed it. Because we don’t necessarily have to agree with everything someone says; they may speak truth related to one area of doctrine, but be wrong on something else. For example, who will agree with everything Augustine taught? If I remember correctly, he believed and advocated baptismal regeneration! Yet we cite Augustine as an authority on many doctrinal issues, and rightly so. Dr. J. Vernon McGee affirms: "Augustine is one of the great men who has affected the church and the world. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism quote him to sustain their positions."[20] To give another example, Dr. Scofield in the "INTRODUCTION" section of his Scofield Reference Bible quotes Augustine in regards to distinguishing the dispensations in Scripture. Scofield writes: "Augustine said: ‘Distinguish the ages, and the Scriptures harmonize.’"[21] And the same can be said about the church fathers in general. For example, in Norman Geisler’s Systematic Theology, he discusses various topics of theology and cites the church fathers to provide a "historical basis" for his beliefs. He titles these sections, for example: "Church Fathers on the Bible", "Early Church Fathers on God's Infinity", "Medieval Church Fathers on God's Impassibility", etc.[22] Obviously, Geisler would not agree with everything these church fathers have taught, even on salvation. Yet he still quotes them on various doctrinal topics. In the same way, in my article "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians," I quoted several of the church fathers on the meaning of repentance, while not necessarily endorsing or agreeing with everything they taught.

To give another example, I did a quick google search for every time the phrase "church fathers" appears on the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) website, and the first search result that came up was to a book review for a book titled Jehovah's Witesses on Trial: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers. In the book review, the reviewer says, "The author produces a strong case from the quotes of the early church fathers that they believed that the soul exists after death, that Christ was resurrected bodily, that they expected to go to heaven immediately after death, and that the fate of the wicked is eternal torment in hell and not annihilation. Every early father quoted, as well as many others not quoted, by the Jehovah’s Witnesses testifies clearly and unambiguously that Jesus is God."[23] So the reviewer makes a similar point to mine, namely that we can agree with the church fathers on some areas of doctrine, while not necessarily endorsing everything they wrote or believed.

We don’t give enough context for the quotes?

I would also like to respond to Wilkin in regards to when he says, "If the authors had given more of the context of these quotes, we’d have a better idea of what was meant."[24] In a similar statement Wilkin says: "The reason those quotes are ambiguous is because the authors did not provide enough context."[25] I find these statements by Wilkin surprising, seeing that in the original article I provided nearly 100 pages of quotations! For a blog post, I’d say that’s more than enough context.

It also comes across as if Wilkin is really not being honest with what is written in the articles, because in the very first paragraph of the abbreviated article "Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1" (GraceNotes number 92), Dr. Bing specifically says: "The information below is selected from an article by Jonathan Perrault. You can find his article with more complete quotes and bibliology in the Grace Research Room at GraceLife.org or at the author’s web site FreeGraceFreeSpeech.blogspot.com. The selections and sources below are abbreviated to save space."[26] So at the outset, Dr. Bing clearly says that his articles are abbreviated and that more information can be found by reading the full article on my website. But Wilkin doesn’t bother to mention this. Instead, he makes it sound like we took statements out of context, when in fact the very opposite is true. In writing the article I was actually concerned that I was making the quotes too long, not too short!

Answering Wilkin’s Critique of Five Quotes

Following is my response to Wilkin’s critique of five quotes that are found in my article The Meaning of Repentance. Dr. Bing also included these five quotes in his two abbreviated GraceNotes articles.

What about the quote on repentance from the Shepherd of Hermas?

In his first critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: "First quote. One of the early church fathers was the Shepherd of Hermas (circa AD 140). The authors favorably give this citation: ‘These are they that heard the word, and would be baptized unto the name of the Lord. Then, when they call to their remembrance the purity of the truth, they change their minds [metanoeō], and go back again after their evil desires’ (Vision 3, Chapter 7, Lightfoot translation, italics added). That sounds like works salvation because the problem here is someone returning to his evil desires and evil actions."[27]

To me, that quote doesn’t sound like works salvation; it sounds like repentance means a change of mind!

Notice how Wilkin changes the subject from the meaning of repentance to focus instead on baptismal regeneration. That’s obviously not the point of our study. The scope of our articles was specifically in regards to the meaning of the Greek words metanoia ("repentance") and metanoeo ("repent"). Wilkin is dodging the obvious statement to focus on something else. In this regard he is acting like a magician who tries to divert the audience’s attention so they don’t see him pull a fast one. Notice that Wilkin never interacts with the point we are making, which has to do with the meaning of repentance (the meaning of metanoeo), which we see from The Shepherd of Hermes that it clearly means "they change their minds"!

Furthermore, Wilkin’s completely negative view of the Shepherd of Hermas (one of the early church fathers) seems very one-sided and out of balance, even compared to other writings on the GES website! For example, a more balanced view of the teachings of the church fathers is given by Ken Yates when he says: "Very few, if any, contemporary Lordship Salvation or Free Grace proponents would accept certain things the Apostolic Fathers said about justification, the sacraments, and the role of works in eternal salvation."[28]

One of the "certain things" that of course we do not accept is the teaching of baptismal regeneration. Yet in regards to other teachings, the Shepherd of Hermas can be helpful in providing a historical basis for doctrines which we do hold to be true. For instance, consider the following examples from Free Grace theologians who (in contrast to Wilkin) favorably cite the Shepherd of Hermas on various topics of Bible doctrine:

Lewis Sperry Chafer in volume 4 of his Systematic Theology favorably cites the Shepherd of Hermas in regards to his views on the tribulation and the Millennium.[29]

Charles Ryrie in his book The Basis of the Premillennial Faith quotes from the Shepherd of Hermas and says that this document (among others from "THE ANCIENT PERIOD") provides "evidence for the historicity of premillenialism by tracing eschatological beliefs throughout the various periods of church history."[30] This is exactly what I’ve done in my article by quoting the Shepherd of Hermas in regards to the meaning of repentance!

Norman Geiser in his Systematic Theology cites the Shepherd of Hermas as part of "The Historical Basis" for important doctrines of the Bible such as God’s righteousness, God’s truthfulness, and Christ’s imminent return.[31] Geisler also has a section in his Systematic Theology titled "CHURCH FATHERS ON THE BIBLE" in which he says that the Shepherd of Hermas is one of the early Christian writings which alludes to the New Testament as Scripture.[32] Geisler then concludes by saying: "Taken together, this important early material demonstrates that by about A.D. 150 the early church, both East and West, accepted the New Testament claim for divine inspiration."[33] Elsewhere Geisler also says that the Shepherd of Hermas is "powerful" external evidence to the historicity of Paul’s early epistles.[34]

What about the quote on repentance by Edward Fisher?

In his second critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: "Second quote. In 1646 Edward Fisher wrote, ‘the word repent, in the original, signifies a change of our minds from false waies [ways] to the right, and of our hearts from evil to good…’ (The Marrow of Modern Divinity, italics added). That too is antithetical to the Free Grace position since the issue is a need to turn from evil to good behavior. While that book was essentially advocating a Free Grace position (see this journal article by Makidon), that quotation does not indicate that advocacy."[35]

Wilkin is reading too much into the quote (indeed, he is misrepresenting the statement) when he says that "the issue is a need to turn from evil to good behavior." The word "behavior" is added by Wilkin. If Wilkin would have read the full quote that I provided in my article, this would have been obvious to him. The full quote is as follows: "First, that the word repent, in the original, signifies a change of our minds from false waies [ways] to the right, and of our hearts from evil to good; as that son in the Gospel, said he would not go work in his father’s vineyard, yet afterwards saith the Teacher, he repented and went (Mat. 21. 29), that is, he changed his mind and went."[36] So in contrast to what Wilkin would have us believe, the issue is a change of mind, not a change of behavior!

In a 1972 Master’s thesis for Wheaton College titled "The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament," Roger Post comments on the words of Jesus in Matthew 21:29 and affirms that there is a biblical distinction to be made between repentance and the works which should follow. Post writes: "Apparently Jesus felt that the two words ‘and went’ were essential to the meaning of His story. He did not generally waste words. It would appear then that the change of action, described by the words ‘and went,’ was not included in the word ‘repented.’ Thus one could well question the productive value of a repentance that did not cause a change in actions, but he could not legitimately question the repentance itself."[37] In other words, when Jesus says "and went" in Matthew 21:29, that is a fruit of repentance, not repentance itself. Wilkin fails to make this biblical distinction. He appeals to Luke 3:8 in support of his view of repentance as turning from sins (i.e. a change of behavior). But Luke 3:8 indicates that behavior changes are "fruits that are consistent with repentance" (NASB), not repentance itself. Wilkin tries to equate repentance with the fruits of repentance, but the Bible clearly makes a distinction between the two (see also Matt. 3:8; cf. Acts 26:20).

What about the quote on repentance from Cremer’s Lexicon?

In his third critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: "Third quote. Cremer’s Lexicon of 1892 said, "Repentance [is] the faculty of moral reflection" (italics added). Works salvation is once again suggested since the issue here is moral reflection, not belief in Christ."[38]

How does "moral reflection" equate to "Works salvation"? Wilkin never explains. Instead, he simply proposes it as fact and expects the reader to agree with him. If we follow Wilkin’s logic, then apparently merely reflecting on morality (right and wrong) is works salvation! But such logic fails to take into consideration that a person can obviously reflect upon the fact that according to the Bible, morality and good works don’t save! Similarly, why can’t "moral reflection" simply be a person’s recognition of his or her sinful condition, or a recognition of what sin really is? Indeed, this seems to be the apostle Paul’s whole point in Romans 3:9-20.

But actually, we can leave that whole discussion aside because Cremer doesn’t even say: "Repentance [is] the faculty of moral reflection" (as Wilkin would have us believe). What Cremer actually says is: "metanoia, ē, change of mind, repentance….In the N.T., and especially in Luke, corresponding with metanoein [to repent], it is = repentance, with reference to nous [the mind, intellect, thought] as the faculty of moral reflection" (bold added). Cremer is saying that in the New Testament, the words metanoia and metanoein both signify repentance "with reference to nous [the mind] as the faculty of moral reflection". So rather than saying: "Repentance [is] the faculty of moral reflection" (as Wilkin says), Cremer is instead referring to "nous [the mind] as the faculty of moral reflection". So all Cremer is saying is that New Testament repentance has to do with (or has reference to) the mind, which is the faculty of moral reflection. That’s not works salvation, that’s repentance as a change of mind

What about the quote on repentance from the Weymouth New Testament?

In his fourth critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: "Fourth quote. The authors cite the 1903 Weymouth New Testament (WNT) by Richard Francis Weymouth. They indicate that his translation of Luke 3:8 reads, "‘Live lives which shall prove your change of heart.’ This is the proper order, first change your minds and hearts (repent), and then as a result of your repentance, ‘let your lives prove your change of heart’" (italics added). All of the italicized words are not found in the WNT, though the authors indicate that they are. It actually reads, "Live lives which shall prove your change of heart; and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our forefather,’ for I tell you that God can raise up descendants for Abraham from these stones." The point is that Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle. That is not Free Grace theology."[39]

The statement Wilkin is referring to includes not only the quote from the Weymouth NT, but also my commentary following.[40] Dr. Bing correctly distinguished between the two by placing quotation marks around the actual Bible verse(s) from the Weymouth NT.[41] Apparently Wilkin did not read the full quote from my article on repentance (as Dr. Bing suggested); if Wilkin had, he would have seen this distinction all the more clearly.

Furthermore, Wilkin is actually misrepresenting Weymouth by saying that "Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle." As Dr. Bing and I pointed out in our articles, Weymouth has a footnote for the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2 that says: "repent] Or ‘change your minds.’" So while Wilkin says that "Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle"—what Weymouth actually believed is that in the New Testament, the word "Repent" means "change your minds"![42]

Weymouth makes a similar statement in his notes on Matthew 3:8 (a parallel passage to Luke 3:8). Commenting on the words "change of heart" in Matthew 3:8 in the Weymouth NT, Weymouth writes: "Change of heart] or ‘change of mind.’ Such is the exact meaning of the word commonly, and not wrongly, rendered ‘repentance.’"[43] So Wilkin is incorrect to say that "Weymouth believed that repentance is a decision to change your lifestyle." Wilkin is misrepresenting Weymouth and confusing repentance with the "fruits that are consistent with repentance" (Lk. 3:8, NASB).

What about the quote on repentance by J. Dwight Pentecost?

In his last critique of the five quotes, Wilkin writes: "Fifth quote. The authors cite J. Dwight Pentecost as writing in 1965, "From the Word of God, we discover that the word translated ‘repent’ means ‘a change of mind.’ It means, literally, ‘a turning about’; not so much a physical turning about as a mental turning around, a change of course, a change of direction, a change of attitude" (Things Which Become Sound Doctrine, italics added). While Pentecost is often associated with Free Grace Theology, that quote is at best confusing and at worst a reflection of soft Lordship Salvation."[44]

I don’t think Wilkin is being fair in his criticism of Dr. Pentecost, who has been a pillar of traditional Free Grace theology for probably over 50 years. To say that Pentecost is here advocating "soft Lordship Salvation" strains credulity. Dr. Pentecost clearly limits the "change of course" to a mental activity. The context of his statement makes this clear.

Is church history necessarily antithetical to the Bible?

In conclusion, Wilkin says: "Finally, we know what Biblical repentance is by studying the Bible, not by studying church history."[45]

I find this objection by Wilkin highly ironic and quite disingenuous in light of the fact that he himself wrote a study on repentance titled "The Doctrine of Repentance in Church History"![46] Furthermore, Wilkin’s statement only begs the question: Why can’t church history help us to understand Biblical repentance? It should be obvious that church history and the Bible are not necessarily antithetical to each other as Wilkin tries to portray them. Indeed, the apostle Paul says that he "handed down" the gospel as he himself had received it from others before him (see 1 Cor. 15:3, NASB). Is this not "church history"?[47] And what’s more, it’s Biblical! So the two things (church history and the Bible) are not necessarily antithetical or mutually exclusive. In another place the apostle Paul wrote the following words to Timothy, his spiritual son in the faith: "You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:1-2, NASB 1977, emphasis added). Now of course it’s debatable to what extent the church fathers have been "faithful" in handing down and passing along Bible doctrine, or to what extent they have be "faithful" in teaching the truth of God’s Word, but that’s another discussion, is it not? The fact of the matter (and the point that I’m making here) is that "studying church history" is not antithetical to "studying the Bible" if church history is also teaching the Bible and handing down the doctrines taught in the Bible. In that case we would still be studying the Bible. To give some examples of this, are we not studying the Bible when we read old sermons delivered by Spurgeon, Moody, or other great preachers of the past? Do they not quote Scripture? Someone could look at that and say, "That’s just church history; that’s not studying the Bible." But of course that would not be true, because these preachers are leading us to the Bible itself! We even have a biblical example of this in Acts chapter 8. When Philip came up to the Ethiopian eunuch reading from the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 53, to be exact), and Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you’re reading?" the eunuch replied, "How can I unless someone teaches me?" And how did Philip respond? Did he say, "I can’t teach you anything from the Bible because I’m just a ‘church father’ and that would just be church history?" No, of course not! The Bible says, "Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him." Indeed, church history (or more specifically, "faithful men" throughout church history) can teach us many things about the Bible and about Jesus, as is clear from the previous examples. (After all, isn’t this why God "gave to the church…teachers"? See Ephesians 4:11-12.) I emphasized this same point in the Preface to the first edition of my article when I said: "Ultimately, a biblical understanding of repentance is based upon what the Bible says, and that is why in the following quotes from Bible scholars, they set forth the meaning of the New Testament word for repentance, which is the Greek word metanoia. It is the meaning of this word with which we are concerned, and with which these quotes have to do."[48]

FOOTNOTES

1. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1" faithalone.org/blog/is-repentance-a-change-of-mind-or-heart-concerning-our-sins-part-1/ (GES blog, November 5, 2021); Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" faithalone.org/blog/is-repentance-a-change-of-mind-or-heart-concerning-our sins-part-2/ (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
2. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1" (GES blog, November 5, 2021).
3. Wilkin even admits this when he says: "Grudem does discuss Bing’s view of repentance and salvation, but only quoting selectively from his dissertation. He misses Bing’s discussion of repentance as a change of heart that includes an inner change of moral direction." (Bob Wilkin, "Does Free Grace Theology Diminish the Gospel? A Review of Wayne Grudem’s ‘Free Grace Theology’: Five Ways it Diminishes the Gospel, Part 1" [GES blog, September 1, 2016].)
4. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1" (GES blog, November 5, 2021).
5. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
6. See also GraceNotes 22, "Repentance: What’s in a Word" (gracelife.org).
7. H. A. Ironside, "PAUL, WORLD EVANGELIST". The Sunday School Times, September 9, 1950, Volume 92, Number 36, p. 9, comment on Acts 26:9-20 (archive.org).
8. Robert P. Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991), p. 167.
9. Ibid., p. 212.
10. Wendell G. Johnston, Charles R. Swindoll, General Editor, Roy B. Zuck, Managing Editor, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), p. 297, bold added.
11. Ibid., pp. 297-298.
12. Jonathan Perreault, "‘Free Grace’ Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance" (Free Grace Free Speech blog, December 14, 2019).
13. Jonathan Perreault, "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians" (Free Grace Free Speech blog, May 28, 2021).
14. George Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (London: T. & T. Clark, 1922), p. 287.
15. John Bunyan "Of Repentance." George Offor, Editor, The Whole Works of John Bunyan (London: 1862), vol. 2, p. 600.
16. John R. Rice, Acts: Filled With the Spirit, A Verse-by-Verse Commentary on Acts of the Apostles (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1963), pp. 93-94, commentary on Acts 2:37-40.
17. Jonathan Perreault, "Is the Grace Evangelical Society Misunderstanding McGee on Repentance?" (Free Grace Free Speech blog, April 10, 2021).
18. Rich Keller, the webmaster for the gracelife.org website, gives the following excellent analysis of Wilkin’s statement. Keller writes: "It’s really called the argument from fallacy. It is a form of non sequitur fallacy Bob is employing. If, in a list of claims a person makes, one of the claims is false, it does not follow, at least in every situation, that all of the other claims are false. Just because the Church fathers were wrong on a number of things doesn’t mean they weren’t right on this one." Mr. Keller goes on to say: "In this [GES] article I had to chuckle as Bob uses the church fathers as correct on sola fide … ‘Does Your Mind Need Changing? Repentance Reconsidered – Grace Evangelical Society’ (faithalone.org) [Wilkin writes:] ‘Another way of saying this is that there is but one condition of justification before God - faith in Christ (see Rom 3:28; 4:1-8; Gal 2:16; 3:6-16). Justification is by faith alone - sola fide as the Reformers put it so succinctly in Latin. Since eternal salvation is by faith alone’ …not sure why he’s quoting them because they were wrong on so many other things". (Rich Keller, personal e-mail correspondence, November 28, 2021. Reprinted by permission. Ellipsis his. Editor’s Note: I added quotation marks around the title of the GES article.)
19. Holger Friedrich, personal e-mail correspondence, June 26, 2021. Reprinted by permission.
20. J. Vernon McGee, Witnesses: After He Died They Saw Him Alive (Pasadena: Thru the Bible Radio Network, n.d.), p. 13.
21. C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. iii. See Roman numeral "X." (10.) in the "INTRODUCTION".
22. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: In One Volume (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2011). See the 4 volumes in one, available on archive.org.
23. Book Review: "Jehovah’s Witnesses on Trial: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers". Posted in "Book Reviews" on the GES website: Faith alone. Note: The author of the book is Robert U. Finnerty. The book review on the GES website is by R. Michael Duffy.
24. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 1" (GES blog, November 5, 2021).
25. Ibid.
26. Charlie Bing, "Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1" (GraceNotes – no. 92). This article is available on the gracelife.org website.
27. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
28. Kenneth Yates, "The Novelty of Free Grace Theology, Part 1," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 27, no. 52 (Spring 2014): p. 4, emphasis added.
29. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp. 272, 362.
30. Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953, 1981, 1989), pp. 18-19. Note: Ryrie quotes from The Shepherd of Hermas on page 20 of his book The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Ryrie writes: "The Shepherd of Hermas. This document, written sometime between 140 and 150 A.D. says: ‘You have escaped from great tribulation on account of your faith, and because you did not doubt the presence of such a beast. Go, therefore, and tell the elect of the Lord His mighty deeds, and say to them that this beast is a type of the great tribulation that is coming.’ [Visions, I, IV, 2.] Since some have tried to deny that this man was chiliastic in belief, it should be mentioned that Berkhof, an amillennialist, admits that he was. [Reformed Dogmatics, p. 270.]" (Charles Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 20, emphasis his.)
31. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: 4 Volumes in One (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers), pp. 1264, 1308, 3400. Note: The page numbers are keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
32. Ibid., p. 348. Note: The page number is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
33. Ibid., p. 348. Note: The page number is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
34. Ibid., p. 593. Note: The page number is keyed to the four volumes in one on archive.org.
35. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
36. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: 1647), fifth Edition, pp. 136, italics his. Note: In the original, the word "evil" is spelled "evill". The 1647 edition of the book can be read online using the following link.
37. Roger Post, "The Meanings of the Words Translated ‘Repent’ and ‘Repentance’ in the New Testament," Master’s Thesis, Wheaton College, June 1972, pp. 76-77. Note: The Greek word for "repented" in Matthew 21:29 is not metanoeo; it is metamelētheis, from metamelomai. Yet, as Dr. Scofield affirms: "The son in Mt. 21. 28, 29 illustrates true repentance." (C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1174. See note 2 for the word "repent" in Acts 17:30.)
38. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
39. Ibid.
40. Jonathan Perreault, "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians" (Free Grace Free Speech blog, May 28, 2021). Note: See the section titled "Weymouth New Testament (1903)".
41. Charlie Bing, "Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 2" (GraceNotes – no. 93).
42. Richard Francis Weymouth, edited by Ernest Hampden-Cook, The New Testament in Modern Speech (London: James Clarke & Co., 1915), p. 7. Note: See footnote 5 on the word "Repent" in Matthew 3:2.
43. Ibid., p. 8. Note: See footnote 3 on the words "change of heart" in Matthew 3:8.
44. Bob Wilkin, "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Heart Concerning Our Sins? Part 2" (GES blog, November 8, 2021).
45. Ibid.
46. See the article by Robert N. Wilkin in the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, vol. 1, no. 1 (Autumn 1988).
47. J. Vernon McGee affirms: "the Good News that Christ has taken away our sins has been passed from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to Paul, the apostle, the early church fathers, and finally to our day to me and to you!" (J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis – Deuteronomy [Thomas Nelson, 1981], p. 401.)
48. Jonathan Perreault, "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians". Note: The first edition of this article is available on the gracelife.org website in the Grace Research Room. The second edition of the article is available on my website: freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com.

Introduction

Opponents of “free grace theology” will often claim that it is a recent historical and theological aberration. Even those who advocate for free grace often assume that it was taught in the early church, but that the teaching of free grace was lost until recently.

That is simply not the case. This paper will briefly trace the free grace controversy and demonstrate that it is not a recent doctrine dreamed up in the last few decades.

But before we take a trip down the path of church history, we need to understand what free grace is and why it is controversial.

Free Grace Defined

Traditional Free Grace Theology1 is the view that God saves sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice alone. No works before, during, or after the moment a person places their faith in Christ contribute anything to the free gift of salvation. God justifies the sinner on the singular condition of faith in Christ. The lost sinner does not need to forsake sin or promise to live a virtuous life in exchange for God’s free gift of salvation. One of the key components of free grace is that it teaches absolute assurance of salvation. In other words, a person can be 100% convinced that they have eternal life the moment they trust Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross to save them from the penalty of their sins. Free grace teaches Preservation of the Saints rather than Perseverance of the Elect.

Believers will be preserved by the free grace of God. No saint will ever be lost even if they die in a sinful state. One cannot lose their salvation through sinning or failure of their faith. Assurance of salvation is based on the teaching of God’s Word, and not through introspection into one’s own works.

Free grace distinguishes between initial justification (the past tense aspect of salvation) and progressive sanctification (the present tense aspect of salvation). The past tense aspect of salvation (initial justification) occurs when the sinner trusts in Christ’s work on the cross which results in God’s declaration of righteousness. The present tense aspect of salvation (progressive sanctification) occurs throughout the lifetime of the believer as he understands and applies the principles of discipleship taught in God’s Word. Understanding the difference between initial justification and progressive sanctification is a liberating element of free grace. As a result of understanding this distinction, those who trust Christ as Savior can have complete assurance of salvation from the moment they believe.

Free Grace as Systematic Theology

Systematic theology has been defined as “a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.”2 It takes time to formulate any doctrine. It does not happen overnight. Doctrines frequently undergo refinement as Bible scholars discuss various theological aspects or nuances.

The same is true with free grace theology. When the Reformers parted ways with the Roman Catholic Church, they rediscovered the truths of free grace as taught in the Scriptures. However, there was room for refinement as theologians dealt with many questions over the centuries. In commenting on Romans 1:17 Martin Luther said, “I clearly saw that the free grace of God is absolutely necessary to attain to light and eternal life.”3

As a theology, free grace has definitely seen refinement over the centuries. Elements of free grace theology can be seen in embryonic form in the teaching of Luther and Calvin. As Post-Reformation theologians considered issues such as assurance of salvation, free grace began to develop into a systematized theology. At what point were the doctrines of free grace formulated sufficiently to be classified as a “theology?” That is a more difficult question to answer and beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, I maintain that free grace theology as a systemized arrangement of doctrinal truth is anything but recent.

Free Grace as a Recent Movement

The label “recent” cannot legitimately be attached to “free grace” as a systemized theology. It might be easier to ascribe the label “recent” to “free grace” as a “movement.” For example, Wayne Grudem speculates:

Where did the modern Free Grace movement come from? As far as I can tell, it stems primarily from a minority view among the faculty members at Dallas Theological Seminary. More particularly, it stems from an aggressive promotion of the Free Grace viewpoint by Zane Hodges (1932-2008), who taught New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary for twenty-seven years, from 1959 to 1986.4

Did the modern free grace “movement” begin with Zane Hodges? That claim is doubtful. Personally, I would place the date of the modern free grace “movement” much earlier—1918 to be specific.

Why would Wayne Grudem associate the modern free grace movement with Zane Hodges when it was Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur who brought the free grace / Lordship salvation debate into focus in the 1980s? Specifically, MacArthur’s book The Gospel According to Jesus (1988).

Theologians like to build strawmen that they can easily knock down to strengthen their case. They will find an abnormal example that exists among their opponents and portray that isolated instance as being the standard that represents the view of all their opposition. This is known as the “stereotype fallacy.” It is making assumptions about a whole group based on a sample that is inadequate, atypical, or too small. In my opinion, this is exactly what Wayne Grudem is doing with free grace as a movement.

The modern free grace movement can be divided into two wings. First is the traditional or normative view of free grace. This view is arguably held by most free grace advocates. While it may not have been labeled free grace at the time, it can be traced to a debate that occurred in 1918 between Lewis Sperry Chafer and B. B. Warfield. That controversy went through various refinements over the decades. Nevertheless, it began a discussion which developed into the traditional view of free grace as we know it today. The second wing of the modern free grace movement is a minority view that was taught by Zane Hodges. This view has been promoted by Robert Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society. It teaches some aberrant views that are strongly repudiated by many in the traditional free grace camp.5

Dr. Ken Wilson notes: “He [Robert Wilkin] changed the GES doctrinal statement that ejected leaders and a majority of his members — eighty percent (80%) according to Wilkin’s statement to his former chairman of the GES board, Greg Sapaugh. Wilkin divided the Free Grace Movement. More accurately, as the former FGA president Fred Lybrand explained, Wilkin and GES left the Free Grace Movement.”6

To state that the modern free grace movement began with Zane Hodges, at best demonstrates an ignorance of the historical facts. Sadly this caricature of free grace attempts to color the entire landscape of the movement by painting a distorted picture based on an aberrant, minority group. This is a classical strawman fallacy.

As a modern day movement, many seeds of free grace were sown in 1918 when Lewis Sperry Chafer published a book titled, He That Is Spiritual. Reformed theologian, B. B. Warfield, took issue with the views espoused by Dr. Chafer regarding salvation. Chafer taught that salvation is by faith alone. The only requirement for salvation is to believe in Jesus who died in our place. Chafer grounded his teaching on his commitment to Sola Fide—Faith Alone

For example, Dr. Chafer wrote: In the preceding pages it is also pointed out that the New Testament declares directly and without complication in at least 150 passages that men are saved upon the sole principle of faith; and, in this connection, it has been demonstrated that it is not a matter of believing and repenting [i.e. believing and repenting are “two sides of the same coin” so to speak], of believing and confessing Christ, of believing and being baptized, of believing and surrender to God, of believing and confessing sin, or of believ ing and pleading with God for salvation, but it is believing alone. Such belief is apart from works (Rom. 4:5), it is a committal of one’s self to Christ (2 Tim. 1:12), and it is a definite turning [i.e. repenting] — an act of the will — to God from every other confidence (1 Thess. 1:9).7

More seeds of free grace were planted in 1959, when Everett Harrison and John Stott carried on a debate in Eternity magazine. The debate focused on whether a person could accept Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. In other words, does a person have to make a commitment to follow Jesus as Lord of their life in order to be saved? The view that a person must accept Jesus as both Lord and Savior at the point of salvation became known as the “Lordship Salvation” view.

In the 1980s, the debate over free grace was brought into the spotlight when Dr. John MacArthur published his book The Gospel According to Jesus in which he advocated Lordship Salvation. In response, Dr. Charles Ryrie published So Great Salvation. The focus of the controversy had to do with the requirements of salvation. Is simply faith alone in Christ’s substitutionary death sufficient to save a person? Or does a person have to make a commitment to forsake all their sins in order to be saved?

Many who are aware of the free grace controversy, imagine that it began around the 1980s when Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Ryrie brought some of these doctrinal issues to the center stage. Others may even be aware of the previous debates that took place between personalities such as Harrison, Stott, Chafer and Warfield. But the fact is that the free grace controversy has been an issue since the church was first established.

The Biblical Basis for Free Grace

The test of correct doctrine has nothing to do with how recent or how ancient it is. The test of correct doctrine has everything to do with how it measures up with the Word of God. The fact is that free grace is based upon the teaching of God’s Word.

Paul wrote that believers are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24).”

The word translated “freely” is the NT Greek adjective δωρεάν [dōrean] meaning freely or undeservedly. It comes from the noun δωρεά [dōrea] which means gift.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “God’s justification of those who believe is provided freely (dōrean, “as a free gift,” i.e., without charge) by His grace.”8

Some people have a problem with the term free grace. They say that by definition, grace is free since it is “unmerited favor.” Therefore, to say free grace is being redundant. Apparently, Paul did not consider the idea of free grace to be redundant. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to pen these words did not consider free grace to be redundant.

The Dictionary of Theological Terms elaborates on this idea of redundancy: “There is a double emphasis upon the thought of freeness here. Freely means “without a cause” (cf. John 15:25)—justification is not granted because of any merit in us but proceeds upon free grace alone.”9

Our culture says that there is no such thing as a “free lunch.” That idea is probably not unique to us living in North America today. No doubt Paul faced similar opposition to the idea of the freeness of God’s grace.

Warren Wiersbe concurs: “The Greek word translated ‘freely’ is translated in John 15:25 as ‘without a cause.’ We are justified without a cause! There is no cause in us that would merit the salvation of God! It is all of grace!”10

Other scholars explain the significance of Paul’s words: “The word free gift indicates that man contributes nothing toward being put in a right relationship with God, while the phrase ‘by God’s grace’ indicates that God supplies all that is necessary.”11

Some object to free grace saying that the phrase is not used in the Bible. However, the New English Bible renders the phrase “freely by His grace” as “by God’s free grace alone (Rom. 3:24; NEB).”

Paul also wrote, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 6:23; NASB).”

Certainly, the doctrine of free grace rests upon the foundation of God’s Word.

A Scriptural Example of Free Grace

Salvation by God’s free grace is as timeless as the Word of God. It has always been taught by the Scriptures. No one has ever been saved apart from God’s free grace. Abraham is a perfect example of salvation by God’s free grace. Genesis 15:6 says, “And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” Paul reiterates that truth in Galatians 3:6 writing, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Not long after Paul wrote Galatians, he explained to the Romans what it meant for Abraham to be saved by God’s free grace:

For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. (Rom. 4:3-5)

Paul was a champion of free grace. Unfortunately, when free grace is preached it often finds much opposition. Free grace as an unconditional gift of God has been controversial since the beginning of the church. This fact is demonstrated by the opposition that the Apostle Paul faced by the legalists of his day.

A Litmus Test of Free Grace

Litmus tests are used to determine if a chemical solution is acid-based or alkalinebased. As an idiom, the term litmus test is used to determine someone’s true intentions or beliefs.

We might ask, “Is there a litmus test to determine if someone is preaching the gospel of God’s free grace? How do you know if a preacher is adding works to the gospel of grace?”

As a matter of fact, there is a strong litmus test for free grace, and it is this: Do people accuse you of preaching a gospel that gives license to sin? If so, you are in good company, because that is exactly what the Apostle Paul was accused of!

Paul wrote: “And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying (Rom. 3:8; ESV).”

Legalists were slanderously charging Paul of promoting or glorifying evil. They were accusing Paul of giving people a license to sin. Paul responded to that charge in Romans chapter 6. Paul’s refutation of that slanderous charge went like this:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? …What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! (Rom. 6:1-2; 14)

The legalists were slandering Paul and twisting his words. No doubt they were saying things like, “Look at that Apostle Paul. He is telling people that they can continue living in sin because they are under grace. He is preaching ‘easy believism.’ He is teaching ‘cheap grace.’”

The litmus test for free grace is simply this. If a preacher is not being accused of what Paul was being accused of, then maybe there is something wrong with his gospel message.

Lance Latham explained it this way:

The doctrine of justification by faith is so provocative that it creates a question for many. “Will not belief in the grace of God alone produce a licentious living on the part of the people?” “Perhaps the people of God will live presumptuous lives when they realize that they are saved by grace and not by works.” We find the remarkable answer as we continue to consider the book of Romans. Paul asks the rhetorical question, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” (Rom. 6:1).12

William Mackay concurred writing, “Unless the gospel we preach, when presented to the natural mind, brings forth such a question, it is another Gospel than Paul’s.”13

Both William Mackay and Lance Latham had a solid understanding of God’s free grace. We would expect no less than a defense of the free grace position by these non-Reformed

Bible scholars. Surprisingly, they were joined in their defense of free grace by an unlikely colleague. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Covenant / Reformed Theologian) made this amazing observation:

The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show what I mean.

If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God, and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise. And you can apply the same test to any other type or kind of preaching. If a man preaches that you are saved by the Church, or by sacraments, and so on, this kind of argument does not arise. This particular misunderstanding can only arise when the doctrine of justification by faith only is presented.

There is a sense in which the doctrine of justification by faith only is a very dangerous doctrine, dangerous, I mean, in the sense that it can be misunderstood. It exposes a man to this particular charge. … Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought against George Whitefield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity … has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’, and that we are saved, not by anything that we do, but in spite of it, entirely and only by the grace of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.14

Pauline Justification and Free Grace

The apostle Paul taught forensic, legal, or judicial justification. Forensic justification is God’s legal act by which an unrighteous sinner who believes in Jesus Christ as Savior is declared righteous before God, because Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him. The righteousness of Jesus is applied to the unrighteous sinner’s account. As a result, we now have a new legal standing before Him because He declares that we are no longer guilty as sinners.

Forensic justification was a central element of Pauline theology. As we shall see, forensic justification was rediscovered by the Reformers when they broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. It is also a foundational component of free grace theology.

As we mentioned previously, the Apostle Paul taught that we are “justified [δικαιόω; dikaioō] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24).” A few verses later Paul insisted: “For we maintain that a man is justified [δικαιόω; dikaioō] by faith apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28).”

What does it mean to be justified?

The New Testament Greek word δικαιόω [dikaioō] means to declare or pronounce righteous.

Rather than saying “being justified freely by His grace,” Young’s Literal Translation renders Romans 3:24 as “being declared righteous freely by His grace.”

David Dockery writes: In verse 24 he said that all who believe “are justified.” Justified is a legal term meaning to declare righteous. 15

In commenting on Romans 3, Bible scholars have noted this judicial concept of justification. Notice the important distinction between to declare righteous and to make righteous.

John Witmer: “In view of man’s sin God has stepped in with His provided righteousness, because all who believe are justified…. ‘Justify’ (dikaioō) is a legal term, meaning ‘declare righteous’ (not ‘make righteous’; cf. Deut. 25:1).”16

Thomas Constable: “Justification is an act, not a process. And it is something God does, not man. As mentioned previously, justification is a forensic (legal) term. On the one hand, it means to acquit (Exod. 23:7; Deut. 25:1; Acts 13:39). On the other, positive side, it means to declare righteous. But it does not mean to make righteous…. Justification describes a person's status in the sight of the Law, not the condition of his or her character. The condition of one's character and conduct has to do with sanctification.”17

William Newell: “The word never means to make one righteous, or holy; but to account one righteous. Justification is not a change wrought by God in us, but a change of our relation to God.”18

Justification is the act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner righteous in Christ on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross. Each part of this definition is important, so we must consider it carefully.

To begin with, justification is an act, not a process. There are no degrees of justification; each believer has the same right standing before God. Also, justification is something God does, not man. No sinner can justify himself before God. Most important, justification does not mean that God makes us righteous, but that He declares us righteous. Justification is a legal matter. God puts the righteousness of Christ on our record in the place of our own sinfulness. And nobody can change this record.

Do not confuse justification and sanctification. Sanctification is the process whereby God makes the believer more and more like Christ. Sanctification may change from day to day. Justification never changes. When the sinner trusts Christ, God declares him righteous, and that declaration will never be repealed. God looks on us and deals with us as though we had never sinned at all!19

The Early Church Fathers and Free Grace

What did the Early Church Fathers teach about the free grace concept of forensic justification? While the scriptures are our final authority, it can be helpful to see what others have taught throughout church history.

Thomas Schreiner is a professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his book, Faith Alone, he states: “In the writings of the earliest Christians we do not find many references to justification, but the evidence we do have supports the notion that most early church fathers understood justification forensically.”20

We do have a few examples in the writings of the Early Church Fathers that indicate they taught Pauline justification which is an important element of free grace.

Clement of Rome taught that justification is by faith and not by works. Clement was an early church father who lived near the end of the first century. He was a bishop of the church in Rome. He is the same Clement mentioned by the apostle Paul in Philippians.

And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life (Phil. 4:3).

He is known for a letter that he wrote from Rome to the church at Corinth about A.D. 96. This letter is the earliest Christian document outside the New Testament. In that letter he wrote:

And we, therefore…are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning.21

Origen (185-254) taught that justification is by faith and not by works. He wrote: “Faith is the foundation of our justification, so that righteousness isn’t based on works of the law.”23

Chrysostom (347-407) taught that justification is by faith and not by works. “Chrysostom insists that justification can’t be given through works since God demands perfect obedience. Hence, the only way to be justified is through grace.… Chrysostom’s articulation of justification seems to be thoroughly Pauline.”24

If the Early Church Fathers taught a version of free grace, then when did things go off track? We cannot be 100% certain. But the doctrine of free grace was definitely compromised around the year 400 A.D. through the influence of Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine and the Abandonment of Free Grace

Augustine (354-430) opposed elements of free grace as well as the teaching of the Apostle Paul. He denied the Pauline doctrine of forensic justification. Augustine taught that God makes the sinner righteous rather than declares the sinner righteous. The teaching of Augustine set the stage for the Roman Catholic Church which destroyed any hope of the believer having assurance of salvation.

Augustine is one of the Latin Fathers. He spoke Latin and never learned the Greek language of the New Testament well. He received his classical education in North Africa. His schooling was conducted mainly in Latin rather than in Greek. Augustine later wrote in his Confessions that his first Greek teacher was a brutal man who constantly beat his students. As a result, Augustine rebelled by vowing never to learn Greek.

Dave Anderson explains the significance of Augustine’s incompetence in the Greek language:

“Augustine’s scant knowledge of Greek caused him to misunderstand δικαιόω translating it … ‘to make righteous,’ as opposed to the defining truth of the Reformers that this word meant “to declare righteous.” The distinction was enough to cause schism in Western Christianity. Whereas the former meaning signified a change of character, the latter meaning referred to a change of standing. ‘To make righteous’ looked to one’s experience in life, but ‘to declare righteous’ looked to the court room of heaven.”25

And when all the people heard Him, even the tax collectors justified [δικαιόω; dikaioō] God, having been baptized with the baptism of John (Luke 7:29).

If the Greek scholars are right, then the tax collectors justified God by declaring Him to be righteous.

On the other hand, if Augustine is right, then the tax collectors justified God by making Him righteous. But how can a sinful human being make God righteous? The idea that a mere mortal can make God righteous is absurd.

Therefore, the Greek word δικαιόω [dikaioō] must mean “to declare one to be righteous.”

Augustine got that wrong. Unfortunately, his error did not stop there. Like falling dominoes, his errors continued to multiply as he paved the way for the Roman Catholic Church. Both Augustine and later Roman Catholicism taught that no one could know for certain that they have eternal life. The free grace teaching of Paul and the Early Church Fathers definitely left the tracks with the “no assurance” teaching of Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Reformation and the Rediscovery of Free Grace

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest. Because of Catholic teaching, he was fearful of hell, and God’s wrath. He was haunted with insecurity about his eternal destination. He immersed himself into the study of Scripture, especially the letters written by the Apostle Paul. Eventually, Luther came to understand that he was “saved by grace through faith” alone (Ephesians 2:8). His newfound enthusiasm about assurance of salvation began to spill over into his teaching. It didn’t take long for his radical ideas to get noticed. In January of 1521, Luther was officially excommunicated by the Pope.

John Calvin also saw assurance of salvation as being an issue that separated the new Protestant movement from Roman Catholic beliefs.

Luther and Calvin saw that assurance of salvation is tied directly to the atonement accomplished by Jesus at the cross. As they considered the dogma taught by the Roman Catholic Church, they wrestled with questions such as:

• Who did Jesus die for?
• Can I know that He died for me?
• Can I know that I am forgiven because of the atonement?

They found answers to these questions in God’s Word. They rediscovered Pauline forensic justification—that God declares the sinner righteous freely by His grace. They understood that God saves sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice alone.

It did not take long for Luther and his followers to find themselves under the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church as pronounced at The Council of Trent. That council proclaimed:

If anyone says that a sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Canon 9).

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing more than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Canon 12).

The Reformers of the 16th century rejected the “no assurance” teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther and Calvin laid the foundation for free grace theology. They taught that justification through faith alone is the grounds for assurance of salvation.

For example, John Calvin insisted that there was a right and a wrong way to attain certainty of salvation. The right way is to find assurance in Christ alone. There is no other basis for our assurance of salvation.

Sadly, it did not take long for the revival of free grace to find opposition from sources both expected and unexpected. Certainly the opposition from the Roman Catholic Church would have been anticipated. But opposition to free grace and assurance of salvation also quickly arose from within the newly formed Protestant churches. And surprisingly the opposition sprung up not only from Protestant churches down the street, but it came from individuals who were much closer to home.

For example, Theodore Beza was John Calvin’s son-in-law and Calvin’s hand-picked successor. He began the departure from Calvin in an effort to clarify Calvin’s system of theology. Beza taught that assurance of salvation came by self-examination. According to Beza, you could only be sure of your salvation by examining your life to see if you were measuring up to the standards established by the theologians.

Theodore Beza and the Second-Generation Reformers abandoned Luther and Calvin’s understanding of assurance of salvation. Reformed Theologian Robert Dabney explains the abandonment of Luther and Calvin by the Second-Generation Reformers.

The cause of this error is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome. These noble Reformers. . . asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith. Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, “My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me.” Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me.

Amidst all Calvin’s verbal variations, this is always his meaning; for he is consistent in his error. . . for as sure as truth is in history, Luther and Calvin did fall into this error, which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected.26

A. N. S. Lane adds: “For Calvin, it was not possible to partake of salvation without being sure of it. Assurance is not a second stage in the Christian life, subsequent to and distinct from faith. In the following century, some of his followers did separate them in this way and this, together with a departure from Calvin’s ground of assurance, led to a widespread loss of assurance.”28

What did Luther and Calvin mean in saying “that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith?”

Calvin explains: “He alone is truly a believer who, convinced by a firm conviction that God is a kindly and well-disposed Father toward him, promises himself all things on the basis of his generosity; who relying upon the promises of divine benevolence toward him, lays hold on an undoubted expectation of salvation.”29

Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church denied Pauline forensic justification. Therefore, it was impossible for anyone to have assurance of salvation. In contrast, Luther and Calvin rediscovered Pauline forensic justification. As a result, a believer could indeed have assurance of salvation the moment they place their faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Unfortunately, the Second-Generation Reformers reverted back to the no assurance teaching of Augustine and the Roman Catholic Church.

Reformed theologian Joel R. Beeke wrote an article titled, “Does Assurance Belong to the Essence of Faith? Calvin and the Calvinists.”30 In that article he states:

“Whereas the early Reformers held that assurance is part and parcel with faith, postReformation divines felt free to distinguish assurance from faith as witnessed by chap. 18 of the Westminster Confession.”31

“The bulk of current scholarship, however, no longer views the post-Reformation struggle to develop a detailed doctrine of assurance as a faithful outworking of early Reformation principles.”32

Luther and Calvin had it right! Unfortunately, it did not take long for Reformed theologians to depart from the teachings of Luther and Calvin regarding assurance of salvation.

But God always has His faithful remnant. Even though the “Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith” abandoned the scriptural teaching regarding assurance of salvation, there were those who continued to accurately teach the truth concerning assurance based on God’s Word.

The “Heretics” and the Revival of Free Grace in the Colonies (1636-1641)

Whenever the gospel of God’s free grace is proclaimed, it is sure to meet with opposition. That was certainly the case with the apostle Paul and with Luther and Calvin as well. That sad truth was also born out in the “Free Grace Controversy” of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1600s.33

In 2014, Michael P. Winship published Making Heretics: Militant Protestantism and Free Grace in Massachusetts, 1636–1641.34 Winship is Professor of History at the University of Georgia. His focus is on the Puritanism of early American history, as well as early modern English history. His book deals with the controversy over free grace that took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

What was this controversy about? According to Winship, “The doctrinal ‘great question’ of the free grace controversy was ... assurance of salvation.”35

The free grace people taught that it was possible for genuine believers to have assurance of their salvation. Those who opposed the free grace position, taught that it was extremely difficult for anyone to have assurance of their salvation. As a result, the opposition labeled those in the free grace camp “antinomian” which means “against the law.” Michael Winship described those who were opposed to free grace as “heresy hunters.”

Recall that Luther and Calvin saw assurance of salvation to be a defining issue between their understanding of Pauline justification and the no assurance dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Both Luther and Calvin saw assurance as being the essence of salvation. It was Luther and Calvin who set the stage for the revival of free grace in the Colonies.

In the 1600s, the Church of England had little tolerance for Puritan dissenters. As a result, many Puritan dissenters left the British shores and sailed to the Americas where they might find religious freedom.

Some of those Puritans followed the teachings of Luther and Calvin regarding assurance of salvation. Among them were the Reverend John Cotton, John Wheelwright, and Anne Hutchinson to name just a few.

In the 1630s, trials were held in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to convict these socalled free grace “heretics.” One of the main issues contested at these trials was the free grace teaching concerning assurance of salvation. The hearings also focused on the issue of good works as it relates to the assurance of salvation. These matters were litigated both in civil courts as well as before religious tribunals.

John Cotton and John Wheelwright were publicly attacked for their free grace view of salvation. Wheelwright was found guilty of sedition. Anne Hutchinson was excommunicated and expelled from the colony along with her husband. Admittedly, Anne Hutchinson held to some other doctrinal aberrations. However, her punishment does not seem commensurate with her supposed “crime.”

These so-called “heretics” paid a tremendous price for their stance regarding the gospel of God’s free grace.

The “Marrow Men” and the Revival of Free Grace in Scotland (1700s)

About 10 years after the trials in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Edward Fisher published a book in England titled The Marrow of Modern Divinity. 36 It remained in relative obscurity for roughly 50 years. Eventually it sparked another free grace controversy in the Church of Scotland.

The Reverend Thomas Boston struggled with issues pertaining to the Law and the Gospel of God’s free grace in his early ministry. Around the year 1700 Boston was visiting a member of his congregation. He saw a book on the bookshelf which intrigued him: The Marrow of Modern Divinity. He borrowed it and discovered that it spoke to his heart and to the situation of his own ministry. He embraced its teaching of free grace, and he began to preach the doctrine of being justified freely by the grace of God.

Unfortunately, the legalists caught wind of what Boston was teaching and would have none of it! In 1720, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland decided to weigh in on what was being taught by Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men who were advocates of free grace.

The Assembly condemned the book on the following grounds.

1. It taught that assurance of salvation was the essence of faith.

   Apparently, the Church of Scotland was numbered among those Reformed churches that were determined to correct the teaching of Luther and Calvin regarding assurance being the essence of faith.

2. It taught a universal atonement and pardon in the cross.

   Actually, Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men were good 5-Point Calvinists. They held to the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement rather than unlimited atonement. But they believed in the Great Commission and that the gospel message should be proclaimed to all people. In contrast, the General Assembly believed that the gospel should only be proclaimed to the elect. As such, these free grace men were falsely accused of preaching universal atonement.

3. It taught that holiness was not necessary to salvation.

   This charge relates to the fifth point of Calvinism — Perseverance of the Elect. According to Calvinism, a genuine believer will persevere to the end of their life and “die in faith.” The problem with this teaching is that it destroys any possible hope of having assurance of salvation. The charge also relates to Calvinism’s inordinate preoccupation with examining self to obtain assurance of salvation. Good works became the measuring rod to determine the genuineness of one’s faith. Sadly, very few (if any) measured up to the standards proposed by the Reformed theologians.

4. It taught that the fear of punishment and the hope of reward are not allowed to be motives of obedience.

   Many Calvinists read John 3:16 as saying “For God so loved the world of the elect that He gave His only begotten Son…” It is assumed that God only loves the elect rather than the entire world. The problem that many Reformed Puritans faced was the haunting question: “How can I know if I am one of the elect?” Scripture teaches that “we love Him, because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).” The problem is that if you do not know if you are one of the elect, then you cannot possibly know if He loves you. Therefore, you cannot use love as a motive for obedience since you have no idea if you are numbered among the loved elect destined to spend eternity with the Savior who only died for a select few. Scripture also says, “for whom the LORD loves He chastens (Heb. 12:6).” Once again, the Calvinist has a problem since he does not know if the LORD loves him. Therefore chastening could not possibly be a motive for obedience either.

5. It taught that the believer is not under the law as a rule of life.

   Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men were often falsely accused of being Antinomians because they held to the free grace understanding regarding the assurance of salvation. But on this point, they were once again wrongly charged. As good Calvinists, “they tenaciously believed that the law of God remains as the rule of life for the believer.”37

Edward Fisher, Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men certainly held to some Calvinistic doctrines that most in the modern free grace movement would repudiate. Nevertheless, they certainly could be numbered in the free grace camp regarding assurance of salvation, Pauline forensic justification, and the proclamation of the gospel of God’s free grace to all people — not to only the elect. It should be remembered that Lewis Sperry Chafer was one of the pioneers of the modern free grace movement even though he himself was a 4-Point Calvinist.

Conclusion

The foundation for free grace rests upon God’s Word. The apostle Paul championed free grace concepts such as assurance of salvation, and forensic justification. Although these doctrines seemed to be lost during the dark ages, Luther and Calvin rediscovered them paving the way for free grace theology. Luther and Calvin’s undeveloped version of free grace looked different than the refined free grace of today. Nevertheless, those kernels of truth related to assurance and justification were the building blocks used to shape today’s version of free grace theology.

Typically, doctrines develop over time as Bible scholars explore the depths of interrelated theological issues. Luther and Calvin’s rediscovery of Pauline theology set into motion a discussion resulting in a better understanding of free grace truths such as assurance of salvation and forensic justification. Today’s free grace theology is only building upon the groundbreaking work of those First Generation Reformers. Although Luther and Calvin did not have a perfect understanding of Pauline theology, nevertheless we can be thankful for what they did accomplish in their lifetime.

Dr. Andy Woods describes the embryonic work of these Reformation pioneers:

We rejoice over the Reformers and should be grateful for them, although we do not idolize them. But we are thankful for all that they accomplished and the price that they paid—some of them paying with their own lives.

We also understand that the restoration that they led was very partial. It was very important, but was not complete.

Why did the Reformers not complete their hermeneutical revolution? Part of the answer may be simply that they got old and tired. They accomplished so much in their lifetimes—it was almost a super-human feat. To expect them to have done more may not be realistic. We must also realize that they carried much baggage with them from Catholicism into the Reformation. Remember—they had initially hoped to remain Catholic!

Also, remember that they were just people—just people that God used in a specific area. We have to understand them in the context in which they lived so that we can properly and fully learn from them.

Yet God is so good, and loves His church so much, that He raised up other people to complete the work that the Reformers began, and to do what they could not do.38

Introduction

Understanding the root system of trees can save property owners both time and money. In the Fall of 2017, Hurricane Irma hit Florida causing significant property damage throughout the state. Thankfully, our property here in Central Florida was spared the worst of the damages. However, some of our residents were without water for a while because of a fallen tree. The tree’s root system was wrapped around a water line. When that tree fell, it broke a main line that supplied water to the residents on that block. After repairs were made, the folks living there were under a “boil water order” because of possible contamination to the water. Had the residents there known about the root system of that tree, measures could have been taken to avoid the damage caused by the fallen tree.

Root systems are important not only in the physical world, but also in the realm of theology. Tracing the historical roots of Calvinism gives us a better understanding about the foundation on which this system of theology was built.

Download Dissertation in PDF above.

Introduction

The Word of God is absolutely true, inerrant in the autographa and inspired by God Himself (Psalm 19:7-9; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). Thus, it would stand to reason that every theological perspective must be measured against the Word of God, resonating perfectly in its internal consistency and its correspondence to reality. Varying theologies within Christendom are products of interpretation and have hermeneutical differences and consequences that make them unique among their peers. Where a system is found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures, it should be readily abandoned in favor of where the text leads. Too often the opinions of men, whether codified or not, have turned a shortcut into an expressway simply because a temporary obstruction on the main road did not fit their schema.

Unfortunately, those who advocate Five-Point Calvinism have held fast to a system of theology that has been proven to be logically consistent, yet biblically inconsistent. This is a serious error that demands for its replacement in favor of a faithful representation of that whichis revealed in God’s Word.

Free Grace Theology exposes the scriptural inadequacies of Five-Point Calvinism, providing a theologically consistent and coherent understanding of soteriology that is exegetically-deduced. Addressing the first point of Calvinism will be the focus of this study, for its importance cannot be overstated. Sproul affirms this: “If one embraces this aspect of the T in TULIP, the rest of the acrostic follows by a resistless logic. One cannot embrace the T and rejectany of the other four letters with any degree of consistency” (emphasis added). By their own admission, the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity is the foundational point for their entire system of logical soteriological thinking. But is the Five-Point perspective on Total Depravity biblical?

The basic tenets of Free Grace find internal consistency within the Scriptures while remaining true to life in the scope of eternity, as well as coherence in the here and now. These convictions yield practical implications that foster a greater spiritual satisfaction while bringing unparalleled cohesion to the text of Scripture. Therefore, the convictions and interpretations of Five-Point Calvinism’s view of Total Depravity will be considered against the Absolutes of Free Grace Theology (which will be addressed), with the latter showing superiority in representing theGod’s Word as the original Author/authors intended. With this in mind, those holding to Free Grace Theology will be designated as Free Grace while those who affirm Five-Point Calvinism will be referred to as Five-Point Calvinist, Reformed, Calvinist, or simply Five-Point.

Download Dissertation in PDF above.

Introduction

Wayne Grudem cares deeply for the church of God and desires to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ at every turn. His life’s work has been devoted to researching and clarifying issues of supreme importance in a way that will bring greater glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is evident that there is little difference between what Grudem and Free Grace proponents desire to see: obedient saints who are daily experiencing an intimate walk with the Lord Jesus, submitting to Him and one another out of love and humble reverence. But this holy desire does not mean that there are not some important disagreements regarding the means to that end.

The study of the holy Scriptures is the study of the inerrant, while the study of church history is the study of the errant in light of the inerrant. Sola Scriptura is found in its purest sense when every movement, creed, and claim of orthodoxy is examined against the Word of God. Doing so leads to the fact that the Protestant Reformation was lacking in many areas. I do not wish to negate the good that came from the movement, nor the necessary clarification of justification by faith alone, but an honest investigation will admit that it was (and in part still is) threaded with Roman Catholic ties that will not allow for "faith alone in Christ alone" to truly represent the meaning of “sola.”

In Grudem’s latest work, great concern emerges as his views on faith and repentance are compared to the Bible. I have already addressed Grudem’s position on some of these issues, showing that Catholic perspectives on penance are part and parcel to Grudem's view1 and that faith has a clear biblical definition2 despite Grudem providing his own.3 However, I believe that additional engagement is necessary. Having surveyed his perspective on faith and repentance, I believe that there are two tenets that need to be addressed:

1. Grudem’s extrabiblical definition of faith
2. Confusing the definition of “repentance” (metanoia) with “turning away” (epistrephō)

These tenets will be considered using examples from Grudem’s chapter entitled “Conversion” in his Systematic Theology, Second Edition where the subjects of faith, repentance, and assurance, are addressed and then compared to Grudem’s views on Free Grace Theology. The reader will be able to observe a repeated failure on Grudem’s part to consider the surrounding context of a passage in determining the meaning of the verse(s) under consideration. Notable walls between Free Grace and Lordship convictions will be recognized with the hope of offering some helpful solutions for future discussions between the two sides.

AN EXTRABIBLICAL DEFINITION OF FAITH

Beginning with faith, Grudem writes, “We may therefore define saving faith in the following way: saving faith is trust in Jesus Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God.” He then notes that there are three elements to saving faith:

1. “it is necessary that we have some knowledge of who Christ is and what he has done,”
2. “knowing the facts and approving of them or agreeing that they are true is not enough,” and
3. “I must decide to trust or depend on Jesus as a living person to save me.”4

Grudem also describes faith as “wholehearted commitment to Christ,” clarifying this assertion by stating that “commitment to Christ, if genuine, must include a commitment to turn from sin.”5

Many within Free Grace would agree with Grudem’s initial definition, but its subsequent elaboration asks much of the one in need of justification. Some immediate objections come to the front of the conversation when thinking about those who are “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1). How can an unregenerate person who is separated from God make a “wholehearted commitment to Christ” or make a “commitment to turn from sin?” Grudem places these requirements upon the individual to constitute genuine faith rather than seeing all requirements as being perfectly met in the sacrifice of Christ. Is Grudem calling for a synergistic salvation? While I applaud him for maintaining that one’s knowledge about Jesus Christ does not have to be extensive or academic, I cannot help but to shake my head at the notion that one must make a “wholehearted commitment” to someone without knowing much about them.

This is where the liberating tenets of Free Grace Theology come front and center:

• The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died on the cross as our substitute, fully satisfying the requirement for our justification, and was raised bodily from the dead.
• Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
• The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.6

Each tenet listed above maintains that the only work in salvation is that of the Lord Jesus, that His work is perfect and finished, and that the response to His work should be faith and faith alone. These are the primary convictions that sets Free Grace Theology apart from the Reformed and Arminian demands for “fruit” that have arrested Evangelicalism. With Free Grace, justification is allowed to remain an instantaneous event that occurs at the moment that one responds in faith to the hearing of the gospel (Rom 10:17).

The Emphasis Issue Biblically Examined

Grudem summarizes his primary disagreement with Free Grace, stating “I still do not find in Free Grace literature nearly as much emphasis as we find in the New Testament on trusting in Christ as a living Savior, coming to him, receiving him, and believing in him with one’s heart” (emphasis original).7 The question that we must consider is: “What does the Bible say about each of these things?”

By his own admission, Grudem states that the notion of trusting in Christ is not a concept that can be supported biblically but stands as his own modification. “Because saving faith in Scripture involves this personal trust,” writes Grudem,11 “the word trust is a better word to use in contemporary culture than the words faith or belief. The reason is that we can believe something to be true with no personal commitment or dependence involved in it.”8 But does the Bible call one to trust in Christ or to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31)? Out of the modern-day English formal equivalence translations,9 only the NKJV uses the phrase first trusted in Christ in Ephesians 1:12. This is the only time that this occurs. Other formal equivalence translations choose to translate proēlpikotas as “first to hope” in Christ (ESV, NASB95, MEV), or “had put our hope” in Christ (HCSB, CSB). Clearly, the better option for this word is “hope,” not “trust,”10 thus showing that “trust” is not the biblical option.

Further addressing Grudem’s concerns on emphasis, Free Grace understands the Bible’s use of coming to Christ as a call to sanctification, which is a doctrine within the sphere of spiritual salvation that Free Grace advocates hold as being progressive and separate from the instantaneous doctrine of justification. For instance, in Matthew 16:24 we read, “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.’” Jesus is speaking to those who were already disciples. They are His audience, not the unregenerate. Since Jesus is not calling His disciples to justification, we must conclude that He is calling them into deeper fellowship with Him. This verse is not about eternal life and the forgiveness of sins.

Moving Grudem’s concerns forward, if one were to consider emphasizing the phrase receiving Him or receiving Jesus, Colossians 2:6 would stand front and center, stating “Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” Notice that Paul demonstrates the difference between “receiving” Christ and “walking” in Him, showing a clear delineation between one’s justification and sanctification. Would Free Grace advocates hold that receiving Christ is an acceptable means of centralizing the Lord Jesus and the response of faith involved in one becoming a Christian? Yes, but we would still abstain from muddying the waters of justification with “wholehearted commitment,” “turning from sins,” and “releasing sin” from one’s life, all of which are emphasized by Grudem. Such mandates place the responsibility upon the shoulders of the unregenerate sinner to enact them for God's acceptance instead of emphasizing what Jesus Christ has already done to secure one’s acceptance before the Creator.

The final emphasis in Grudem’s concern is “believing in him with one’s heart.” There is nothing presented here that would be of any contention with Free Grace Theology. I believe that the greatest concern for both sides would be what the New Testament authors meant, and what one understands, by the use of “heart.” Of course, kardia does not mean the internal organ which pumps blood throughout the circulatory system of a living being, for that is a function that operates apart from conscience, making it incapable of a reasoned response. But we can understand “heart” as “the centre of the inner life of man and the source or seat of all the forces and functions of soul and spirit.”12 Herein we have the thrust of what it means to believe in Christ with one’s heart, and I believe this to be consistent and coherent with the New Testament record.

Grudem supports his defense for the necessity of works as an evidence of “genuine” faith by quoting many well-respected works from the annals of Protestant Church History. However, no Scripture is provided in his conclusion. Not one. He then addresses my personal contribution regarding the Scriptures as the foundation for Free Grace Theology13 drawing an oversimplification while making no attempt in exegetical interaction. He opts instead to create and quickly dismiss a straw man.14 This reaction is a disappointment.

The Bible Already Has a Definition for Faith

What is most glaring about Grudem’s chapter concerning conversion, and his discussion involving faith in particular, is that the Bible’s definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1 cannot be found.15 It is altogether absent, and yet it stands in Scripture as a clear description that is followed by a myriad of examples from Old Testament saints who lived “by faith.” While the argument can and should be made that the use of “by faith” in Hebrews 11 speaks more to the nature of how these believers lived in certain situations (which is a contextually true conclusion), I would also argue that such faith, whether for receiving eternal life or living an abundant life is the same. There are not different types of faith. There is only one type of faith, regardless if it is exercised for justification or sanctification, and that faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1b).

Throughout Grudem’s chapter, one finds such designations as “saving faith,” “genuine faith,” “New Testament faith,” “sincere faith,” and “initial saving faith.” The underlying notion that there is a “head faith” that does not save as opposed to a “heart faith” that does is a theological formulation made famous in Chick Tracts and not through a proper conclusion deduced by studying Hebrews 11:1.

Assurance, Biblically Based

As a final word in relation to faith, something must be said about Grudem’s focus on the assurance of the believer. He writes, “For those who advocate a Free Grace position, good works and continuing to believe do not necessarily follow from saving faith, and therefore, it is wrong to tell people to consider whether there has been a change in their life (‘good works’) and whether they are still trusting in Christ as factors that contribute to our assurance of salvation.”16 This is true. Good works and continuing to believe are not the inevitable results of faith. Eternal life and the forgiveness of sins is. But Free Grace would quickly add that a believer cannot experience intimacy with the Father or growth in their salvation apart from faith and good works. As previously stated, Free Grace chooses to keep instantaneous justification separate from the process of sanctification.

Free Grace advocates have no obligation to put forth the works of the believer, their persistence or failure to continue trusting in Christ in every instance, or the measurement of change in their life as factors that define one’s assurance. Grudem cannot answer the questions, “How many works are enough to validate one’s salvation?” “How much is one allowed to waver in their faith at any given moment and still know that they are saved?” “How do you measure the change in one’s life for them to have assurance and is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model for every Christian?” This sort of thinking cannot produce a coherent or consistent answer.

Why not look to the Scriptures for the assurance of salvation? Why not trust what is written in God’s holy Word? When Jesus says, “he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John 5:24), why not esteem that as true? When we read, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31), why should we conclude that this is not enough? When we are told, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim 2:13)” why can we not trust that God is telling us the truth about our eternal standing with Him? To think otherwise is clearly a symptom of unbelief in the Word of God due to an overemphasis on the expectations of man.

REPENTANCE OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Another point of consideration comes in Grudem’s use of epistrephō (“turn”) when seeking to strengthen his argument regarding metanoia (“repentance”). To clarify, the word epistrephō means “to return to a point where one has been,” “to change direction,” “to cause a person to change belief or course of conduct, with focus on the thing to which one turns,” and “to change one’s mind or course of action, for better or worse.”17 This is often expressed in translation as “turn,” “turning away,” or “return.” The word metanoia (and also metanoeō meaning “repent”) is defined as “change one’s mind,” “ a change of mind,” “repentance, turning about, conversion,” and “feel remorse, repent, be converted.”18 In definition alone, there are some similarities between the two words, but Grudem’s comments surrounding his emphasis on repentance only generates confusion.

The following quote provides a succinct example:

Scripture puts repentance and faith together as different aspects of the one act of coming to Christ for salvation. It is not that a person first turns from sin and later trusts in Christ or first trusts in Christ and later turns from sin; both occur at the same time. When we turn to Christ for salvation from our sins, we are simultaneously turning away from the sins that we are asking Christ to save us from. If that were not true, our turning to Christ for salvation from sin could hardly be a genuine turning to him or trusting in him.19

Free Grace theologians do not disagree with the idea of turning in regards to justification, for the Bible plainly teaches this concept. However, this turning should not be understood as repentance. For instance, we read “But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (2 Cor 3:15-16, emphasis mine). In another place we see “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:9-10, emphasis mine).

Despite Grudem’s insistence that a genuine turning from sin is the essence of repentance,20 the word used in both passages is not metanoia but epistrephō. If the Apostle Paul intended to convey that repentance had occurred, we should see it in the text. Since both passages clearly communicate an unregenerate-to-regenerate situation, the turning away that takes place on the part of the believer is clearly a response to hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, one cannot conclude that the “turning away” is what is understood biblically as repentance.21

Interesting enough, Grudem proves this point. “When Scripture speaks of trusting in God or in Christ, it frequently connects such trust with genuine repentance. For example, Isaiah gives an eloquent testimony that is typical of the message of many of the Old Testament prophets.”22 Grudem then quotes Isaiah 55:6-7 which reads:

Seek the Lord while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the Lord, And He will have compassion on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon (emphasis mine).

He then concludes his point stating, “Here both repentance from sin and coming to God for pardon are mentioned.”23 If one were to search the formal equivalence translations of the English Bible, not one of them understands “return to the Lord” as repent or repentance. This translation decision was made for a good reason. In translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, the intertestamental scribes opted to use the word epistrephō, not metanoia. The concept of “returning” to the Lord is the point of the text, but again, (biblically speaking) repentance is not.

Biblical Evidence for “Change One’s Mind”

Grudem is also thoroughly convinced that repentance cannot mean “a change of mind.” He observes that “the standard academic dictionary for New Testament Greek, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, does give the meaning ‘change one’s mind’ as the first possible meaning of the verb metanoeō (“to repent”), but it is significant that they do not list any New Testament verse as having that particular meaning.”24 The conclusion that Grudem wishes for his readers to deduce is that the understanding of “change one’s mind” is never the meaning of repentance in the New Testament based on this lexical evidence. However, an examination of the text of Scripture proves otherwise.

Looking to Luke 15, one will observe that Jesus provides three parables for the Pharisees and scribes because of their legalistic opinions regarding the people who were listening to Jesus teach (Luke 15:1-2). The first parable concerns one hundred sheep of which one goes missing (15:4-7), the second involves a woman who had ten coins and loses one (15:8-10), and the final parable concerns the prodigal son (15:11-32). Jesus draws a close to the first parable after the lost sheep is found by stating, “in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (15:7). What does Jesus mean by “repents” and “repentance?” The first parable does not tell us. In fact, the action involved is that of the shepherd who goes out to retrieve the sheep. When he finds the sheep, he lays it upon his shoulders and brings it home. Then he celebrates with his friends (15:5-6). The sheep does nothing, yet in His application Jesus speaks of “one sinner who repents” (15:7). What does Jesus mean by repent?

Moving to the second parable, the lost coin is found after the woman lights a lamp and sweeps the house, searching carefully for her beloved piece (15:8). Having found the coin, she calls for her friends to rejoice with her (15:9), yet we can observe that the coin did nothing to be found. Much in the same way as before, Jesus applies this principle stating, “In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (15:10). What does Jesus mean by repent? Again, we are not told.

In His third parable, that of the prodigal son, Jesus speaks of a young man who asks for his inheritance before his father’s demise (which would have been considered culturally repulsive) and strikes out to squander his newly obtained wealth on the pleasures of the flesh. Being in a distant country, his funds run dry and he finds himself having to make some otherwise detestable choices (15:12-16). We then come upon Jesus’ meaning of the word “repent” in the context even though the actual word is not used in this third parable. Having hit rock bottom, Luke 15:17 says, “But when he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger!’” (emphasis mine). Could this have included an element of humility? Certainly, but the emphasis in the text is that the prodigal was not thinking straight and that he needed to come to his senses. He needed a change of mind.

Therefore, we see that Jesus sets forth His understanding of repent and repentance but chooses to do so contextually. Jesus is clear that repentance (in these instances) is when an erring human being comes to his senses about what is really true, right, and good. Grudem defines repentance as “a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.”25 Yet this is not what we see in this chapter of Scripture.26

This same idea can be seen in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 when Paul writes to his son in the faith regarding his conduct and the influence that it can have on those who oppose sound doctrine. By correcting an opponent with gentleness, Paul notes that “perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (v.25b-26, emphasis mine). Should we conclude from this use of repentance that Paul means that God may grant them “a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ”?27 Contextually, this would be an impossible conclusion. Paul is clear that the opponents may “come to their senses,” which corresponds perfectly with the understanding of “a change of mind.”

The Flip-Side of Faith?

One verse that Grudem uses to show the necessity of repentance as the flip-side of faith in one’s conversion is Acts 20:21.28 Here we read that Paul preached to Jews and to Gentiles about “repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” The word used for “repentance” is the metanoia. As seen above, “a change of mind” is a sound, biblical understanding of this word, provided that the context does not point the reader in another direction. At no point does the text direct us to consider that repentance and faith must occur simultaneously, nor does Paul supply repentance as something that is indispensable to his recorded offers of the gospel as seen elsewhere in Acts. We do not find it included in Acts 16:30-34, but what we do find is that Luke mentions that the jailer “rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household” (Acts 16:34, emphasis mine). One may conclude that repentance is included in the mention of “faith” (and by this, we mean Grudem’s definition of faith), but if we return to how the Bible defines “faith” (Heb 11:1), this does not qualify as a biblical conclusion.

When Paul comments on the message of John the Baptist in Acts 19, he states, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus” (Acts 19:4). In this verse, Paul mentions baptism, but only as a precursor, emphasizing instead the vital necessity of believing in Jesus. We know this to be true because his audience had already been baptized in John’s baptism (Acts 19:3b). However, these men had missed the main point that this baptism was preparing them for. Clearly, baptism did not save them, just as it does not save now. Neither does repentance save someone, just as it does not save them now. But what is certain is that faith in Christ Jesus the Lord can save anyone, anywhere, and at any time. Again, Paul is clear. Even though John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, these men were still unregenerate though they had participated in it. But when Paul told them about Jesus Christ, they were then baptized in His name and the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 19:5-6). How did this happen? By faith alone in Christ alone.

One final occurrence that clears up much of the confusion is Acts 26:19-20. Giving his defense, Paul unfolds his message.

So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance (emphasis mine).

In this passage three things are emphasized. First, people should “repent.” There is no question about this. But what does Paul mean by “repent?” The word used here is metanoeō. This is understood as “a change of mind” due to the other two emphasized parts of verse 20. The word used for “turn” is epistrephō, being correctly translated as “turn,” with such turning being a result of changing their minds about God. The final emphasis is on the performance of deeds that are “appropriate to repentance.” Clearly, works (“performance”) stand as something separate from repentance, being established as deeds that should flow out from it. What is repentance? Not turning, nor works, but a change of mind.

Instead of concluding that Acts 20:21 promotes the idea that repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin of conversion, it may be better to understand it as sequential, much like what is seen in Acts 11:18 when Luke writes, “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” This is a clear statement. When the Gentiles repent, it leads to life. They do not repent for eternal life.

LORDSHIP SALVATION

Grudem addresses the “Lordship Salvation” issue with a balanced understanding, writing “both sides agree that Jesus is Lord of our lives in some sense and is not fully Lord of our lives in another sense.”29 I cannot help but to be grateful for this and wish that such understanding between both sides would be reciprocated. He then writes, “when the Free Grace proponents refer to the position that disagrees with them as the ‘Lordship salvation’ position, they wrongly suggest that this is an unusual or minority view that seeks to add the idea of ‘Lordship’ to the ordinary idea of salvation.”30 Free Grace Theology would disagree with this assessment. The writings of John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and others who champion this theological construct have ventured largely into the popular Christian market, having their products selling in the tens of thousands and gaining a large following to their particular beliefs.

It is not that Free Grace believes that the Lordship view is a minority view in any sense, nor do we hold that the term “Lordship Salvation” is a designation that presupposes it to be “some new doctrine” as Grudem concludes.31 Nor do we believe “Lordship Salvation” to be a pejorative term, but one that correctly and succinctly represents this perspective. It is that we believe it to be contrary to the New Testament teaching on salvation, ultimately corrupting grace by necessitating works.

Grudem finishes this section by stating, “what the Free Grace movement calls the ‘Lordship Salvation’ view has been the mainstream Protestant view since the Reformation. It is not a novel or minority view at all, for it has been held by all the main branches of Protestantism.”32 This statement brings the issue full circle. The creeds of church history may serve to embolden a theological persuasion, but it is by no means the basis of it. Regardless of what was believed or accomplished in the Protestant Reformation, it does not hold sway upon the Word of God. Our concern should be over the proper interpretation of the text. That, and that alone, gets at the heart of what the Holy Spirit intended through the human author at the time that it was written, and only there should the arguments lie.

GRUDEM’S CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON FREE GRACE THEOLOGY

This section is the most perplexing of all. While Grudem seeks to be gracious and irenic to our position, he does so in the form of a contradiction. He writes,

The Free Grace movement preaches a weakened gospel because it avoids any call for people to repent of their sins. This is no minor matter because repentance from sin is such an important part of the gospel in many New Testament summaries and presentations (see above) that it cannot be omitted without grave consequences in the lives of people who hear such a weakened message.

However, I am not willing to say that the Free Grace Gospel is a “false gospel.” That is far too strong a category to apply here, and it calls to mind Paul’s extremely strong condemnation in Galatians 1:6–10. I think it is certainly possible to distinguish between a true gospel that is presented in an incomplete or weakened form (such as with Free Grace teaching) and a false gospel that simply proclaims falsehood rather than truth about Jesus Christ and his work of redemption (emphasis mine).33

How can this be? Grudem’s chapter on Conversion hammers the importance of faith and repentance being two necessary sides of the same coin.34 Yet his summary speaks of the Free Grace understanding of the gospel as weakened. How is this not a contradiction?35 While Grudem provides some possible instances of seeing a “changed life” in those who have interacted with Free Grace Theology, or even that one was attending a Free Grace church and then later repented “perhaps as they begin reading the Bible, and at that point they first come to genuine saving faith,”36 I find this to be a series of logical scenarios that stem from his assumptions on conversion and not from any firsthand interviews. While the Lord can always use an imperfect gospel presentation to draw people to Christ, there cannot be a sound gospel and a weakened gospel. If Grudem is correct in his assessment of the gospel message as promoted by Free Grace proponents, then “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16) is nothing more than a weakened gospel presentation because it excludes repentance.

THE WALLS BETWEEN US

It is no secret that a definitive set of barriers stand between those of the Lordship persuasion and Free Grace advocates. It would be prudent to identify these obstacles with the hope of seeing a solution that brings us to a common ground that is coherent with the biblical text. It is no coincidence that Grudem touches upon some of these walls in his chapter.

The first wall in place is the refusal to have an exegetical dialogue over the text of Scripture. What has been presented is a dogmatic adherence to a systematic treatise. As stated before, there is little exegetical engagement on Grudem’s part to interact with the textual observations of Free Grace proponents. Scholars who support the Free Grace cause are quoted, but never in relation to their interpretation on a given passage. In fact, within the section that addresses Free Grace Theology exclusively (p. 871-878) there are only two Scripture references and both instances contain no exegetical engagement. Free Grace Theology wants to discuss the text; not quotes, creeds, dogmas, or confessions. We want to discuss the Scriptures.

A second wall sees assumptions that lead to dismissal. Because my viewpoint does not match that of Wayne Grudem, I must be wrong and he must be right, no questions asked. Because certain periods of church history stand in agreement with his work and convictions, Free Grace must be a left-field concoction that is implausible because of its “recent” invention.37 Because Free Grace has not secured its book rights with a major publisher,38 no credibility could possibly stand within their ranks. Yet, Grudem’s connection with mainstream publishers (Zondervan being the publisher of this work in question) should give him greater clout among the believers of the world.

If our genuine concern is really over the integrity of the gospel and the truth of Scripture as meant by the original authors when they wrote the text, one simple way to correct this “superior/inferior” dichotomy would be to have a two-sided discussion over the passages of Scripture where our interpretations have divided us. This work could then be distributed by a mainstream publisher at cost so that the matter of truth is the only focus. Again, the text of Scripture is where the arguments should be made.

The final wall that presents itself is in the startling absence of the doctrine of the Judgment Seat of Christ when discussing Free Grace Theology. If Wayne Grudem is to write at all on the convictions of Free Grace, he will properly identify and represent the differences that we hold in justification and sanctification and the resultant teaching made regarding the rewarding of believers in glory. Grudem addresses rewards briefly in another chapter (p. 1409-1410), but the subject is wholly absent from his objections to Free Grace Theology.

The Bema Seat of Christ is an indispensable doctrine that safeguards against the misinterpretation of many passages of Scripture. The most common error by Lordship proponents is evidenced in the interpretation of passages pertaining to sanctification/rewards as if it were dealing with the subject of justification. For instance, Grudem cites the rich young ruler as an incident that involves justification, stressing that his refusal to part with his possessions shows his refusal to repent of sin (maintaining that faith and repentance are combined in his understanding of “conversion”).39 But Luke 18:18-30 shows that the main point of this passage is living a life that will merit reward in heaven. This can be clearly discerned by:

1. The man’s inquiry in what he must “do” (clearly implying a work involved) to “inherit” eternal life (a term denoting inheritance, not justification),
2. Jesus replies with two “works” answers: the first in v. 20 and the second in v.22,
3. Jesus tells the man that if he will sell his possession and give to the poor that he “shall have treasure in heaven” (v.22b),
4. Jesus tells him twice that “the kingdom of God” is the issue at hand: once in v. 24 and again in v. 25.,
5. The question about “Then who can be saved?” (v.26) should not be assumed to speak of justification since the surrounding context is pointing the reader to the subject of rewards. “Saved” can also mean “rescued, delivered, healed,” and can spiritually apply to sanctification and glorification, not solely justification.40 If this were speaking about justification, one would have to conclude by the preceding dialogue that being wealthy is what demonstrates that one is “saved,” a notion that Grudem would surely disagree with.
6. Jesus answers Peter’s statement about leaving their homes (an observation emphasizing works- v.28) with a reply that speaks of one’s sacrifice for the sake of God’s kingdom being rewarded with “many times as much” (v.30b). Jesus then speaks of “eternal life” as something future, in the “age to come” (v.30c), bringing greater contextual clarity to how He understood the inquiry of the rich young ruler in v.18.
7. When considering the parallel account found in Matthew 19:16-30, even greater evidence is presented that this scenario deals with works and reward, not justification and heaven and hell. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus speaks of the “regeneration,” which is clarified as a time that Jesus would sit on His throne. We understand this to be referring to the future Millennial Kingdom of Christ’s reign (Rev 20:4). We then see that Jesus assures Peter and the others that their sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven will not go unnoticed, telling them that they will sit on twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28b). Everything surrounding this explanation concerns glorification and the exalted position of those who are faithful and sacrificial now on Earth.

This idea continues as Jesus states: And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last; and the last, first (Matt 19:29-30).

Jesus’ continued emphasis is on personal sacrifice for His name’s sake. Such sacrifice will be rewarded with those inheriting eternal life.41 This speaks to the prize earned, not the gift freely given. He then notes that those who are first in this life will be last in the life to come (the “regeneration”) while those who are last now will be first. All of this is surrounded by works, the coming kingdom, and future reward for believers who choose to sacrifice now.

From these seven observations, we can see that the rich young ruler is a believer who is inquiring about great reward (this is why he uses the word “inherit” -v.18), and that reward is contingent upon the works of the believer for the kingdom of God (v.29-30). If this account is about justification, Jesus is teaching that salvation is by works and that the "reward" is eternity, being earned only by parting with the things that one holds dear. From Grudem's perspective, Jesus is teaching works-righteousness.

CONCLUSION

In the end, the ultimate question is “does each side have a reason to change their views regarding how God works and what He requires in salvation?” While I cannot answer for Grudem, my response would be an emphatic “no.” The evidence presented by Grudem finds its cogency with church history, creeds, and systematic conclusions and I believe that the Bible speaks to more than what he has considered in shaping his theology for his chapter on Conversion.

As a pastor, I find Grudem’s conclusions alarming. Any seeking saint that desired to understand such weighty concepts from a skilled scholar would be forced to conclude that the history of the church over time has a greater stake in determining how one should embrace the doctrines of faith, repentance, and assurance than I am comfortable with. Scripture alone is inerrant. It is sufficient to tell us all that we need to know. We do not need tradition to form our theology.

Moving forward, I would hope that these disagreements could be discussed over open Bibles, with brotherly love, and a nice cup of coffee. If Grudem is willing, I will gladly pay the bill.

Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians

Compiled by Jonathan Perreault

“True repentance is an inward act of the soul, ‘a change of mind,’ as in later writings Luther so often reminded his adversaries, as he from time to time led them back to the meaning of the Greek word.”1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries for giving me the idea to write this article, and for his thoughts and insights to make it better. I think the following statement from my correspondence with him sums up my thoughts the best: “Doing this research, I kind of feel like I'm going through the Reformation in real-time, or a second Reformation. I think a lot of these statements [on repentance] have been lost to time and forgotten. I feel like I'm going through another Renaissance! I believe that God is blessing this work. Thank you for suggesting it to me. It has been a wonderful study.”

EDITOR’S PREFACE

The quotes presented in this article describe and explain repentance is its true Scriptural signification & meaning, as a change of mind and heart. This is the testimony of both the Old and New Testaments, and of Jesus and the Apostles, viz., “then God laid it to heart [“repented” KJV] that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply” (Gen. 6:7 [6:6], Brenton LXX; cf. Augustine’s versions of Genesis, which say the same thing in the old Latin). “‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they will be like wool’” (Isa. 1:18). “Let the wicked man forsake his own way [of salvation] and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon” (Isa. 55:7; cf. Prov. 14:12, 16:25; Jn. 14:6). “But what do you think?” (Mt. 21:28). “Think ye…? (Lk. 13:2). “Or do you suppose…? (Lk. 13:4). “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? (Jn. 3:12). “Finally he came to his senses” (Lk. 15:17).

In the context in which Jesus and the apostles used the word in the New Testament, repentance (Gr. metanoia) is a change of mind and heart about sin, salvation, and the Savior— as Robert Lightner has so eloquently stated in his book by that title. It is not sorrow, although sorrow may, and oftentimes does, lead to and accompany biblical repentance (cf. 2 Cor. 7:9- 10).

Let me just say a few words to preempt those who might dismiss this article out of hand, either by ridicule or otherwise. A. T. Pierson has rightly said, “ridicule is not argument, and leads to no safe conclusion. It is easy to appear to overthrow truth by ridicule.” So for those who might dismiss or deride this paper as nothing more than “Repentance according to internet comments” (or some similar genetic fallacy/“fallacy of origins”), l share the following thoughts. The vast amount of information contained in this article has taken me literally hundreds of hours of intense research to compile (and it stands on its own merits based on whether it is truth or error). For example, Erasmus’ Annotation on Matthew 3:2 was originally only in Latin— there were no English translations to be found! It took me over two-hundred hours to translate it word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase from the Latin into English. (For more information on that research, see my blog post titled “THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2”.) In addition to translating the statement by Erasmus, I also more recently found a statement by Luther on metanoia that was also only in Latin. To my knowledge it has never before been translated into English. Translating this statement by Luther from Latin into English was also very time-consuming. All this to say that compiling the many quotes contained in this article has taken hundreds of hours of intense research! I tediously sifted through information and meticulously poured over old books page-by-page and word-by-word. I painstakingly collated and typed out my findings, constantly editing and re-editing, slowly putting it all together into chronological order and distilling it down into a 70-page paper of quotations spanning some 2,000 years of church history! I could not have done this (or at least it would have taken much, much longer) without the aid of modern technology, as the Bible says, “in the last days knowledge will increase”. I thank the Lord for giving me the time and ability to do this important research. Ultimately, a biblical understanding of repentance is based upon what the Bible says, and that is why in the following quotes from Bible scholars, they set forth the meaning of the New Testament word for repentance, which is the Greek word metanoia. It is the meaning of this word with which we are concerned, and with which these quotes have to do.

Finally, let me just say a few things about the spelling and punctuation of some of the older quotes that are presented in this article. I have endeavored to retain as much as possible the spelling and punctuation of the original statements. In some of the older quotes, from the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, the words are often archaic (e.g. bade, betokeneth, doth, ye, etc.) and the spelling can be somewhat different from the way that we spell those same words today (e.g. “hart” for heart, “minde” for mind, “agayn” for again, “beleeve” for believe, “eternall” for eternal, etc.). Please take this into consideration when reading the quotes. These words are probably not misspelled; it’s just old English. As you read this article, I hope you enjoy this trip through time in regards to The Meaning of Repentance!

Download Dissertation in PDF above.

What is the Primary Difference Between the Saving Message1 of GES and that of the FGA?

The question continues to arise, “What is the primary difference between the GES doctrinal position and that of the FGA?” This brief statement summarizes that key difference. It does not attempt to fully develop, defend, or critique either position. Although both organizations believe the difference is significant, the leadership of neither organization holds any animosity toward the other. Leaders from both organizations have read this statement and agree it captures the basic point of each position.2

Areas of agreement: The two organizations share the vast majority of common evangelical beliefs. Related to salvation, they both agree that salvation (justification) is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Both agree that Jesus is the object of saving faith. Both agree that the death, burial, and resurrection are historical events. Both agree in the theological necessity of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as the basis of our salvation.

Area of disagreement: The primary difference between the two organizations is how they define the saving message, that is, whether it necessarily includes the cross and the resurrection of Jesus.3

The GES Position: The sole requirement for receiving eternal life is belief in Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to be convinced that He guarantees everlasting life to all who simply believe in Him for it (John 4:14; 5:24; 6:47; 11:26; 1 Tim 1:16).4 John, for example, does not say that one must believe in the finished work of Jesus to have eternal life. The “Him” in John 3:16 and related passages that one must believe in is the Jesus who gives eternal life. GES believes that “since the disciples were born again before they believed in Jesus’ resurrection (cf. John 2:11; 3:16), and since John’s Gospel was written after the resurrection to tell people how they could have eternal life (20:31), belief in Jesus’ resurrection is not a condition of eternal life.”5 Thus, GES holds that His work on the cross is a theological necessity, that those presenting the saving message do include the cross and resurrection, but knowledge of and belief in the cross and resurrection are not necessary to receive eternal life, at least theoretically.

The FGA Position: The FGA believes the “Him” in John 3:16 and related passages is fully defined by the end of the book not only as the one who performed the signs John records but also as the one who died on the cross and was raised from the dead. In the progress of revelation, explicit belief in the death and resurrection was not a requirement prior to those events which occurred before the cross (i.e., in John 1-18) because the individual would not comprehend the requirement, just as the disciples did not comprehend (John 20:3-9). By the time John wrote John 20:31, belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, included His saving work. The content of the saving message after the cross includes the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 1:17, 18, 15:3-8, that content here marked out by the words “according to the Scriptures”). The FGA holds that knowledge of and belief in the cross and resurrection are necessary to receive eternal life (in Jesus who died and was raised).6

Conclusion

Both organizations wish to keep the saving message clear and correct. They differ, however, in what one must know about the Jesus who promises eternal life.

Abstract

New Calvinism is a theological movement that has significantly impacted evangelical Christianity and has served to weaken the influence of dispensationalism. New Calvinism portrays itself as the flagship of Reformed theology. Part of the attraction to New Calvinism is its claim to represent the historical position of the church; however, while retaining the primary weaknesses of Reformed theology, it also differs in some respects from historical Reformed theology. Like historical Reformed theology, New Calvinism’s priority on soteriology and forced Christocentric hermeneutic constrain it to conclusions that are contrary to a literal, grammatico-historical interpretation of Scripture. The theology of New Calvinism also produces a dangerous lack of assurance of salvation for the believer, at times approaching the same level of insecurity as is found in Arminian theology.

This dissertation will focus on the teachings of the following influential New Calvinist “leaders”: John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Albert Mohler, Timothy Keller, Kevin DeYoung, D. A. Carson, and Mark Driscoll, while also considering the contributions of other New Calvinist preachers, teachers, and authors. Of particular importance will be what this author considers to be the sine qua non of New Calvinism, namely: (1) Dortian Calvinism, (2) eclecticism, (3) soteriocentric focus, (4) A supersessionist view of Israel and the Church, (5) a focus on the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and (6) a compromised practice regarding the authority of Scripture.

Download Dissertation in PDF above.

Abstract

When John the Baptist and Jesus preached “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 3:2, 4:17), what did they mean? How do we understand the word “Repent”? Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion today about the meaning of repentance. Curtis Hudson writes: “The problem is not preaching repentance; it is giving a wrong definition to the word. Down through the centuries ‘repent’ has come to mean a far different thing than when it was spoken by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and Jesus Christ Himself.” 1

The Greek word for repent in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17—the first two occurrences of the word in the NT—is metanoeite. The Roman Catholic Church has translated it: “Do penance”. But in the 16th century a Roman Catholic philosopher and scholar named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) wrote against the Catholic interpretation of repentance as penance. Some of the things he wrote are very helpful in understanding the true meaning of repentance. He concluded that repentance is not “pious tears and obligatory duties” but is instead “a change of mind”. Erasmus was very influential in shaping Martin Luther’s understanding of repentance and paving the way for the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, one author goes so far as to say: “The Reformation could not have happened without Desiderius Erasmus”.2 It is Erasmus’ Annotations on “repent” in Matthew 3:2 that is the focus of this paper.

Edititor's Preface

EDITOR'S PREFACE. Some Protestants may be tempted to think that since Erasmus was a Roman Catholic, therefore his writings are irrelevant. But thank God that Martin Luther didn’t feel this way! It was the writings of Erasmus as understood by Luther which sparked the Protestant Reformation. And in particular it was what Erasmus wrote about the word “repent” in Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 that opened Luther’s eyes to the truth of the Gospel.

Never before, to my knowledge, have these Annotations of Erasmus on Matthew 3:2 been translated into English. If an English translation was ever made, it does not appear to be widely available, and at the time of this writing I have yet to find it. I was able to locate a few translated fragments, but even in these few cases, I did my own translation from the Latin and only used the other English translations to check my own work. In these few instances where other English translations are available, this information is cited in the footnotes.

I painstakingly checked and rechecked my translation using several critical Latin English dictionaries, as well as using other language tools that are available online. It took several hundred hours of intense research and analysis to work through this translation and reconstruct the sentences into English. I thank the Lord that He gave me the opportunity and ability to do this important work.

May God be pleased to use this translation to open the eyes of those who sit in darkness, and may they come to see, as Luther did, the truth of the Gospel and of God’s amazing grace! — J. PERREAULT.

THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2.

Metanoeite [in Greek]. Which is usually translated [in the Latin Vulgate], Do penance. I imagine that Poenitete [Repent], or Poenitemini [Be repentant], seemed insufficient Latin [to Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate]: although it changes elsewhere. But our common people consider do penance to be a prescribed punishment which somehow atones for faults that have been committed, because concerning Christians, those who had sinned publicly, having been cast out of the fellowship, they were openly afflicted. And that satisfaction, or punishment, began to be called penance. Indeed, with reference to these circumstances, [there was] a not small error by some theologians, because of something Augustine said about repentance, that is, public satisfaction, he wrote [in City of God, book 21, chapter 9], spiritual pain, which they call contrition, they distort [this]. In any case metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, from perceiving afterwards: when someone having made a mistake, finally after the fact, recognizes his error. Which according to a proverb of Homer, The wisdom of fools. Also look at another proverb [Hippolytus, 436], Second thoughts are better. And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex. It is similarly called metameleia [in Greek]: when we are heedless in taking action, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own suffering. Of the Greek word [for repentance] Tertullian elegantly commented in Against Marcion book II: Now in Greek, he says, the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind. In my judgment it [Metanoeite] can be properly translated Recover your senses, or Return to a right mind. For indeed he comes to his senses, whose former life is displeasing to him. But [the Latin Vulgate says] to do penance, instead of to be led to repentance, I refuse to pronounce a barbarous solecism, and not remember to read the writings of good authors. Act of repentance, instead of touched by repentance, [occurs only] once in Suetonius. And Pliny [the Younger] in his Letters [7.10], repent of its former repentance, is found, not to mention an additional case from his uncle [Pliny the Elder]. Thus to say, to do penance, instead of to repent: [is similar to] how we say, to conduct your life a certain way, instead of [simply] to live. Valerius Maximus put it perfectly in the chapter Wise Words and Deeds: [Socrates] responded, whichever choice you make, you will repent, and from these statements which immediately precede, it is easily seen, what repentance is. Just as when we say, I have married the woman, but repent. Fabius [Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory], book 9 [chapter 3.12], indicates that Sallust wrote, not intending to repent, for not intending to do penance. Moreover, I am not very favorable to periphrasis [such as], Repent of your former life, or Repent of your failings. And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined. Although it was not this way at the very outset and thus [by this custom of doing penance] the wholesome satisfaction is destroyed, which accompanies a return to a right understanding, and puts an end to pious tears [and] ceremonial duties, & which [it is thought] somehow pay for the offense, but if the Greek word, [is] not derived from punishment, as it seems to some, [who translate it] penance, whereas more likely it would be derived from comprehending afterwards, and indeed by coming to one’s senses, it is described as a change of mind. Therefore we translate both of the two [words], so that I may oblige everyone as much as possible.

THE ANNOTATIONS OF ERASMUS ON MATTHEW 3:2. A LINE-BY-LINE TRANSLATION WITH NOTES

Poenitentiam agite. Metanoeite. Quod plerumque vertit, Poenitentiam agite. Opinor quod Poenitete, sive Poenitemini, parum Latinum videretur: quanquam & sic vertit alicubi.

"Do Penance." Metanoeite [in Greek]. Which is usually translated [in the Latin Vulgate], Do penance. I imagine that Poenitete [Repent], or Poenitemini [Be repentant], seemed insufficient Latin [to Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate]: although it changes elsewhere.

Notes: None

At nostrum vulgus putat esse poenitentiam agere, praescripta poena quapiam luere commissa,

But our common people consider do penance to be a prescribed punishment which somehow atones for faults that have been committed,

Notes: Rummel translates it: “Our people think that poenitentiam agite means to wash away one's sins with some prescribed penalty...” (Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations, p. 152.)

quod apud Christianos, qui publice peccassent, ejecti e consortio, propalam affligerentur. Eaque satisfactio, sive poena, poenitentia vocari coepta.

because concerning Christians, those who had sinned publicly, having been cast out of the fellowship, they were openly afflicted. And that satisfaction, or punishment, began to be called penance.

Notes: Wengert gives this translation: “because concerning Christians who sinned publicly, they were cast out of the fellowship and openly afflicted. And that satisfaction or punishment began to be called penance.” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The 95 Theses as a Template for Lasting Liturgical Reform,” Institute of Liturgical Studies Occasional Papers [Fall 11-2017], p. 6.)

Qua quidem ex re, non mediocris error Theologis quibusdam,

Indeed, with reference to these circumstances, [there was] a not small error by some theologians,

Notes: The phrase “a not small error” is attributed to Timothy J. Wengert. (See Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event” Lutherjahrbuch 85 [2018], p. 46.) Literally in English the phrase would be “not a mediocre error”.

qui quod Augustinus de poenitentia, hoc est, publica satisfactione, scripsit,

because of something Augustine said about repentance, that is, public satisfaction, he wrote [in City of God, book 21, chapter 9],

Notes: None

ad animi dolorem, quam contritionem vocant, detorquent.

spiritual pain, which they call contrition, they distort [this].

Notes: Commenting on Mark 9:43-48; 2 Cor. 11:29; Isa. 51:8, Augustine wrote: “it is absurd to suppose that either body or soul will escape pain in the future punishment,—yet, for my own part, I find it easier to understand both as referring to the body than to suppose that neither does; and I think that Scripture is silent regarding the spiritual pain of the damned, because, though not expressed, it is necessarily understood that in a body thus tormented the soul also is tortured with a fruitless repentance.” (Augustine, City of God, book 21, chapter 9.)

Alioqui metanoia dicta est a metanoein, hoc est, a posterius intelligendo:

In any case metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, from perceiving afterwards:

Notes: The Latin phrase posterius intelligendo means "perceiving afterwards". The Latin phrase can be variously translated into English as: “recognizing afterwards,” “understanding afterwards,” “realizing afterwards,” “discerning afterwards”.

ubi quis lapsus, re peracta, tum demum animadvertit erratum suum.

when someone having made a mistake, finally after the fact, recognizes his error.

Notes: Literally, “when someone having slipped (having lapsed, having fallen, having erred, having sinned), [and that] being done (accomplished, completed, finished), then finally he observes (notices, perceives, discerns, sees) his error.” This is similar to how we say in English that it is better “to learn from other people’s mistakes.” The Latin verb animadvertit (“recognizes”) means “to direct the mind or attention to a thing, to attend to, give heed to, to take heed, consider, regard, observe,” also: “To mark, notice, observe, perceive, see, discern”. (Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary [New York: American Book Company, 1890], p. 59.) Wengert translates it this way: “Indeed, from this fact there was a not small error by some theologians who twisted what Augustine wrote about penance (that is, public satisfaction) into a sorrow of the soul, which they call contrition. However, metanoia is derived from metanoein, that is, to come to one’s senses afterwards when someone who sinned, finally after the fact, recognizes his error.” (Timothy J. Wengert, “The Ninety-Five Theses as a Literary and Theological Event,” Lutherjahrbuch 85, [2018], p. 46.) Rummel translates the fragment this way: “to come to one’s senses afterwards…when someone who sinned, finally, after the fact, recognizes his error.” (Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament [University of Toronto Press, 1986, JSTOR], p. 152.)

Quae juxta proverbium Homericum, Prudentia stultorum est.

Which according to a proverb of Homer, The wisdom of fools.

Notes: Rummel writes: “Regarding poenitentiam agere (to do penance), the Vulgate translation of metanoeite (repent), Erasmus noted that the Greek word referred to a mental process, not a rite. He illustrated this by quoting Homer.” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 46.)

Eodem spectat alterum proverbium, δευτερών φροντίδων αμεινόνων.

Also look at another proverb [Hippolytus, 436], Second thoughts are better.

Notes: Cf. Liddel and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon entry for the word φροντίς. Under the meaning “thought, reflection, meditiaton” the lexicon says: “prov., αἱ δεύτεραί πως φ. Σοφώτεραι Id. Hipp. 436.” This can be literally translated: “proverb, the second thoughts are wise (ones), Hippolytus, 436.”

Unde quod nos legimus, poenitet me fecisse hominem, Augustinus de Civit. Dei libro decimo quinto cap. Vigesimo quarto pro poenituit legit recogitavit, juxta fidem vetusissimi codicis.

And hence we read, I repent having made man, Augustine, City of God, book 15, chapter 24, instead of repented read reflected upon [or thought over], according to the reliable oldest codex.

Notes: This is a reference to Genesis 6:6, quoted by Augustine in his book City of God. See the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 6:6, which says: “It repented him that he had made man on the earth.” The Douay-Rheims Bible is a translation based on the Latin Vulgate. Interestingly, for Genesis 6:6 the Latin Vulgate has poenituit (“repented”), while the older Vetus Latina has recogitavit (“thought over”). The Vetus Latina are the Old Latin manuscripts that predate the Latin Vulgate. For Genesis 6:6, the Old Latin (Vetus Latina) says: “Et cogitavit Deus quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitavit” which can be translated: “And God considered the consequence of the fact that He made man on earth, and He thought [it] over.” Cf. “Vulgata + Vetus Latina” (http://vulgate.net/vt/gn6-6). The Old Latin manuscripts are Latin translations of the Greek Septuagint (LXX), which was produced in the mid 3rd century BC. For Genesis 6:6, the Brenton LXX translates it: “then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply.” The Bible affirms that it is wise to give thought to one’s ways: “The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways, but the folly of fools is deception” (Proverbs 14:8, NIV).

Indidem dicta est metameleia:

It is similarly called metameleia [in Greek]:

Notes: Or, From the same place is the word metameleia. The Latin word Indidem means “From the same place, stock, origin”. The comparison that Erasmus is making is somewhat unclear. He seems to be comparing metameleia to the other Greek word metanoeo (repent), or possibly to the Latin word poenitet (repent). Erasmus uses both words in the immediate context.

cum socordes in re peragenda, sero incipimus esse attenti, jam admoniti nostris malis.

when we are heedless in taking action, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own suffering.

Notes: Brendan Cook gives the following translation: “While the wise avoid mistakes in the first place, the foolish must feel the painful consequences of their choices before correcting themselves. ‘For when we are heedless in taking action,’ Erasmus says, clarifying why he feels the original Greek is best expressed by resipiscere, ‘we become aware too late, admonished by our own suffering.’” (Brendan Cook, “The Uses of Resipiscere in the Latin of Erasmus: in the Gospels and Beyond.” Canadian Journal of History, Volume 42, Number 3, Winter 2007.) The Latin word socordes means “foolish, blockish, stupid, thoughtless, senseless, etc.” (see Charlton T. Lewis, A New Latin Dictionary [New York: 1907], p. 1716). And the Latin word malis (the plural of malus) means “evils” or “wrongs”. So a more literal English translation of Erasmus’ statement would be: “when something is done foolishly, stupidly, thoughtlessly, or senselessly, we become aware too late, now admonished by our own wrongs (bad choices).” Think of the regret (metamelētheis) of Judas in Matthew 27:3, for example.

Graecae vocis elegantiam annotavit Tertullianus libro adversus Marcionem secundo: Nam & in Graeco, inquit, sono poenitentia nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demutatione compositum est.

Of the Greek word [for repentance] Tertullian elegantly commented in Against Marcion book II: Now in Greek, he says, the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind.

Notes: Cf. Tertullian, Against Marcion, ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY: TRANSLATIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS DOWN TO A.D. 325., 24 Volumes, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), p. 107.

Meo judicio commode verti poterat Resipiscite, sive Ad mentem redite.

In my judgment it [Metanoeite] can be properly translated Recover your senses, or Return to a right mind.

Notes: This statement has been variously translated. James Simpson translates it as follows: “By my judgment it would be more properly translated ‘recover one’s senses,’ or ‘reflect’” (Simpson, Burning To Read: English Fundamentalism and Its Reformation Opponents [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press], p. 74.) Timothy Wengert translates it: “In my judgment, it could be properly translated ‘Recover your senses!’ or ‘Return to a right mind!’” (Wengert, Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015], p. xxxiii.) Also see the article “The Ninety-Five Theses: The Little Spark That Grew Into A Reforming Fire” by James F. Korthals, who translates the same phrase: “In my judgment, it [that is, metanoeite] could be properly translated ‘Recover your senses!’ or ‘Return to a right mind!’” (Korthals, “The Little Spark that Grew into a Reforming Fire,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 114, No. 3 [Summer 2017], p. 177, brackets his.) Korthals is apparently quoting Wengert whom he cites in the footnotes (Ibid, see footnote 49).

Siquidem resipiscit, cui vita superior displicet.

For indeed he comes to his senses, whose former life is displeasing to him.

Notes: Or, “…the man who comes to his senses is displeased with his former life.” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 152.)

Caeterum, poenitentiam agere, pro affici duci-que poenitudine,

But [the Latin Vulgate says] to do penance, instead of to be led to repentance,

Notes: For the phrase to be led to repentance, cf. Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9. The phrase can also be translated: to be moved to repentance (cf. Prov. 21:1; 2 Cor. 3:14-16).

ut nolim pronunciare barbarum ac soloecum,

I refuse to pronounce a barbarous solecism,

Notes: Or, I refuse to recite a badly formed expression and incorrect speech. No doubt Erasmus is referring to the phrase "Do penance".

ita non memini legere apud probos Auctores.

and not remember to read the writings of good authors.

Notes: None

Actus poenitentia, pro ductus poenitudine, semel est apud Suetonium.

Act of repentance, instead of touched by repentance, [occurs only] once in Suetonius.

Notes: This work of Suetonius may be lost to history because I could find no reference to the phrase “actus poenitentia” in his extant writings. The other Latin phrase that Erasmus uses here is “ductus poenitudine”. How is this phrase to be translated into English? What are some possible English translations? Interestingly enough, the same Latin phrase is also found in the Latin Vulgate in Deuteronomy 30:1. The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, which is basically just an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, translates the phrase “ductus poenitudine” in Deuteronomy 30:1 as “touched by repentance”. The Brenton Septuagint (a Greek translation from the Hebrew) says “call to mind” (see Deut. 30:1, Brenton LXX). Deuteronomy 30:1 in the King James Version also says “call them to mind” (the word “them” is supplied by the translators). Some other Bible translations of Deuteronomy 30:1 read: “call them to mind” (ASV, ESV, NASB, NKJV, Webster's), “take to heart” (NLT), “take them to heart” (NIV, Darby), “come to your senses” (CSB, HCSB), “realize” (CEV), “remember” (GNT), “reflect upon” (NET), “bethink thyself” (JPS Tanakh 1917), “brought them back unto thy heart” (Young’s Literal Translation), and Tyndale, in his translation of the Pentateuch, translates it: “turn unto thine heart”.

Et apud Plinium in Epistolis, poenitentia poenitentiam egit, reperitur, sed addito casu paterno.

And Pliny [the Younger] in his Letters [7.10], repent of its former repentance, is found, not to mention an additional case from his uncle [Pliny the Elder].

Notes: None

Sic enim dixisse videtur, poenitentiam agere, pro poenitere: quemadmodum dicimus, vitam agere, pro vivere.

Thus to say, to do penance, instead of to repent: [is similar to] how we say, to conduct your life a certain way, instead of [simply] to live.

Notes: The Latin phrase vitam agere is literally translated: "to act life" (see B. L. Ullman, Elementary Latin [New York: MacMillan, 1923], p. 69.) The phrase vitam agere can also be translated: "To LIVE: —accordingly as one professes" (William Robertson, A Dictionary of Latin Phrases [London, 1824], p. 618). The other word vivere can also be translated: to be alive. So vivere can either be translated to live, or to be alive.

Absolute posuit Valerius Maximus cap. De Sapienter dictis ac factis: Respondit, utrum horum fecisse, poenitentiam acturum, quod ex iis, quae mox praecedunt, facile liquet, cujus rei sit poenitudo.

Valerius Maximus put it perfectly in the chapter Wise Words and Deeds: [Socrates] responded, whichever choice you make, you will repent, and from these statements which immediately precede, it is easily seen, what repentance is.

Notes: See Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds and Sayings, book 7, chapter 2: Wise Words and Deeds.

Veluti quum dicimus, duxi uxorem, sed poenitet.

Just as when we say, I have married the woman, but repent.

Notes: This statement by Erasmus refers back to Socrates’ response. In the original context, Socrates is answering the question of a young man who asked him if it is better to marry or to remain single.

Fabius lib. nonus [9] indicat Sallustium scripsisse, non poeniturum, pro non acturum poenitentiam.

Fabius [Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory], book 9 [chapter 3.12], indicates that Sallust wrote, not intending to repent, for not intending to do penance.

Notes: Cf. Alexander Adam, A Compendious Dictionary of the Latin Tongue (Edinburgh: 1805), p. 345; E. A. Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1851), p. 1155.

Caeterum non admodum arrisit periphrasis, Vitae prioris poenitentiam agite, aut, Delictorum poenitentiam agite.

Moreover, I am not very favorable to periphrasis [such as], Repent of your former life, or Repent of your failings.

Notes: Periphrasis is defined as the “use of a longer phrasing in place of a possible shorter form of expression” or similarly, “the using of several words to express the sense of one”.

Et tamen errant hominess pii juxta ac erudite, quibus circumitio magis placuit, ne quis calumniaretur, ut nunc sunt mores ac tempora, poenitentiam ab Evangelio profligatam.

And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined.

Notes: An alternate translation is given by Rummel: “Erasmus comments that ‘there were men, both pious and erudite, who preferred the circuitous poenitentiam agite – [I am saying this] lest someone slander me, as often happens in this day and age, saying that I eliminate penance from the Gospel.’” (Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations, p. 153, brackets hers.)

quae comitatur resipiscentiam,

which accompanies a return to a right understanding,

Notes: The Lexico online dictionary gives this helpful information on the Latin word resipiscentia: “post-classical Latin resipiscentia repentance from classical Latin resipīscent-, resipīscēns, present participle of resipīscere to regain consciousness, to become sane again, to recover one's reason, to come to one's senses again, to see reason”. Compare the following translation of Lactantius: “For he who repents of that which he has done, understands his former error; and on this account the Greeks better and more significantly speak of metanoia, which we may speak of in Latin as a return to a right understanding [resipiscentiam].” (The Works of Lactantius, translated by William Fletcher [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1871], 2 Vols., Vol. 1, p. 416.)

ac lachrymis piis que officiis delet,

and puts an end to pious tears [and] ceremonial duties,

Notes: None

& quodammodo pensat delictum,

& which [it is thought] somehow pay for the offense,

Notes: Or, somehow compensates for the wrong. In other words, it is thought by some people that pious tears and obligatory duties pay for the offense, in some measure.

si Graeca vox, non a poena,

but if the Greek word, [is] not derived from punishment,

Notes: None

ut quibusdam videtur, ducta poenitentia,

as it seems to some, [who translate it] penance,

Notes: None

quum probabilius sit ductam a pone tenendo,

whereas more likely it would be derived from comprehending afterwards,

Notes: Or, re-comprehending, reconsidering, rethinking. See E. A. Andrews, A Copious and Critical Latin-English Lexicon (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1851): the entry for the Latin word teneo, I. A. 1., “comprehend a thing which is palpable or evident” and also entry I. B. 1., “To hold, contain in the mind, to conceive, comprehend, know” (pp. 1528, 1529). The Latin word pone means after, backward, back, behind. The Latin phrase pone tenendo can be literally translated “comprehending afterwards” or in other words, “to understand a thing after it is done”. (Cf. The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, translated from the original Latin, by the Rev. G. W. Williard [Cincinnati: Elm Street Printing Company, 1888], p. 469.)

sed a resipiscendo,

and indeed by coming to one’s senses,

Notes: Or, recovering one’s senses, returning to a right mind, returning to a right understanding. The Latin verb is resipisco which is translated: “to recover one's senses, come to one's self again; to revive, recover” and also: “are returned to your senses, become reasonable” (Charlton T. Lewis, A New Latin Dictionary [New York: 1907], p. 1579). Professor John Hey, in his Lectures in Divinity delivered at the University of Cambridge in the late 18th century, gives the following definition: “resipiscere: from re and sapesco, as it were; to recover one's sense; one's right mind.” In a footnote he goes on to explain that “Resipisco is used, in Suetonius, for recovering from a fainting-fit: resipiscentia was coined, from metanoia, in the time of Lactantius, (Ainsworth); there is no idea of conduct in either resipisco or metanoeo, except as far as reformation may be supposed to follow, of course, from recovering one's right mind, or reforming one's principles [beliefs];—metamelomai, to be uneasy, is only a step toward such change of mind; as has been observed at St. Mary's by Mr. Dixon of Bene't College.” (John Hey, Lectures in Divinity Delivered at the University of Cambridge [Cambridge: 1822], Vol. 3, p. 459, emphasis his.) Cf. Bede, Commentary on Genesis. See Bede’s comments on Genesis 3:8b where resipiscendo is translated “repentance”: “They hide themselves from the face of God, not in such a way that the inward Judge does not see their conscience, but that they may never see the glory of His face except by repentance.”

mutataque sententia deducitur.

it is described as a change of mind.

Notes: Or, change of opinion, feeling, thought, vote, sentence. Martin Luther also affirmed that the Greek word metanoia means “a change of mind”. In a letter to Staupitz, dated Trinity Sunday, 1518, Luther wrote: “Afterwards, by the favor of the learned, who are so zealously transmitting to us the Greek and Hebrew, I learned that the same word in Greek is metanoia, so that repentance or metanoia is ‘a change of mind.’ This corresponded so aptly with the Pauline Theology, that, in my judgment, scarcely anything can more aptly illustrate Paul.” (Martin Luther, quoted by Henry E. Jacobs, Elements of Religion [Philadelphia: The Board of Publication of the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran church in North America, 1913], p. 281.)

Nos igitur utrunque vertimus, ut omnibus quantum licet gratificemur.

Therefore we translate both of the two [words], so that I may oblige everyone as much as possible.

Notes: I.e. both words. This seems to be either a reference to metanoeo and poenitentia, or to metanoeo and resipiscendo.

Introduction

Jack Deere’s book “Surprised by the Voice of God” sets out to help Christians today hear and understand God’s voice in an effort to revolutionize their Christian walk. Deere has a deep desire to help believers grow and understand more about the early church, and more importantly, about the importance of God’s word and how God communicates to us. While he provides some thoughtful insight, there are many inconsistencies and issues with his arguments. The purpose of this paper is to briefly and graciously point out some inconsistencies and flaws in Deere’s exegesis of scripture, and his view of revelation, authority, and sufficiency.

It will first be helpful to define what revelation is from an evangelical perspective. Revelation succinctly put is “God making Himself known”;1 it is God revealing Himself to mankind, or making His will known through general and special revelation. General revelation encompasses making Himself known through His creation, through organization, mankind and being.2 Special revelation encompasses God making Himself known through dreams, visions, Theophanies, angels, prophets, Christ, and scripture. Deere would undoubtedly hold to this definition. However, he states that “I did not believe in any real revelation from God apart from the Bible.”3 This appears inconsistent because he does recognize the ways in which God has revealed Himself throughout the ages; “the people of the Bible heard God speak in a variety of ways. He spoke through an audible voice, through dreams, visions as well as through scripture.”4 Inconsistency aside, Deere effectively makes a delineation between the Bible as revelation, and visions and dreams etc. as revelation, with which I would agree. However, he goes on to say that those forms of revelation have two different levels of authority.

Authority is simply the rightful5 and legitimate6 exercise of power7 . Revelation from scripture, he states, has its own authority, and revelation from God’s voice is another authority. He states that each have different levels of authority, or differing degrees of authority. In this way, Deere can affirm the authority of Scripture, and maintain the authority of the words spoken by those who claim to hear the voice of God. The problem is if they’re both from God, then they both have divine authority. There has never been a time when God’s spoken word has taken a backseat to his written word and vice-versa. The precedent has been set that it’s all equivalent in its authority; but because Deere allows for varying degrees of authority, he can allow for those who have the gift of prophecy to make errors. But just what is a prophet according to Deere?

Deere broadly defines a modern day prophet as one who is “prophetically gifted.”8 That is to say, an individual who hears from God may “predict the future, tell you secrets of your heart, receive accurate impression and dreams, see accurate visions, and some are even used to do miracles.”9 But Deere tries to steer away from the word prophet, “Pushing aside the debate over terminology and theory, consider this fact: We do have prophetically gifted people in the church.”10

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to as one might say. Unfortunately, they are one in the same and perform the same function, so changing the terminology doesn’t help. The reason for his insistence on steering clear of the term prophet, or making the term irrelevant, is because the Bible is quite strong in how it defines one. A prophet is only a prophet from God if he or she is one hundred percent accurate. Deuteronomy 18:19-22 states:

“'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.’But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' "You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.”

It can clearly be seen that if someone prophecies a word from the Lord, he or she is speaking on behalf of God. If that person’s revelation from God is not accurate, it wasn’t a revelation from God and thus a false prophet will become a dead prophet.11 Some may say this is an Old Testament law that is no longer applicable. Whether or not that is true is beside the point, the fact remains that if a prophet receives a revelation from God, and God is a God who cannot lie, 12 then the prophet, or one who is prophetically gifted, cannot be wrong.

But Deere says otherwise, stating that a prophet’s revelation doesn’t need to be one hundred percent accurate. “Some people think one missed or failed prediction makes a person a false prophet. The Bible, though, doesn’t call someone a false prophet for simply missing a prediction.”13 Yet Deere relents briefly to the term prophet when he states “I’ll go along with the idea that we can’t call someone a prophet who is not 100 percent accurate. Then what do we call them?”14 I don’t know, but don’t call them prophetically gifted, because they aren’t gifted in prophecy according to scripture.

Deere however, continues his use of the term prophet throughout the text and tries to shift the focus from terminology to their work; “as long as we are wise enough to see the value of their ministries and benefit from them.” The problem is discerning how one might benefit from a prophet who is not one hundred percent accurate all the time. Maybe it’s from God, maybe not. He continues, “False prophets are those who contradict the teaching and predictions of true prophets and attempt to lead people away from God and his Word.”15 But the fact remains, if a prophetically gifted person is incorrect, they are by default leading people away from God, and particularly away from what God has already clearly written down. Deere defends his argument by the use of Matthew 7:15; “Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:15ff, that the way to discern between a false and true prophet is to examine the fruit of the prophet’s ministry. Bad fruit comes from a false prophet. Good fruit comes from a true one.”16 Deere masterfully shifts any attack from a prophet’s speech and their accuracy, to a prophet’s produce.

However, his defense for a prophet breaks down once one understands that fruit in Matthew 7 is a prophet’s speech, the words that proceed from their mouth. Fruit here is not works as many understand this passage. The passage in question is Matthew 7:15-20:

“"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.”A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” So then, you will know them by their fruits.” - NASB

What is fruit? Is it works as Deere says, or is it a prophet’s teaching? The key to understanding what the fruit is in this passage, is quickly revealed in the first phrase “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing.” In other words, a false prophet can act and behave just like a believer should, they look just like sheep. They can do works just like a believer should, outwardly there is no difference; their ministry can produce good works. However, the fruit Jesus is discussing is clearly not works; it is the words the prophet speaks which ultimately come from the heart. “"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.” 17 “Indeed, this is the very point of Jesus’ warning to look beyond the outward appearance to what is in the hearts of these false prophets.”18 This is also solidified in a parallel passage in Matthew 12 when Jesus is dealing with the Pharisees again:

"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit.”You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.”But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." – Matt. 12:33-37 [emphasis mine]

The point being, “’fruit’ unambiguously refers to words, it seems apparent that the fruit that identifies the individuals in Matthew 7 as false prophets is the testimony of their mouths, not their behavior.”19 Jesus in essence is saying that “you shouldn’t look at a person’s works to determine whether or not they are a prophet.” Deere teaches just the opposite.20 Consequently Deere’s entire argument for a prophet’s good works being the characteristic quality of a true prophet breaks down. Thus, it all comes back to whether or not what the prophet says is accurate one hundred percent of the time. But beyond this, even if one were to grant him that fruit were works; who determines what are good fruit and bad? How much, how often, and who qualifies as the fruit inspector?21 Deere attempts to deal with this and goes so far as to put the onus on others, as if it’s a majority vote. Ultimately though, the focus becomes one’s feelings rather than faith; a subjective feeling versus an objective faith. This is not unlike the inner experience model described in Dulles’ book.22

For the sake of argument, were I to concede and grant Deere his point that the litmus test for a true prophet is good works, it can be shown that even that fails under many Biblical examples. For example, when Nathan provided the revelation from God regarding punishment for King David’s infidelity and murder, the prophecy for all intents and purposes, on the surface, would not produce something one would typically consider good; the death of his son. “Because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”23 Point being, a prophetically gifted person doesn’t always have an idea as to whether or not his or her ministry will produce something pleasant or desirable.24

Deere also goes outside of revelation and apparently has a set of rules for prophetically gifted people. Deere self refutes regarding revelation and actually contradicts scripture; “the lady on our ministry team was violating one of our basic rules of etiquette, no private revelation is ever to be forced on another person.”25 Deere never expounds on these rules nor does he provide any scriptural basis for them. It certainly begs the question of how she was supposed to know that this revelation was from God and that it was a private revelation. Deere’s answer to this is not Biblical in nature but subjective; in essence he says that you just know.

In addition, why are we not to force a revelation upon someone? If it’s from God it comes with authority, and unless God instructs a prophet otherwise, he or she is supposed to provide the information to whom God has directed the prophecy to. There were no sets of rules for prophets in sharing, other than what God instructed them to do.

Even if one were a prophet in this dispensation, one has to answer the question of sufficiency. Deere sets up a straw-man against many people, and assumes that his former viewpoint is one that they hold to. “For him, the sufficiency of Scripture means that the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today.”26 This may be what he held to, but it in no way describes what I and many others view as sufficiency. Sufficiency of scripture means that the sixty-six books of the Bible are all that one requires in order to recognize how to be saved from the penalty of sin and wholly equips us to be delivered from the power of sin. 2 Timothy 3:17 states that “so that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work.”

Scripture, in other words, provides all the necessary information that we require for daily living; be it outwardly and inwardly. This does not mean that scripture contains all truth.27 “This also doesn’t mean that new revelation from God, even propositional today or in the future contradicts sufficiency. One can hold to the sufficiency of scripture and there still be propositional revelation from God today or in the future. ”28 Whether or not one experiences prophetic revelation from God today I do not know. I do know He will work in this manner in the future. Deere states people unlike him say that “prophecy and prophets, along with supernatural revelation, died out with the last of the NT apostles. They believe the only reliable form of communication from God is the Bible.”29 [emphasis mine].

There are two problems with that statement. First, anyone who holds to a futurist view of Revelation would disagree with that because God uses two prophets to speak to the nations which are undergoing judgment during the tribulation. In Revelation chapter 11 John records “And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days.”30 If Deere were to state that those who say that there will no longer be any New Testament apostles, yet hold to a futurist view of Revelation were inconsistent, I would not argue that point. Second, there is the question of reliability. Deere in essence states that we are human and make mistakes so we’re not one hundred percent right all of the time. With all due respect then, that view is not reliable. If a prophet makes a mistake, then reliability comes into question. Contrast that with the scriptures which are inspired by God, inerrant and authoritative, hence reliable.31 Based on the occurrence of the two witnesses, I do not believe in the cessation of prophecy, and believe God can do anything He desires. So, the question isn’t whether or not it can occur, but whether or not it is a common activity and whether or not the prophetic activities of the early church described in Acts are to be modeled today.

Questions need to be raised; did the early church solely rely on the revelation from God (though visions, dreams etc) to determine their activities? And if so, why, and was this “normal”? Deere states that “The ultimate source of revelation in the early church is God the Father.”32 and “when God chooses to reveal something to one of his servants in the book of Acts, the agents of revelation are the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or angels.”33 Two comments here, one is that the ultimate source of revelation throughout time has always been God the Father. The other is that within the early church people were still relying much upon the Old Testament scriptures for guiding them towards salvation and for daily living. So the “agents of revelation” aren’t limited to the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or angels as Deere tries to argue. Case in point; In Acts chapter 8 Philip encounters an Ethiopian eunich who was reading the Old Testament “and he [the eunich] was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.”34 Philip was able to use the Old Testament to witness for Christ, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.” Point being, the Old Testament appears to have been sufficient to point the eunich to Christ.35 There wasn’t any prophetic revelation required. In Acts chapter 17 we have the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily, they were not unfamiliar with them as they were verifying the very words Paul was speaking, again pointing them to the Messiah.

Deere continues and states that, “Right at the beginning of church history we are being taught that the church will be built by supernatural revelation, not by cleverly devised human programs.”36 Certainly that’s how it started out, but once God’s word was recorded and canonized, there was no longer a need for Him to operate in this manner in this dispensation. Again, I’m not saying He can’t; I’m asking the question of why He would need to when Scripture proclaims that it is sufficient to wholly equip a believer? Deere continues his argument that revelation from God was necessary and that the Old Testament was, in effect, insufficient as a model for the church, thus prophetic revelation from God was necessary. Deere states, “not even the apostles were capable of designing an adequate blueprint for the church.”37 I couldn’t agree more, but they didn’t understand there was going to be a church, so how could they possibly create a blueprint; this was a mystery in the Old Testament. It would seem strange to me for God not to work in this manner early on in this dispensation. Deere continues “He promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things, remind them of his words, testify about him, guide them into all truth and show them things to come.”38 I agree that the Holy Spirit is a helper and is promised to all who believe. But I believe it’s a stretch to go from saying that “the Holy Spirit reminded me of a passage perfect for this situation” to “the Holy Spirit showed me a vision that you have the word porno written on your forehead.” Scripture seems to be sufficient for discerning the various situations Deere encounters, from both the sinner’s perspective and from the “prophet’s” perspective.

So why did God work in this way in the early church if it was not meant to be the normative experience? I believe the early miracles, signs, wonders, and prophecies in the early church were for the early church because they did not have the New Testament canonized, and because we were moving into a new way in which God deals with man; a new dispensation.39 We moved from the age of law to the age of grace. “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”40 , “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Deere says that “Some try to dismiss the testimony of Acts”41 and asserts that those who try to do so are holding to a “ form of Christianity [that] is not a transition forward, but rather backward, to the religion of the Pharisees who preferred the Book over the living, speaking Word of God (John 5:36-47).”42 This is simply not the case. The Pharisees didn’t prefer the book as much as they preferred their traditions and commentators who came before them. In addition, is the experience of the early church a normative experience? In other words, is prophetic revelation from God in the form of the visions, dreams, etc the common experience in Biblical times and therefore should it be the common experience today?

Deere says that prophetic revelation is ‘normal’, “I believe Acts does represent normal Christianity.”43 This again begs the question, normal in what way? But the question isn’t whether or not the early church had a “normal” experience, it’s whether or not this is a common occurrence. It’s a question of normativity; normativity being something that is common-place or a typical occurrence. This is very close to the term normal, which has the connotation of fitting in or being commonplace. However, the opposite of normal is abnormal which has a negative connotation and is very different from the opposite of normativity, which is non-normative or uncommon. Deere confuses this issue and doesn’t clearly distinguish between normalcy and normativity.

Deere states that “the experience of some Christians leads them to conclude the Christianity of Acts is not the normal [a.k.a. abnormal] Christian experience.”44 [emphasis mine]. What Deere has effectively done is to take a limited number of non-normative miraculous events throughout Acts and argue that God wants to work in this way all the time. The miraculous experiences of the first century church was normal for them and apparently somewhat normative.

It is a bit arrogant of Deere to set forth the proposition that if one doesn’t experience God in this way one must be having an abnormal experience. “All of these things [the various forms of prophetic revelation] were important in the New Testament church. Without them, no church-however good the music or gifted the speaker-can really claim to be a New Testament church.”45 The first question I would raise is this; is everyone prophetically gifted? Do all believers have the gift of prophecy? It seems that according to scripture some would and others wouldn’t, but does it mean that those who do not have this gift are abnormal? Deere seems to think so when he focuses on Acts 2:17-21. “In other words, the coming of the Holy Spirit inaugurated an age of revelation. Instead of having only a few prophets in each generation, now “your sons and daughters will prophecy.” Visions and dreams were now normal for the people of God. There was no longer age, economic, or gender restrictions on the Holy Spirit’s revelatory ministry.”46

I believe this is a misinterpretation of the passage in Joel, which leads to a misapplication in this case. When was there ever a restriction on age, economic, or gender in God’s revelatory ministry? It was God’s choice who would and wouldn’t speak on His behalf. God used men and women alike.47 The prophecy Joel speaks of in Joel 2:18-32 is that God would not just pour out his spirit on specific individuals, but all believers. In addition, Joel is prophesying specifically about the Jews and their nation during the tribulation, or the great day of the Lord, not the events at the day of Pentecost. “"I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.”48 Many claim that what Joel was talking about took place during the time of Pentecost and cite Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:17-21. I agree with Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum when he states:

"Virtually nothing that happened in Acts 2 is predicted in Joel 2. What actually did happen in Acts two (the speaking in tongues) was not mentioned by Joel. What Joel did mention (dreams, visions, the sun darkened, the moon turned into blood) did not happen in Acts two. Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the whole of the nation of Israel in the last days, while Acts two speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Twelve Apostles or, at most, on the 120 in the Upper Room. This is a far cry from Joel's all flesh. However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, resulting in unusual manifestations. Acts two does not change or reinterpret Joel two, nor does it deny that Joel two will have a literal fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one point of similarity."49

In light of this, Deere’s argument falls short again for prophecy being a normative experience for the church.

Conclusion

The point of this paper was to bring into question the arguments used by Deere to support the idea that prophetic gifts should be a normative experience by the church today, and to bring into question his view of revelation, authority, and sufficiency. Deere’s arguments and anecdotal evidences fall short of defending his positions on revelatory prophecy. I will give him credit though, Deere does recognize and address a fundamental problem in the church; “Yet the main reason the Bible is ineffective in the lives of so many Christians is that they simply don’t read it.”50 His position though, by default, does not help believers dig deeper into God’s word, rather he pushes them to dig further into their experiences.

The fact of the matter is that scripture is inspired by God, thus authoritative, inerrant, and sufficient for bringing people to salvation, and to help us lead lives of discipleship in order to make us complete and equipped for every good work. God’s prophecy should never be touted as some sort of cosmic eight-ball that can provide a person with information about their future. In fact, God says not to worry about those things. “"So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”51 God’s Word is sufficient and does not return void. “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” – Isaiah 55:11

Introduction

This article is a continuation of a previous article I wrote titled: “‘Free Grace’ Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”. In this follow-up article, I’m going to cite yet another example of how Wayne Grudem misrepresents both Charlie Bing and the Bible in regards to biblical repentance.

In Grudem's book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, one of the things he says is: “In order to evaluate Bing’s ‘change of mind’ definition [of repentance], in the next two sections we need to examine evidence from Greek lexicons and from English translations of the Bible.”1 In my previous article which I mentioned above, I showed how Grudem misrepresented the Greek lexicons. In this article I will show how Grudem misrepresents English translations of the Bible.

In evaluating Bing’s “change of mind” definition of repentance, Grudem makes a bold claim in regards to how the English translations of the Bible translate the Greek word metanoeō. Grudem claims that: “ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY ‘REPENT!’ AND NOT ‘CHANGE YOUR MIND!’”2

In the next sentence, Grudem similarly declares that “the definition of repentance as a mere ‘change of mind’…differs from all widely known English Bible translations.”3 Grudem then proceeds to quote several Bible verses from the New Testament which translate the Greek words metanoeō and metanoia as repent and repentance, but strangely he never once mentions how repentance is translated in the Old Testament! This is especially odd considering the fact that Grudem is evaluating Charlie Bing’s understanding of repentance as “a change of mind”—and Bing does in fact reference the Old Testament usage and translation of the Hebrew words for metanoeō. For example, under the heading “The Meaning of Metanoeō” (p. 69), Dr. Bing discusses the Hebrew word shub and the Hebrew word nacham. Concerning the latter, Bing says that “while the basic meaning [of metanoeō] is ‘to change the mind,’ there is sometimes implication of emotional and volitional elements, but never is a change in behavior necessary to the word itself.”4 Then in a footnote at the bottom of the page, Bing writes the following:

In the LXX [the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament] the verb [metanoeō] often translates the Hebrew n`h~m [naham, also spelled nacham], "to be sorry, to comfort oneself" (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [BDB, by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1980], s.v. "n`h~m [naham]," pp. 636-37) which shows an emotional element. It is significant, however, that n`h~m [naham] occurs 108 times in the Old Testament, but is used only three times of the repentance of men (Job 42:6; Jer. 8:6; 31:19); and none of these refer to salvation from eternal judgment. For further discussion, see Robert N. Wilkin, "Repentance and Salvation, Part 2: The Doctrine of Repentance in the Old Testament," JOTGES 2 (Spring 1989): 26. (Bing, Lordship Salvation, p. 69, footnote 40.)

Interestingly, in an article titled "The Repentance of God," Lester J. Kuyper notes that in the Pentateuch the scholars who translated the Greek Septuagint (LXX) shied away from having God repent, because

"[r]epentance or changeableness seemed to be at variance with the omniscience of God. . . . This scruple, however, did not bother the Greek translators of the rest of the OT . . . The point to be made here is that the LXX apart from the Pentateuch understood this verb [NHM] to mean a change in mind or purpose which occurred when it is said that Jahweh repented." (Kuyper, L. J. “The Repentance of God”. Reformed Review [Vol. 18, No. 4, May 1965], see pp. 6-7, bold added.)

Although Grudem quotes from page 69 of Bing’s book, Grudem never once mentions Bing’s statements on that very page about the Hebrew word nacham. Why is this? Could it be because the Hebrew word nacham (the word often translated metanoeō in the Septuagint) is used several times in the Old Testament in reference to God Himself and is translated into English in several instances as “change His mind”! For instance, the New American Standard Bible (NASB)—which by the way is a “widely known English Bible translation”5—translates the Hebrew word nacham (metanoeō in the Greek Septuagint) as “change His mind” in the following instances:

“And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind [metanoēsei in LXX]; for He is not a man that He should change His mind [metanoēsai in LXX].” (1 Samuel 15:29, NASB) “For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark, because I have spoken, I have purposed, and I will not change My mind [metanoēsō in LXX], nor will I turn from it.” (Jeremiah 4:28, NASB) “if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better [metanoēsō in LXX] of the good with which I had promised to bless it.” (Jeremiah 18:10, NASB) “The LORD changed His mind [metanoēson in LXX] about this. ‘It shall not be,’ said the LORD.” (Amos 7:3, NASB) “The LORD changed His mind [metanoēson in LXX] about this. ‘This too shall not be,’ said the Lord GOD.” (Amos 7:6, NASB)

Sadly, Grudem never once mentions these relevant Old Testament Bible verses which Dr. Bing alludes to in his book.6 Instead, Grudem simply glosses over a few Bible verses of his own liking—none from the Old Testament—and then quickly concludes “that no committee of English Bible translators has agreed with Bing’s definition, ‘change of mind.’”7 But here Grudem misrepresents both Dr. Bing and the Bible by failing to mention Dr. Bing’s statements on metanoeō in the LXX and failing to mention the relevant Bible verses in the Old Testament where the Hebrew word nacham and the Greek word metanoeō (in the LXX) are both translated in several instances as “change His mind” in the New American Standard Bible (NASB)—a "widely known English Bible translation".

Grudem makes several remarks in his book about how to arrive at the proper definition and understanding of saving faith. He correctly points out in chapter 2 that it "is simply incorrect theological reasoning" to base our understanding of saving faith on only one book in the Bible. Instead, we should take into consideration "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)—both Old Testament and New Testament. Should we not also appeal to both the Old Testament and New Testament when seeking to understand biblical repentance? Grudem makes the following statements and would do well do apply his reasoning equally to both faith and repentance:

The early church rightly condemned the teachings of Marcion (c. AD 85-160), whose canon of Scripture included only eleven books (no Old Testament, and in the New Testament only a shortened Gospel of luke and ten of Paul's thirteen epistles). . . . If other verses in other books of the Bible give us further teaching about the nature of saving faith [and biblical repentance], then we should use those verses as well to help us understand faith [and repentance]. These other verses are also part of "all Scripture," which is given to us by God to be "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). . . . We should use every relevant passage in the whole Bible to define the nature of saving faith [and repentance]. (Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, pp. 49-50, 54-55. Note: Grudem in his book affirms that repentance is implied together with faith. He writes that "we should regard repentance and faith as two closely connected parts of one overall action, parts that cannot be separated." Ibid., p. 45.)

Grudem is correct here in urging us to take into consideration both Old Testament and New Testament—"the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)—to help us understand saving faith. Should we not also appeal to both the Old Testament and New Testament when seeking to understand biblical repentance? Grudem would do well do apply his reasoning equally to both faith and repentance. But unfortunately in the chapter of his book where he deals with the subject of repentance (Chapter 2: "No Call to Repent of Sins"), Grudem only quotes three Bibles verses from the Old Testament— all from the book of Isaiah (Isa. 6:5 [Grudem quotes Isaiah 6:5 but incorrectly gives the verse reference as "Isa. 6:15."], 55:6-7)—and provides no exegesis to show if these verses even support his understanding of repentance. In fact, thinking of Grudem's bold claim that supposedly "ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY 'REPENT!' AND NOT 'CHANGE YOUR MIND!'" (p. 64)—the three Bible verses that Grudem quotes from the Old Testament don't even meet his qualification that "ALL ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS SAY 'REPENT!'" So how did Grudem pick these three Bible verses if they don't even use the word "repent"?

The fact that the Hebrew word nacham and the Greek word metanoeō (in the Septuagint) are both translated in the NASB in several places as “change His mind” (in reference to God) and not "repent" as in most English Bible translations—this poses a real problem for Grudem because his entire premise is that repentance in the Bible does not simply mean “a change of mind” but in his view it must also include things like "a heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ." Thus it’s no surprise—but it is sad—that Grudem in his book omits any and all discussion of this relevant biblical material from the Old Testament cited by Charlie Bing which I have discussed in this article. Just more evidence that Grudem misrepresents both Dr. Bing and the Bible.

https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=21 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

Reformed theologian and author Wayne Grudem has some interesting arguments that he uses to try to convince people that repentance in the Bible does not simply mean "a change of mind". Grudem says that true repentance must also include remorse, contrition, self-reproach, and making a life change for the better (which he defines as better conduct), or at least a resolve to do so "as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins." I was reading his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016) on google books because it came up in the search results (I did purchase the book but "FOR REFERENCE ONLY!"), and I must say that at first Grudem almost had me believing that Charles Bing just had no lexical support for his "change of mind" definition of repentance. Grudem made it sound like Charles Bing was taking statements from the Greek lexicons out of context. But when I looked up a few of the lexical examples cited by Grudem, I found that it was Grudem who was quoting the lexicons very selectively and taking statements out of context! Here are six examples of how Wayne Grudem misrepresents Biblical repentance:

1) Grudem misrepresents Bauer’s lexicon.

In his book ‘Free Grace’ Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, Grudem makes the following statements in his critique of Free Grace theology. Grudem claim that Charles Bing’s citation of Bauer’s lexicon in support of the “change of mind” meaning of metanoeō is “misrepresenting the entry on metanoeō in the BAGD lexicon” (p. 59). Grudem goes on to say that Charles Bing “repeatedly fails to account for the fact that no standard lexicon or other reference work on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament supports his understanding of metanoeō and metanoia in these passages.” (p. 64.) This is a bold claim! But is this really the case? Let’s take a close look at Bauer’s lexicon (third edition) to see if what Grudem says is accurate or if maybe he's the one who is actually misrepresenting Bauer’s lexicon!

The first definition listed in Bauer’s lexicon for the verb metanoeō (repent) is “change one’s mind”. The first example Bauer cites for the “change of mind” definition of metanoeō is from The Shepherd of Hermas (abbreviated as “Hv 3, 7, 3” in the lexicon). This is important because The Shepherd of Hermas is not secular literature, nor is it pre-Christian. Instead, The Shepherd of Hermas is Christian literature. Is it early or late Christian literature? It was written in the mid second century (c. 140 AD). In fact, one author dates it to have been written “about 90–110 A.D.” (See Charles H. Hoole, The Shepherd of Hermas [London: Rivingtons, 1870], Introduction, p. x.) Related to this, it was the opinion of Origen (186–253 A.D.) that The Shepherd of Hermas was written by the “Hermas” to whom the apostle Paul sends his greetings in his letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verse 14. If the Gospel of John was written between 90-100 AD as many Bible scholars believe, then The Shepherd of Hermas was written very close to the same time. So The Shepherd of Hermas is not just Christian literature; it’s early Christian literature written at about the same time as (or at most only about 50 years after) when parts of the New Testament were written. The Shepherd of Hermas is nearly contemporary with the New Testament and was widely read by many of the early Christians. What's more, some of the early Christians such as “Clement of Alexandria (193–217 A.D.) evidently considered the book to have been inspired.” (Ibid., pp. xi-xii.) I’m not arguing that The Shepherd of Hermas is inspired nor am I saying that it should be included in the New Testament. My point is simply that The Shepherd of Hermas is early Christian literature written close to the same time as when the New Testament was written and thus it is very important because, as one author puts it, “it carries us back into the very earliest period of Christian antiquity, and dealing with religious subjects in a more familiar way than is found in the works of the other ecclesiastical writers of the Apostolic period, it is most valuable as supplying a specimen of the ordinary tone of thought and feeling in the early Church.” (Ibid., pp. x-xi.) The Shepherd of Hermas is important in helping us today to understand the meaning of metanoeō (the verb repent) and metanoia (the noun repentance) because it shows how the Greek-speaking Christians of the early church were using these words. It shows that the early Christians were using the word metanoeō in a religious context and in the sense of “a change of mind”! So for Bauer to exclude every New Testament use of metanoeō from having this meaning is suspect and may show a theological bias or a double-standard. Why does metanoeō mean “change one’s mind” in The Shepherd of Hermas but not anywhere in the New Testament? But I don’t think that’s what Bauer is saying at all.

Grudem is correct to point out that Bauer does not list any New Testament passages immediately under the “change one’s mind” meaning for the verb metanoeō, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. What Grudem fails to tell his readers is that Bauer does in fact list many New Testament passages under the “change of mind” definition for the cognate noun metanoia (together with the verb metanoeō in parenthesis) on the very same page of the lexicon! (See page 640 in Bauer's lexicon.) Grudem in his book actually references the cognate noun metanoia on page 640 of Bauer's lexicon, but only to say in a tiny footnote at the bottom of the page (p. 57) that "under the cognate noun metanoia, 'repentance,' [Bauer gives] this explanation: 'in our literature with focus on the need of change in view of responsibility to deity' (640)." So Grudem conveniently fails to mention that in the lexical entry for the noun metanoia, Bauer includes the verb metanoeō together with the noun and classifies them both as having the meaning of “primarily a change of mind”! Here is the actual statement in Bauer’s lexicon (I transcribed the Greek letters into English):

“metanoia, as, ē (metanoeō) prim. ‘a change of mind’ (Thu. 3, 36, 4; Polyb. 4, 66, 7;…[etc.]) repentance, turning about, conversion; as a turning away metanoia apo nekrōn ergōn turning away from dead works Hb 6:1. Mostly of the positive side of repentance, as the beginning of a new relationship with God: ē eis theou m[etanoian]. repentance that leads to God Ac 20:21. axia tēs metanoias erga deeds that are consistent with repentance 26:20. Also karton axion tēs m[etanoias]. [fruit worthy of repentance] Mt 3:8; cp. Lk 3:8.” etc.

Under this very heading, Bauer goes on to list many more examples from the New Testament, including some of the very same New Testament passages which he had previously listed as examples for the verb metanoeō, such as Luke 15:7 and Acts 26:20. Additionally, Bauer also includes under this same heading (and interspersed with the New Testament references) many more citations from The Shepherd of Hermas.

So Grudem’s entire argument that Bauer doesn’t list any New Testament passages under the “change one’s mind” definition of metanoeō falls flat and doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny because Bauer lists many New Testament references under the cognate noun metanoia, (together with the verb metanoeō immediately following in parenthesis) where both together are given the meaning of “primarily ‘a change of mind’”.

2) Grudem misrepresents the lexicon by Moulton and Milligan.

Grudem makes it sound like the Moulton and Milligan lexicon doesn't support the "change of mind" definition of repentance. Grudem writes: "The specialized lexicon by Moulton and Milligan, compiled with particular reference to the papri and other nonliterary sources, says of metanoeō that 'in the New Testament it is more than 'repent,' and indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.'" But Grudem omits the entire first part of that quote which gives the basic meaning of metanoeō: a "change of mind"! Notice what Moulton and Milligan say concerning the meaning of metanoeō which Grudem left out:

See also Menandrea p. 1272 where the verb is used of "change of mind." Its meaning deepens with Christianity, and in the NT it is more than "repent," and indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.1

The Moulton and Milligan lexicon doesn't say that the meaning of metanoeō changes with Christianity; it says the word's meaning "deepens with Christianity." What's more, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says that the meaning of metanoeō in the New Testament is more than "repent," all they're saying is that our English word "repent" is not the best translation of metanoeō. They are saying that our English word "repent" does not fully express the meaning of the Greek word. This is exactly the point made by Charles Bing and other Free Grace theologians! For example, in The Theological Wordbook (edited by such stalwarts of the faith as John F. Walvoord, Donald K. Campbell, Wendel Johnston, and John Whitmer) they write this on page 296 concerning the word Repentance: "the English word repentance derives from the Latin and does not express the exact meaning of metanoia." To be more specific, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says that the meaning of metanoeō "deepens with Christianity, and in the NT it is more than 'repent,'" - it means more than repent (in the sense of regret), i.e. metanoeō is more than a synonym of metamelomai (see the definition for metamelomai, "regret," in the Moulton and Milligan lexicon where they define metamelomai as meaning "repent oneself").

I want to make another point regarding what Moulton and Milligan say in their lexicon concerning the meaning of metanoeō. Apparently Grudem imports his own definition of repentance into the words "a complete change of attitude," but is that justified? How should we understand the word "attitude" when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says "a complete change of attitude"? Should we import Grudem's definition of repentance into the word "attitude" or should be define the word "attitude" according to its own meaning? The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that the word "attitude" means "a mental position with regard to a fact or state." (The word "attitude" can include feelings or emotions, but that is not the primary meaning of the word.) Thus, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says "a complete change of attitude," it is simply another way of saying a complete "change of mind," spiritual and moral (e.g. a recognition of one's sin, and need for salvation, etc.), towards God.

I want to make one last point, and this has to do with what the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says concerning the noun metanoia ("repentance"). Under the entry for metanoia (page 404), the concluding remarks are these: "It may be added that Lactantius (Div. Inst. vi. 24. 6) for the ordinary paenitentia ['repentance'] of Christian Latinity prefers resipiscentia [to recover one's senses], as implying, like μετάνοια [metanoia], a coming to one's senses, resulting in a change of conduct." The Moulton and Milligan lexicon correctly distinguishes between repentance and what repentance results in, which is a change of conduct.

3) Grudem misrepresents the Greek lexicon by J. H. Thayer.

Grudem also makes it sound like Thayer's lexicon doesn't support the "change of mind" definition of biblical repentance. But after I looked up in Thayer's lexicon the definition of metanoeō (repent), I noticed that once again Grudem only selectively quoted the pertinent lexical material! The very first definition Thayer gives for the verb metanoeō is "to change one's mind, i.e. to repent".2 The same is true for the noun metanoia (repentance). The very first definition for metanoia in Thayer's lexicon is: "a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done".3 This is the most basic and fundamental meaning of the two words. Furthermore, in both instances Thayer makes a distinction between repentance and the fruit of repentance, which is "conduct worthy of a heart changed"4 or in other words "good deeds"5 (cf. Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20).

Interestingly, Grudem also fails to mention the word of caution given by the publishers of Thayer's own lexicon (see the "PUBLISHERS INTRODUCTION," page VII) when they say: "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes....When defining μεταμέλομαι [metamelomai: to regret, to have remorse], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and μετανοέω [metanoeō: to change one's mind]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example." When Grudem cited Thayer and selectively quoted Thayer's definition of metanoeō, Grudem issued no such "word of caution". But this "word of caution" is important and necessary because Thayer's definition of metanoeō is suspect because he co-mingled metanoeō and metamelomai and did not properly distinguish between them. In fact, after Thayer's entry for metamelomai, he calls the two words synonyms. The unsaved man does not need to repent in the sense of "feel sorry and try better" (as Thayer and Grudem imply). The unsaved man needs to repent in the sense of "change his mind" and trust Christ as Savior!

4) Grudem misrepresents New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson.

In his book Grudem takes issue with the fact that Charles Bing quoted A. T. Robertson in support of the view that metanoia has the basic meaning of a "change of mind". Grudem focuses on statements from Robertson on 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, but really the focus should be on Robertson's statements concerning metanoeō in Matthew 3:2 which is the first mention of the word in the New Testament. In the past, Grudem has made Matthew 3:2 the focus, such as in a lecture he gave at Phoenix Seminary titled "Salvation without Repentance from Sin: A Critique of the Free Grace Gospel". (By the way, the title of Grudem's lecture is somewhat misleading because only non-traditional Free Grace adherents of Zane Hodges say that repentance is not necessary for salvation, the traditional Free Grace view is that repentance from the sin of unbelief is necessary for salvation like the Bible says in John 16:8-9 and in Hebrews 6:1 where the unsaved need to change their minds and transfer their trust from whatever they were trusting in before salvation and trust only in Christ for salvation.) Grudem made a statement in that lecture in which he said something to the effect that "John the Baptist never called on people to change their minds." (Grudem was arguing against the "change of mind" definition of repentance.) But A. T. Robertson in his book Word Pictures in the New Testament gives the following commentary on Matthew 3:2, where John the Baptist called on people to "repent":

Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word "repent" means "to be sorry again" from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it "do penance" and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: "Turn ye." The French (Geneva) has it "Amendez vous." This is John's great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word.6

Contrary to what Wayne Grudem would have us believe, A. T. Robertson says that the word repent means "to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite)" - Robertson adds "and conduct." But the words "and conduct" come after he had already defined what it means to repent. Robertson keeps the two ideas separate and so should we. A change of conduct should follow and is expected to follow, but according to the Bible a change of behavior is the "fruit" of repentance (see Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20), not repentance itself. A. T. Robertson affirms: "Certainly the word for repentance [metanoia] is more than a mere 'after-thought.' It is a 'change of mind' that lead to and is shown by a change of life, 'fruits worthy of repentance' (Luke 3:8)." (The Minister And His Greek New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923], p. 54.) Robertson's statement here is consistent with how classic Free Grace theology has traditionally understood the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989, p. 45) writes: "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise the person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation."

5) Grudem misrepresents Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof.

Grudem quotes Louis Berkhof at length in an attempt to show that Berkhoff does not offer supporting comments for Bing's "change of mind" understanding of repentance. Grudem argues that "Berkhof repeatedly emphasizes that a turning from former sins and turning to a new way of life is essential in the meaning of the word [metanoia]". But Berkhof does not actually say this. Here's what Grudem admits that Berkhoff does say concerning metanoia: "In the New Testament...it denotes primarily a change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, including regret for the ill then done [i.e. past regret which led to repentance, cf. 2 Cor. 7:9-10], and leading to a change of life for the better." [emphasis mine] I put emphasis on the words "leading to" because here again we must be careful not to confuse repentance with what repentance leads to: the "fruit" of repentance (see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). It's true that whenever there has been "a change of life for the better" it was preceded and effected by repentance; repentance led to the change of life for the better. So, the Free Grace "change of mind" understanding of repentance can accept Berkhof's definition of repentance. Grudem goes on to quote Berkhof as saying that true repentance includes a "moral consciousness". Yes, like Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit, unsaved people must understand that they are sinners who have sinned! This is part of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3). Grudem also quotes Berkhof as saying: "To be converted, is not merely to pass from one conscious direction to another, but to do it with a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction." I can agree with Berkhof's statement in this sense, that in order to be converted a person realizes that he or she is headed toward a Christ-less eternity, and has "a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction" of going to that Christ-less eternity. They see their need for a Savior and trust in Christ alone to save them from sin, death, and Hell.

Thus, Berkhof's statements on metanoia pose no real problem to a Free Grace understanding of repentance. They are "supporting comments" to Charles Bing's "change of mind" understanding of repentance in at least three ways: (A) Berkhof repeatedly emphasizes that "the word [metanoia] denotes primarily a change of mind". (B) Berkhof says: "In the English Bible the word is translated 'repentance' but this rendering hardly does justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element." (C) Berkhof traces how the Greek word metanoia has been mistranslated down through the centuries of church history and concludes his remarks by saying:

Sad to say, the Church gradually lost sight of the original meaning of metanoia. In Latin theology Lactantius rendered it 'resipiscentia,' a becoming wise-again, as if the word were derived from meta and anoia, and denoted a return from madness or folly. The majority of Latin writers, however, preferred to render it 'poenitentia' a word that denotes the sorrow and regret which follows when one has made a mistake or has committed an error of any kind. This word ['poenitentia'] passed into the Vulgate as the rendering of metanoia, and, under the influence of the Vulgate, the English translators rendered the Greek word by 'repentance,' thus stressing the emotional element and making metanoia equivalent to metameleia [as Thayer was prone to do in his lexicon]. In some cases, the deterioration went even farther. The Roman Catholic Church externalized the idea of repentance in its sacrament of penance so that the metanoeite of the Greek New Testament (Matt. 3:2) became poenitentiam agite, --'do penance,' in the Latin Version.

Grudem in his book never mentions these statements by Berkhof!

6) Grudem misrepresents standard lexicons and other reference works on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament.

Grudem claims that Bing "repeatedly fails to account for the fact that no standard lexicon or reference work on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament supports his understanding of metanoeō and metanoia in these passages." What Grudem claims is a "fact" is not a fact but a misrepresentation. Contrary to what Grudem would have us believe, there are standard lexicons and reference works on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament that support Bing's understanding of metaneō and metanoia as used in the New Testament. Besides the examples cited above (and at the risk of being superfluous), I will list several more examples:

• Sir Anthony Bottoms (1939-present) of Cambridge University points out the following facts: "A characterization of repentance as 'turning around' is certainly not the only interpretation available within the Christian tradition; but, equally, it is not an eccentric understanding within the tradition. To illustrate this point, consider the Greek words metanoeō (a verb) and metanoia (a noun), which in English versions of the New Testament are usually translated 'to repent' and 'repentance'. There is a consensus in modern scholarship that the core meaning of metanoia is simply 'a change of mind or purpose'. To take a prominent example of how the word is used, in the Gospel of Mark the first words attributed to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry are: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent [metanoeite], and believe the good news'. As the context suggests, the main action for which this statement calls is a change of mind or purpose in response to the radically new situation described." The author goes on to cite the following Greek lexicons in support of his statements above: "A modern edition of a classical Greek-English Lexicon offers definitions as follows: metanoia: 'change of mind or heart', 'repentance', 'regret', and possibly 'afterthought'; metanoeō: 'to perceive afterwards or too late', 'to change one's mind or purpose' and 'to repent [of]': H G Liddell, R Scott and H S Jones (eds) A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968) at 1115. See also the definitions in FW Danker (ed), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000) at 640: metanoia: primarily 'a change of mind', also 'repentance, turning around, conversion'; metanoeō: (i) change one's mind, (ii) feel remorse, repent, be converted."7
• In The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: The University Press, 1897) commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:9, the Rev. J. J. Lias writes (p. 84): "It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Greek word translated repentance (penaunce, Wiclif and the Rhemish Version) contains neither the idea of sorrow nor of penitential discipline. The word means change of mind or purpose. Sorrow may or may not accompany it."
• The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (1863-1934) writes: "Certainly the word for repentance [metanoia] is more than a mere 'after thought.' It is a 'change of mind' that lead to and is shown by a change of life, 'fruits worthy of repentance' (Luke 3:8)." (The Minister And His Greek New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923], p. 54.) Robertson's statement here is consistent with how classic Free Grace theology has traditionally understood the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation (p. 45) writes: "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise the person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation."
• The Greek scholar Dr. Julius R. Mantey (1890-1981) gives the following definition of repentance under the heading "Meaning of Repentance and Conversion in the New Testament." Mantey writes: "Metanoeo (metanoia, noun) is regularly used to express the requisite state of mind necessary for the forgiveness of sin. It means to think differently or to have a different attitude toward sin and God, etc."8
• The Scottish Bible scholar Alexander Souter (1873-1949) gives the following definitions for metanoeō (repent) and metanoia (repentance) in his reference work A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Souter writes: "metanoeō, I change my mind, I change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God by the nous (mind) instead of rejection)". Concerning the noun repentance, Souter writes: "metanoia, a change of mind, a change in the inner man".9
• George Abbot-Smith (1864-1947), formerly professor of Hellenistic Greek at McGill University, gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia in his reference work A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Abbot-Smith writes: "metanoeō...to change one's mind or purpose, hence, to repent; in NT (exc. Lk 173, 4), of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], involving amendment [i.e. a change of heart for the better]". Concerning the noun metanoia, Abbot-Smith writes: "metanoia...after-thought, change of mind, repentance".10
• In The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), the Rev. C. I. Scofield gives the following note on the word "repent" in Acts 17:30. Scofield writes: "Repentance is the trans. of a Gr. word (metanoia-- metanoeo) meaning 'to have another mind,' 'to change the mind,' and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7. 8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may 'work' repentance, is not repentance. The son in Mt. 21. 28, 29 illustrates true repentance."
• The Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1892) by the German Protestant theologian Hermann Cremer (1834- 1903) gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia. Concerning the verb metanoeō, Cremer writes: "Μετανοέω, the opposite of προνοείν [to consider in advance, i.e. to perceive beforehand], a word not often occurring in profane Greek, combines two meanings of the preposition, to think differently after....But usually to change one's mind, or opinion....In the N.T., especially by St. Luke and in the Revelation, it denotes a change of moral thought and reflection....without addition [i.e. without any prepositions modifying it] = to repent in a moral and religious sense" (pp. 440-441). Concerning the noun metanoia, Cremer gives this definition: "μετάνοια, ἡ, change of mind, repentance....In the N.T., and especially in Luke, corresponding with μετανοεῖν [to repent], it is = repentance, with reference to νους [mind, intellect, thought] as the faculty of moral reflection" (p. 441).
• The Rev. J. Oswald Jackson (1820-1901) in his critical dissertation on the Greek word metanoia titled REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED, clearly demonstrates that this understanding of metanoia as being "a change of mind" does not stand on questionable or even new ground, but is instead the Scriptural doctrine and correct understanding of the word repentance as well as the testimony of biblical critics and scholars alike, so much so that the author can confidently say: "I may remark that all the critics and commentators that I have been able to examine, give the same signification to μετάνοια, metanoia, rendered repentance, with unanimous voice declaring that it signifies change of mind. Thus is it translated by POOLE, KUINOEL, DR. BLOOMFIELD, DR. ROBINSON, SCOTT, DODDRIDGE, ADAM CLARKE, M'CLEAN, PRINCIPAL CAMPBELL, DR. HENDERSON, BARNES, BENSON, DR. JOHN CAMPBELL, ROBINSON of Leicester, and the Author of THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY" - also MATTHEW HENRY, the worthy JOHN BROWN of Haddington, and many others in addition to these.11
• Even Martin Luther, quoting the Greek scholars of his day, acknowledges that the basic meaning of metanoia in the New Testament is a change of mind, or "coming to one's right mind". In a letter to John von Staupitz, dated May 30, 1518, Luther writes, "I learned - thanks to the work and talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek and Hebrew with such great devotion - that the [Latin] word poenitentia means metanoia in Greek; it is derived from meta and noun, that is, from 'afterward' and 'mind.' Poenitentia or metanoia, therefore, means coming to one's right mind and a comprehension of one's own evil after one has accepted the damage and recognized the error. . .. Such transition of the mind, that is, the most true poenitentia, is found very frequently in Holy Scripture: the old Passover foreshadowed it, and Christ made it a reality; it was also long before that time prefigured in Abraham, when (according to the learned exegesis of Paul of Burgos) he began to be called 'he who passes over,' that is, a 'Hebrew,' evidently because he had come across into Mesopotamia."12
• Also consider the writings of the early church theologian Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220 AD). In his book Against Marcion, written at the start of the third century (in about 208 AD), Tertullian says this about the true meaning of metanoia: "Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances."13 Tertullian affirms that the meaning of metanoia is "a change of mind" and what that change of mind is about, or what it is in reference to, can vary depending on the circumstances given in the context of the passage. Furthermore, Tertullian points out that in the Bible even God repents! Thus, it is obvious that the meaning of the word repentance does not inherently convey being sorry for sin, because of course God has no sin to be sorry for! The word repentance (metanoia) simply means a change of mind, and what that change of mind is about must be determined by the context.

---

FOOTNOTES

1. James H. Moulton, and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 404.
2. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 405, italics his. The publishers give the following copyright note: "The Fourth Edition of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, published by T. and T. Clark in 1901, was used in preparation of this edition."
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., p. 406.
6. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on Matthew 3:2, online edition: www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-wordpictures/matthew/matthew-3.html. Similarly, consider the comments on Matthew 3:2 in The Expositor's Greek Testament: "Ver. 2. legōn [“saying”] introduces the burden of his preaching. –metanoeite, Repent. That was John’s great word. Jesus used it also when He began to preach, but His distinctive watchword was Believe. The two watchwords point to different conceptions of the kingdom. John’s kingdom was an object of awful dread, Jesus’ of glad welcome. The message of the one was legal, of the other evangelic. Change of mind John deemed very necessary as a preparation for Messiah’s advent." (Alexander Balmain Bruce, W. Robertson Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor’s Greek Testament [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912], 5 Volumes, Vol. 1, p. 79, commentary on Matthew 3:2, bold and italics his.)
7. Anthony E. Bottoms, "REPENTANCE AS 'TURNING AROUND'," Antje du Bois-Pedain, and Anthony E. Bottoms, Editors, Penal Censure (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019), p. 126, bold added, italics his.
8. Julius R. Mantey, "Repentance and Conversion," Christianity Today, March 2, 1962, italics his.
9. Alexander Souter, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 157, italics his.
10. George Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (London: T. & T. Clark, 1922), p. 287, italics his.
11. J. Oswald Jackson, REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED (London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1845), pp. 22-23, 101-102. (Last accessed January, 2020)
12. "To John von Staupitz, Wittenberg, May 30, 1518," Martin Luther, Edited and Translated by Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963),
13. Volumes, Vol. 48., pp. 66-67. (Last accessed January, 2020) Another English translation, which is in some ways clearer, can be viewed at the following link: "Letter of John Staupitz Accompanying the 'Resolutions' to the XCV Theses" by Dr. Martin Luther, 1518, Works of Martin Luther, Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al., Translators and Editors (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Volume 1, pp. 39-43. (Last accessed January, 2020)
14. "CHAP. XXIV.--Instances of God's repentance, and notably in the case of the Ninevites, accounted for and ably vindicated by Tertullian." Tertullian Against Marcion, ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY: TRANSLATIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS DOWN TO A.D. 325., 24 Volumes, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), p. 107, bold added. (Last accessed January, 2020)

(source: Free Grace Speech Blog (last accessed January 2020)) Related Article: A Review of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=20 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Foreword by Chris Tomlin

Chris Tomlin heartily endorses Francis Chan as one who “leaves you wanting more of Jesus” and “a man with great vision and resolve for the mission of Jesus.” Tomlin calls him a person “who believes that God is really who He says He is and that the true reality of this life is to follow Him wholeheartedly.” We should be wary when a person is built up too much. Francis Chan is not a unique in believing ‘that God is really who he says He is’ – nor does he have any special insight on what it means to follow the Lord wholeheartedly.

What should concern us more, however, is Tomlin’s implicit ‘put-down’ of those who don’t agree with Chan. Calling Crazy Love “the most challenging book outside of God’s Word you will read this year,” he says the “status quo and norms of the so-called ‘Christian’ life that so many of us are used to experiencing are in for a shock!” By putting quotation marks around “Christian,” Tomlin subtly implies that people should question whether or not they are “Christian” based on their works.

Tomlin is right in saying that the life to which Jesus calls us is “absolute craziness to the world.” But let’s be clear: The “us” in that statement is Christians – believers in Jesus! Jesus does not call unbelievers to a life that is ‘absolute craziness to the world.’ He calls them to believe in His Son! Seeds of ‘eternal insecurity’ are sown if the difference between becoming a Christian (having eternal life) and living out the Christian life is not clear. When Tomlin adds, “Sure it’s fine and politically correct to believe (italics his) in God, but to really love Him is a whole different story,” he begs an obvious question: Is believing enough to save you, or not? (See Acts 16.31)

In contrast, Chuck Swindoll in The Grace Awakening reminds readers both of their assurance in the finished work of Christ on the cross, received by faith in Jesus Christ alone, AND the call for them to live the Christian life as a response from a heart of gratitude. If the second call ever impinges on the first, then justification is no longer by grace through faith apart from works, and assurance of salvation is impossible.

Preface

Chan is certainly right in saying that “the (American) church in many ways is not doing well” (20). In fact, it’s an understatement. The spiritual quotient of church-goers in America is at a tragic level. But Chan’s follow-up statement is confusing: “I grew up believing in God without having a clue what He is like. I called myself a Christian (italics mine), was pretty involved in church, and tried to stay away from all of the things that ‘good Christians’ avoid…” Is he saying (implying) that he wasn’t a Christian? Had he believed in Jesus? Was he trying to be saved by works?

He adds that he doesn’t think his church’s teachings were incorrect, just incomplete. “My view of God was narrow and small.” That’s still true! Let’s be clear: If Chan (or any of us) came face-to-face with God (a la Isaiah), we would all say that our view of God is still ‘narrow and small.’ What follows is Chan’s testimony of how God changed his heart from his previous incomplete understanding to his present ‘complete’ view. This ‘I have come to understand things other Christians just don’t understand’ is standard fare in Christian books today. It shouldn’t be. We’re all on the faith journey, and instead of ‘polishing our own halos’ while impugning others (both reflect pride), a dose of humility would go a long way!

Chan writes that he and his church are “willing to think biblically rather than conventionally.” So other churches aren’t? (Ironically, Chan seems to have since come to the conclusion that his church didn’t have it all right; see https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2019/February-2019/Francis-Chan-Why-I-quit-my-megachurch-and-started-again). Why do Christian authors do this? Is ‘conventional’ never ‘biblical’? If this were about theology, the distinction would be fine. We can examine Scriptural teaching. If we’re talking about how I think a person is supposed to live his or her life, it’s not. The Spirit guides us through His Word – not though ‘unconventional’ teaching. This replaces the Spirit and Scripture with the latest ‘Christian teaching fad.’

The first paragraph of p21 is poorly worded: “This book is written for those who want more Jesus…who are bored with what American Christianity offers.” ‘More Jesus’ means, we might assume, to be ‘a more faithful follower of Jesus in my life.’ But saying “more Jesus” is vague, and prone to misunderstanding. A believer doesn’t get “more of Jesus” by following Chan’s writings. He gets more of Chan! Jesus isn’t doling Himself out, only giving you a little at a time. You get ‘all of Jesus’ the moment you believe in Him. The second paragraph is clearer: “…by surrendering yourself totally to God’s purposes, He will bring you the most pleasure in this life and the next.”

While we can largely agree with Chan in his Preface, we should be wary. On p22, he uses ‘wobbly language’: “The core problem isn’t the fact that we’re lukewarm, halfhearted, or stagnant Christians. The crux of it all is why we are this way, and it is because we have an inaccurate view of God. We see Him as a benevolent Being who is satisfied when people manage to fit Him into their lives in some small way…but He never begs us to give Him some small part of ourselves. He commands everything from His followers.” Chan seems to accept that there are “Christians” (‘saved’ and going to heaven) who are lukewarm and stagnant spiritually, but then warns that this indicates we have an inaccurate view of God. Do we really ‘know’ God, then, or not? Is Chan suggesting that if a person has an ‘accurate’ view of God, he won’t be lukewarm or stagnant in his spiritual life? That’s simply not true. Scripture sometimes commands everything from followers or Jesus (e.g., Luke 14.25ff), but it also begs us to give ourselves to Him (Romans 12.1-2). Is Chan saying that if a person does not give everything (who really gives everything?!) to Jesus, he’s not a true follower, and not saved? Not clear!

Ch. 1: Stop Praying

Chan begins with a nice opening invitation to reflect on the grandeur of God reflected in creation. He writes that God is “glorious” – we might add omnipotent, omniscient, holy, merciful, gracious, and loving!

The second paragraph on page 29 is excellent (assuming the “us” here is Christians). Many Christians get so caught up in the world and distracted by the ‘stuff’ of this life (including mega-church pastors!) that they forget God. Chan ‘confesses’ on this page that some mornings he doesn’t feel like loving God, or just forgets to. He’s human!

One final note from this chapter: It is telling that in his catalogue of God’s attributes, Chan does not include love. Yes, God is omnipotent, holy, omniscient, eternal, and just, but God is love (1 John 4.8), and demonstrates it toward us in Christ (Rom. 5.8). His love motivates His mercy and grace. Why not mention it here?

Ch. 2: You Might Not Finish This Chapter

Pages 39-40 are good reminders of the shortness of life – that we can pass into eternity at any moment.

On page 41, Chan takes Paul’s exhortations to the Philippian church and calls them “commands” – in the sense that if we are not “rejoicing always” and “being anxious for nothing,” we are disobeying God’s commands. This is not Paul’s tone in Philippians; it is harsh and condemnatory, and unrealistic. It turns an exhortation to trust in God into a battering ram. Chan adds a personal testimony: He experienced heart problems till he surrendered his worries to the Lord, then they went away. A lifestyle of worry and stress is one thing; telling a person who doesn’t rejoice always or is ever anxious about anything they are sinning is another thing altogether. Neither Paul (nor God) was suggesting that in the maelstrom of life, a Christian must always “rejoice”! [While Jesus was hanging on the cross, when He said, ‘My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ was He rejoicing? If He was, isn’t there something unreal about that? If He wasn’t rejoicing, was He disobedient? We understand epistolary writing to be contextual. A few verses earlier, Paul wept over believers who wandered away from the faith (no rejoicing there!). An exhortation to “be anxious for nothing” doesn’t mean you sin if you’re ever anxious; it’s encouragement for us to take our anxieties to the Lord in prayer (see Phil.4.6).]

We agree with Chan’s desire that Christians not be overcome by worry, stress, and anxiety, but he misconstrues the purpose of God creating the world, and history. Reflecting the Westminster Confession, he sees everything as happening for God’s glory; this leads to Calvin’s macabre declaration that God is pleased for the sake of His glory to condemn non-elect people to eternity in hell. If it can be said that life is all about God – and it can – it can also be said that the entire scope of history is God telling us, ‘It’s all about you!’ Both are true, and we get ourselves in trouble if we forget either. Does God want us to bring Him glory in all we do? Yes! Why? Because He has an insatiable desire for more and more glory – the angels surrounding His throne just aren’t enough…He wants more?! This is an unbiblical and grotesque idea, nothing like what we find in Scripture. God desires us to reflect Him in our lives, thus bringing Him glory, because His desire is for our best, and He knows that only in obedience to Him can we experience that. [To better understand the purpose for God creating this world and us, see David Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology (ed. By James Reitman; Grace Theology Press, 2012), 47-50, and Joseph Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings (Grace Theology Press, 2013), 7- 11.]

This chapter provides a good reminder that our lives can be over at any time, and living each day, each moment, with that in mind, is a good thing. The use of Matthew 10.32-33 (p47) is unclear. Chan tells of inviting people at a funeral who wanted to know Jesus to “come up and give their lives to Him” (p49); did he make clear that ‘giving your life to Jesus’ means believing in Him? Scripture never calls unbelievers to ‘give their life to Jesus’ to be saved. To borrow Chan’s own words, ‘It’s not about us; it’s about Him!’ We are saved by believing in Him, not giving Him ourselves.

Chan’s lack of clarity as to whether he is talking about getting/staying saved or living a life which will result in rewards is troubling. Readers of this chapter could easily conclude that how they live their life will determine whether or not they will be saved. Chan never states clearly that eternal life is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. He may believe this, but imprecise wording can cause many readers to fall into the awful ‘Galatian heresy’ of works righteousness. This is dangerous ambiguity.

Chapter 3: Crazy Love

After the first four or five pages of this chapter, we can say “Praise the Lord!” Chan gives a compelling picture of God’s unconditional love for us, and the way that love can motivate in us a trust of Him in every area of our lives. Excellent! His description of his feelings about God as ‘reverent intimacy’ (p57) is good. His experience in the woods – discovering that God wanted intimacy with him – is spot on (Jesus’ words to the woman of Samaria in John 4.23 reflect this truth).

His reflections on Jeremiah 1 are good – until he slips into determinism on the bottom of p58. His presumptive interpretation that God “determined what Jeremiah would do before He was born” – taken to its logical extreme, would mean we have no choice to obey (or not). Chan leaves out of his quote of Eph. 2.10 (p59) the phrase “that we should walk in them” (because it doesn’t jive with his determinist reading of the verse?). His personal application from Jeremiah 1.6-10 (top of p60) that “God will ensure my success in accordance with His plan, not mine” is, again, presumptuous. Does our obedience have anything to do with our success (see Josh.1.7-8), or is it already ‘determined’ “in accordance with His plan”? Chan follows with the statement that “God…loves us and longs for us to love Him back.” Which is it? Is it all determined by God – even our ceasing to love Him – or is our response the key?

Chan realizes the Calvinist paradox he has created – stating that God has determined what we will do, but that when we don’t do it, He loves us and longs for us to love Him in return. He cannot meld the two, so he writes: “So why does God still love us, despite us? I do not have an answer to this question” (p60). The reader is prone to scream “Aaarrgh!” at this point. A book entitled Crazy Love should know the answer: God still loves us because of who He is! God IS love! That’s the answer to the question, and we should shout it from the rooftops

Chapter 4: Profile of the Lukewarm

While we can quibble about some of Chan’s teachings to this point, this chapter reveals deeper problems in his misuse of Scripture. He starts well, focusing on God’s great love for us, and how valuable it is. His statement on p66 is excellent: “This kind of enthusiastic response to God’s love is entirely appropriate.”

Chan then starts talking about parables, and loses the plot. Jesus spoke in parables so that unbelieving Jews would not know the mysteries of the kingdom, which Jesus was at that time reserving for His disciples. That’s it, period. Chan misses this completely, and writes: Jesus began speaking in parables – “so that” those who weren’t genuinely listening wouldn’t get it. They genuinely listened, but because of unbelief they didn’t understand! Chan writes: Speakers [today] don’t use Jesus’ tactic to eliminate people who are not sincere seekers. It had nothing to do with being “seekers,” but “followers.” Jesus was teaching the cost of discipleship. And Chan writes: The fact is, He [Jesus] just wasn’t interested in those who fake it. It wasn’t about ‘faking anything,’ it was recognizing the cost of being a follower! If Jesus “just wasn’t interested in those who fake it,” then God’s love for us isn’t that ‘crazy’ after all…because we all – and Chan, too (see p29) – ‘fake it’ lots of times. Hands up, all who are completely genuine!

Chan then turns to the parable of the soils. After reciting the four types of soil, and how the seed of the Word takes root (or not) and bears fruit (or not), he makes this statement: “My caution to you is this: Do not assume you are good soil.” (Italics his) He suggests that most American churchgoers are the third kind of soil – thorny. You may be tempted to say “Amen!” as he writes, “A relationship with God simply cannot grow when money, sins, activities, favorite sports teams [sic], addictions, or commitments are piled on top of it.” He scores again in the next paragraph, noting that “too much of the good life” and “things” can “keep us from living healthy, fruitful lives for God.” Later on the same page (67), he writes: “Has your relationship with God actually changed the way you live? Do you see evidence of God’s kingdom in your life? Or are you choking it out slowly by spending too much time, energy, money, and thought on the things of the world?” These are valid and important questions for American Christians to ask themselves.

He then asks, Are you satisfied being “godly enough” to get yourself to heaven…? (67) The implication of this question is all wrong, since being “godly enough” has nothing to do with ‘getting to heaven’ – believing in Jesus is what matters. We must assume he wants Christians to ‘go deeper’ with the Lord, but this is unclear.

Pages 68-81 are an extended diatribe against ‘lukewarm people’ (note, not “lukewarm Christians”). The feeling one gets when reading this section is that Chan is telling readers to look at their lives and see whether or not they are just ‘faking it,’ that is, whether or not you are really saved. After citing the church at Laodicea (Revelation 3.15-18), a “lukewarm” church, Chan writes, “Many people read this passage and assume Jesus is speaking to saved people. Why?” Implication: They weren’t saved! Chan then invites us to judge them as being unsaved because they are lukewarm. Result? Anyone living a lukewarm life behavior will conclude, “I’m not living a good enough life, so I’m probably not saved!” This is utterly destructive

“Lukewarm people” according to Chan (on these pages) are those who:

• go to church regularly, because “they believe “good Christians” do, so they go” (68).
• give money to charity and the church as long as it doesn’t impinge on their standard of living (69).
• desire to fit in both inside and outside the church (69)
• care more about what people think of their actions than what God thinks of their hearts and lives (69).
• don’t genuinely hate sin and aren’t truly sorry for it (70)
• are moved by stories who do radical things for Christ, but they do not act themselves (71)
• rarely share their faith with neighbors, coworkers, or friends (71)
• don’t want to make people feel uncomfortable by talking about private issues like religion (71)
• gauge morality or ‘goodness’ by comparing themselves to the secular world (72)
• say they love Jesus, but only a part. They don’t allow Jesus to control their lives (72)
• do not love God with all their heart, soul, and strength (73)
• try to love God that much, but say it isn’t possible for the average person (73)
• don’t love others as much as themselves (73)
• love those who love them back more than those who don’t or can’t (73)
• don’t love those who intentionally slight them (73)
• serve God and others, but there are limits to how far they will go (74)
• do not give money, time, and energy unlimitedly to God and others (74)
• think about life on earth more than eternity in heaven (75)
• their daily life is focused on to-do lists, the week’s schedule, and next month’s vacation (75)
• rarely consider trying to give as much as possible to the poor (75)
• feel “called” to minister to the rich, but not to the poor (75)
• want to do the “bare minimum” spiritually (76)
• ask “How much do I have to give” instead of “How much can I give?” (76)
• ask “How much time should I spend praying and reading the Bible?” instead of (saying) “I wish I didn’t have to go to work, so I could sit here and read longer!” (76)
• are continually concerned with ‘playing it safe’ instead of “risking for God” (77)
• feel secure because they attend church, made a profession of faith at age twelve, were baptized, come from a Christian family, vote Republican, or live in America (78)
• do not live by faith (78)
• don’t have to trust God – they have a savings account (78)
• don’t need God to help them – they have a retirement plan (78)
• don’t depend on God on a daily basis (78)
• probably drink and swear less than the average unbeliever (79)
• equate partially sanitized lives with holiness (79)
• give Jesus less than everything (81)

On p80, Chan writes, “This profile of the lukewarm is not…intended to be used as ammunition to judge your fellow believers’ salvation.” But it is too late; he’s already brought this into question! He quotes 2 Corinthians 13.5 (“examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves”), and writes, “We are all messed-up human beings, and no one is totally immune to the behaviors described in the previous examples [of lukewarm people]. However, there is a difference between a life that is characterized by these sorts of mentalities and habits and a life that is in the process of being radically transformed (italics mine).” We are left to ponder: If my life is characterized by what Chan calls lukewarm behavior, am I saved? If I only share my faith with my neighbors or coworkers a couple of times this year, is that enough? How do I know if I am ‘in the process of being radically transformed’? How can I know I am saved? You can’t.

This chapter, with generalizations, references to “getting to heaven,” and questioning the salvation of lukewarm Laodiceans, cannot but have a destructive impact on the assurance of salvation of anyone who reads it.

Chapter 5: Serving Leftovers to a Holy God

Suddenly, and abruptly, the truth comes out. After a chapter warning his readers against being lukewarm, and writing, “This profile of the lukewarm is not…intended to be used as ammunition to judge your fellow believers’ salvation” (80), Chan does exactly that. He writes: As I see it, a lukewarm Christian is an oxymoron; there’s no such thing. To put it plainly, churchgoers who are “lukewarm” are not Christians. We will not see them in heaven (84). The chutzpa in this statement is appalling. We are not to judge a person’s salvation, but Chan will! Let’s put it bluntly: If any of the “Lukewarm” list above describes you, you’re going to hell forever.

This one statement undermines the entire book. Early on, Chan wrote (p22), “The core problem isn’t the fact that we’re lukewarm, halfhearted, or stagnant Christians. . .” How does he use the word “Christian”? How does this jive with the statement that those who are “lukewarm” are not Christians? It doesn’t.

What of Chan’s admission that some mornings he doesn’t feel love for God, and just forgets about Him (29)? Perhaps that’s only temporary, so he’s going to heaven? And maybe if I’m not “rejoicing always” or “being anxious for nothing” (41), hopefully I’ll ‘snap out of it’ and go to heaven? To be blunt, if the things Chan says “lukewarm people” do (68-81) results in them going to hell, then Chan, and all of his readers, will be there. Jesus said, “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5.48). That’s a command, from the lips of Jesus. If we fall short of that, will we go to hell?

At this point – even considering that some of the preceding material sounded good and challenging, this book can be salvaged. This is a classic ‘bait and switch’ approach. Talk to your readers, call them Christians, call them to listen to what you’re saying, tell them you’re not judging whether they’re saved or not…then tell them that if they don’t do what you say, they’re going to hell. This is heresy. It is heinous.

Chan does not backpedal. He writes (italics his): “And our question quickly becomes even more unthinkable: Can I go to heaven without truly and faithfully loving Jesus? I don’t see anywhere in Scripture how the answer to that question could be yes.” The question may be unthinkable to Chan, who evidently sees himself as ‘truly and faithfully loving Jesus.’ (The best of us is a “beginner” in the ‘school of loving Jesus’!) But it is devastating for people who are battling in the real world! A girl who is sexually abused as a child, living with insecurity and depression, battling confusing emotions and unsatisfied desires, wondering what ‘love’ looks like…what chance does she have to measure up to Chan’s requirements for going to heaven? A guy who grew up without a dad, in the confusion of sexual development fell into homosexuality, who came to faith in Jesus, but struggles with his sexual identity and questions about what ‘love’ really is…what assurance will he ever have wondering if he “truly and faithfully loves Jesus”? This ‘ivory palaces’ kind of talk destroys security and assurance of millions who are at a difficult place on their spiritual journey.

Chan’s assertion that no one who falls short of ‘truly and faithfully loving Jesus’ will go to heaven is not taught in Scripture. In the New Testament, eternal life/justification is always faith alone in Christ alone. How can Chan’s statement jive with John 3.16? Whoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life! Or with Acts 16.31? Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved!

Chan extracts his view from Jesus’ letter to the church at Laodicea in Rev.3. In doing so, he misses the point completely. Jesus was not condemning those early church-goers to hell. He was calling them to fellowship! Without examining the text at all, Chan ‘pronounces’ his view as true. He says he re-read the Gospels as if he’d never read them before, and concludes: The thought of a person calling himself a “Christian” without being a devoted follower of Christ is absurd (85). But of course, no ‘chapter and verse’ teach this.

His “proof texts” are the parable of the soils (he wrongly concludes that only the fruit-bearing soil/person is going to heaven), John 14.15 (“If you love Me, you will obey what I command” – all about fellowship, nothing about going to heaven), James 2.19 (“Even the demons believe…” – wrong context; The Epistle of James is not about going to heaven or hell), and 1 John 2.3-4 (one who obeys “knows God” – talking about fellowship, not justification). [For a discussion of all these, and many other misunderstood and misused passages pertaining to justification and the Christian life, see Charles C. Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship: How to Understand Some Difficult Bible Passages (Grace Theology Press, 2015).] Reflecting a common practice in cults that use the Bible to support their teachings, Chan moves from one verse to another, never dealing with context or interpretive questions, just ‘sound-bites’ followed by his conclusion. Matthew 16.24-25. Luke 14.33. His proof-texts have nothing to do with being justified or going to heaven; they are addressed to believers, calling them to follow, to obey, to sacrifice, to take up our cross, to love Christ. Without exegetical foundation, Chan announces that anyone who doesn’t do all these things is going to hell.

To borrow the description of Chuck Swindoll, Chan is a “grace killer” (see Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1990), 3ff, 19). His teaching echoes the Judaizers in Galatia (Paul pronounced an “anathema” on them in Gal 1.8-9). Chan’s call for readers to pray and re-read the Gospels, to see them “as God intends,” is akin to Mormons telling people to read Moroni 10.4 in The Book of Mormon, where it says to pray and ask God if Mormonism is true, and ask with a sincere heart, and God will show it to you. Chan knows most readers won’t know where to start, or what to look for, and he can claim the ‘high ground’ of biblical truth without ever once dealing seriously with the text itself.

Chan’s statement on p87 defies belief: I do not want true believers to doubt their salvation as they read this book (87). Too late! Chan has declared that any who fail to totally love the Lord and obey His commands will not be in heaven. If what Chan says is true, we will all doubt our salvation, and that for the rest of our lives.

The rest of this chapter is Chan trying to soften his harsh declaration, and explain how this is really good news. To wit: “Each of us has lukewarm elements and practices in our life” (87). But wait: You said there was no such thing as a lukewarm Christian! “The Scriptures demonstrate clearly that there is room for our failure and sin in our pursuit of God” (87). Wait a minute, my failure and sin is part of my ‘pursuit of God’? “I’m not saying that when you mess up, it means you were never really a genuine Christian in the first place.” Then what ARE you saying – because “failure and sin” and “messing up” is not the same as “truly and faithfully loving Jesus”!

Chan is so contorted at this point, in the second paragraph on p88, he writes this: The distinction is perfection (which none will attain on this earth) and a posture of obedience and surrender, where a person perpetually moves toward Christ. To call someone a Christian simply because he does some Christian-y things is giving false comfort to the unsaved. But to declare anyone who sins “unsaved” is to deny the reality and truth of God’s grace.

Let’s put that under the microscope. To be a Christian, you don’t have to be perfect (no one on earth can do that), but you must have “a posture of obedience and surrender,” and be a person who “perpetually moves toward Christ.” Is that true of us when we have “lukewarm elements and practices in our life”? What if we are experiencing “failure and sin”? What if we’re “messing up”? At this point it is impossible for a person to know they are a Christian! We have entered a quagmire of endless ‘navel-gazing’ and relativistic self-analysis and comparison with other Christians…and in the end, the best we’ll get is a faint hope we’ll pull through.

Why are we talking at all about determining whether or not we’re saved on the basis of works? Isn’t the New Testament clear that Jesus died for our sins, and we are saved by believing in Him? Of course it is.

Chan again cites the Laodiceans as a church that, while once “healthy and legitimate” (his words), now their “hearts apparently didn’t belong to God” (p88). On this flimsy basis, without any statement from Scripture, Chan pronounces them all unsaved. Couldn’t they have been experiencing “lukewarm elements and practices” (they were!), which Chan says every Christian has in their life? What if they were experiencing “failure and sin” in their pursuit of God? Chan says there is “room for” that in a Christian’s life – why not the Laodiceans? What if they were just “messing up”? Chan says that doesn’t mean we aren’t saved. So how does he know the Laodiceans are going to hell? He doesn’t.

Bottom line: Chan is arbitrary, trying to create a litmus test for justification, and creating confusion instead. This is cultic – a man determining who will be in heaven – and it is totally unbiblical.

The rest of this chapter, with sub-headings “Poor Rich People” and “Offering Leftovers,” would have much good to say if written to believers, challenging them to live out their faith. Instead, it’s no more than an ever-increasing list of things a person must do in order to get to heaven. Americans are chided for the amount of money they make, as if that in itself is evil. Jesus’ call for the rich man to sell what he had, give to the poor, and have treasure in heaven (Luke 18) and Zacchaeus giving half his money to the poor and paying back four times what he had defrauded people out of (Lk 19) are provided as biblical support. The message is clear: If we don’t give sacrificially to God, we’re not saved.

Recognizing perhaps that he is teaching straight-up justification-by-works, Chan on p95 tries to dig himself out. He writes: “Perhaps it sounds as though I believe that you have to work your way to Jesus. I don’t. I fully believe that we are saved by grace, through faith, by the gift of God, and that true faith manifests itself through our actions. . . The lives of many people who call themselves ‘Christians’ in America lack manifestations of a vital and active faith.” Did you catch it? In one paragraph, Chan declares that you are saved by grace through faith, by a gift of God, then takes it all back by adding, “true faith manifests itself through our actions.” Let’s summarize: By faith you receive the free gift of God, but the only way you know if you have “true faith” is by examining your good works. If you lack the works of a “vital and active faith,” you’re just calling yourself a Christian – you aren’t really saved. Bottom line: You get to heaven by your works.

Chapter 6: When You’re In Love

Like so often in this book, if Chan were explicitly talking to Christians about how they are living their lives, this could be an excellent chapter. But with the threat of heaven or hell hanging over every exhortation, the joy is gone. A couple of pages into this chapter, Chan seems to recognize his problem. In a section entitled “Don’t Try so Hard,” he writes: “My fear in writing the previous chapter is that it only evokes in you fear and guilt. Personal experience has taught me that actions driven by fear and guilt are not an antidote to lukewarm, selfish, comfortable living. I hope you realize instead that the answer is love.”

His attempt to help readers get over what he wrote in the previous chapter is ultimately doomed to failure. The ‘elephant in the room’ is Chan’s assertion that a person who doesn’t do everything the Bible tells them to do is going to spend eternity in hell. The question anyone will want answered is this: Does God really love me? Is His love for me dependent on my obedience to Him? It sure doesn’t feel like ‘love’ if God says, ‘Do what I command, or I’ll send you to hell.’ Norm Geisler used to say, “God is not a cosmic rapist! He doesn’t force His love!” This is something Chan has yet to learn. His ‘do everything the Bible commands or go to hell’ idea is not love, it is rape. And rape does not excite love in return!

On p107, Chan twice touches on passages that deal with eternal rewards, but totally misses the context. If his comments in the rest of this chapter were directed toward believers whose love has grown cold, they would be a reassuring call of a loving Lord. Sadly, with ‘Damocles’ sword’ of eternal damnation hanging over our heads, this opportunity is never fully realized.

Chapter 7: Your Best Life…Later

It’s impossible to read anything Chan now writes, even when, as in this chapter, it sounds like he is exhorting Christians to pursue God’s ‘best life’ for them, without the previous chapters casting an awful shadow. Is Chan telling me what I must do to go to heaven? If I don’t do what he says, am I going to hell?

For example, on p113 he asks, “Do you recognize the foolishness of seeking fulfillment outside of Him? Do you understand that it’s impossible to please God in any way other than wholehearted surrender? Do you grasp the beauty and deep joy of walking in genuine intimacy with God…?” My answer is a resounding “Yes!” I desire all these things in my life. But Chan has ‘pulled the rug out from under us” once, and I wonder: Is he urging us to seek fulfillment, to please God, and to have genuine intimacy with God…or warning us that if we fail to achieve these things, we are lost eternally?

Frankly, we can have no certainty what Chan is saying in this chapter. It’s positively schizophrenic! He cites the lives of the men and women in Hebrews 11 as examples, and highlights their many failings, then says, “These people were far from perfect, yet they had faith in a God who was able to come through in seemingly dire situations” (114). Wait – these people were thieves, murderers, unfaithful, immoral, wimps – but that’s OK, because God came through for them…but if I’m “lukewarm,” I’m going to hell?

After his “that’s OK, nobody’s perfect” section, he turns around and starts heaping the guilt again: “Are you ready and willing to make yourself nothing? To take the very nature of a servant? To be obedient unto death? If your honest answer to those questions is yes, how are those intentions manifested in your life?” (p117) Wait: Is this the litmus test for salvation? What about that ‘we’re all far from perfect’ stuff? This may appeal to our desire to be holy, but it makes no logical sense. Either we have to make ourselves nothing, be servants like Christ was, and be ready to die for Him – and show it by the way we live our life…or we can do things like those heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. Which is it?

The glaring omission in this discussion, and everywhere in the book, is the simple declaration of the NT that by believing in Jesus we receive the free gift of eternal life, and this is apart from works.

Reflecting on this chapter, we cannot help but think: There is so much good in this, if Chan could just get over the hump of questioning the salvation (or outright condemning) of anyone who doesn’t do this! He tells a story of a man who heard Chan preach on giving to those in need, and gave his house to the church in response. Chan writes, “He told me that he will have a better house in heaven, and that it doesn’t really matter where he lives during this lifetime” (p122). Question: Did that guy think because he sold his house and gave the money to the church that he was going to heaven, or that he was going to be rewarded in heaven? From what Chan has written, the former seems likely. Scripture says that it is “not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy” (Titus 3.5) that we are saved.

A challenge to anyone reading this book is to state clearly from Chan’s comments exactly what is required for a person to go to heaven – to know that they are saved. It simply is impossible.

Chapter 8: Profile of the Obsessed

A crescendo from the middle of the previous chapter focusing on money continues here, particularly how much more Americans have than most people in the world. Chan’s basic message that Christians should give more to the Lord – not just money, but of their time, talent, and treasure – is excellent. His continual blurring between being a Christian, or living the Christian life, however, is not.

For example, on p135, Chan refers to those who questioned his decision to sell his house and move into a smaller house so he could give more to missions as “people who call themselves Christians.” Does this mean that since they didn’t agree with Chan, they just ‘call themselves Christians’ (they aren’t really saved)? That’s the implication Chan gives. Isn’t there room for disagreement in how a person should live their life?

How refreshing this chapter would be if we would just read it as it should be understood: That every Christian should be progressively obsessed with Jesus. If we were, we would give freely and openly, love those who hate us (132), wouldn’t be consumed with [our] personal safety and comfort above all else (133). We would connect ourselves with the poor in some way or another (135), would seek to make [ourselves] less known and Christ more known (136), would love His people (137), and would think about heaven frequently (142). These are all good reminders for Christians as we grow in our relationship with God. It’s sad that in Chan’s world, they are litmus tests for eternal life.

Chapter 9: Who Really Lives That Way?

Good chapter, some great stories, of Christians who have lived sacrificially for the sake of others. All of us could add more; the only problem with any collection of anecdotes would be the same as Chan’s – that they omit countless examples. In Chan’s list, the most glaring omission is any recognition of Christians who go to work every day, raise their children to love the Lord, and are involved in the ministry of their local church. Chan focuses on a few who did remarkable things, often in response to unique circumstances. We should focus more on passages like 1 Thess. 4.11-12: “…make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” Nothing dramatic there – just quiet, contented, fulfilled, godly living.

Chapter 10: The Crux of the Matter

After the theological and practical minefield in the middle of this book, this chapter is refreshing. Indeed, it needs to be extracted from the rest of the book – particularly those parts that undermine salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and make it dependent on what we do – and read on its own! (The only exceptions might be the references to “true Christianity” (italics mine) and the “so-called Christian” on p166 – both adjectives which are unnecessary and imply a ‘false’ Christianity based on a lack of good works.) Chan calls on individual Christians to live out their faith as the Spirit leads them, and not just to talk about it, but to do it.

He ends this chapter with a collection of Scripture quotations all pointing to the Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ. This is a wonderful reminder to every believer that what we do for Christ in this life, up to and even including dying for Him, will be rewarded by our Lord in heaven.

A Conversation with Francis Chan

On pages 182-83, Chan responds to a concern about his statement that someone who is “lukewarm” is not a Christian, and will not be in heaven. He repeats his position: “The lukewarm still need to be saved.” He again bases this on Revelation 3, totally misreading and misapplying the letter to the Laodicean church.

He then flips 180-degrees the other direction in the next sentence: “Salvation has nothing to do with my performance.” This is positively schizophrenic. If you don’t live your life a certain way, you are unsaved. But salvation has nothing to do with how you live your life. This is oxymoronic, and makes no sense.

Chan’s basis for this incongruity is, as always, to say that works ‘show’ that a person is ‘truly’ saved. He says, “If I’m truly saved, then my actions are going to show. All through the New Testament a person’s faith is shown through his actions. New Testament teachings are clear that someone who loves God and doesn’t obey God is a liar, and the truth is not in Him.” Chan manages to both misquote and misapply Scripture here. His words combine incomplete thoughts drawn from 1 John 1.6, 8; 2.4; and 4.20. None says what he says. All are written to believers, exhorting them to abide in Christ. The warnings are never to loss of salvation (or the Calvinistic idea that ‘you were never saved in the first place’), but to a loss of fellowship. The Christian who says he loves God but doesn’t do what God commands shows he does not love God. Good works do not show that a person is saved (justified) in 1 John, but rather that a Christian is in fellowship with God.

Chan continues: “It’s not popular to question someone’s actions and salvation, and Scripture tells us to test ourselves and see if we’re really in the faith. . . . If someone has the Holy Spirit in them, there will be fruit, and there will not be a lukewarm life.” Again, Chan displays a poor awareness of Scripture. 2 Cor. 13.5, at the end of a letter from Paul to Christians in Corinth, is not a dropped-in end-of-letter statement questioning whether or not they are saved! It was a call for those Christians to examine themselves to see if they were faithfully living their Christian lives.

What is sad is that today, just the opposite of what Chan says is true: It IS popular today for writers like Chan to question the actions and salvation of other people! In fact, it’s an epidemic in the church in America, and it is undermining the faith and spiritual vitality of millions. Instead of examining themselves to see if they are living as Christ would have them live, and abiding in Christ, they are consumed with trying to ‘prove’ to themselves and others that they are really saved. What the Holy Spirit wants to produce in every Christian’s life has been made a requirement for having that life – and until that mistake is corrected, the security and assurance and joy which God offers believers will be compromised.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=19 Wed, 01 Jan 2020 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Abstract

DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY EXPLORING THE CULT-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED DOCTRINALLY ORTHODOX CHURCHES

Cults such as Heaven’s Gate, the Branch Davidians, Peoples’ Temple (Jim Jones) and many lesser known groups have certain characteristics. But is it possible that some evangelical churches with biblical doctrine have similar characteristics as full blown cults? What are those characteristics and how strongly do they make their presence known?

This project seeks to examine if churches that have evangelical doctrine can be similar to cults despite their underpinnings of biblical truth. Results from thirteen unhealthy churches represented by thirty former members are examined through the use of a descriptive survey. The descriptive survey’s results are examined so that useful recommendations could be made to help churches recover from cultish conditions or to prevent churches from becoming cult-like.

This dissertation makes the case from the literature review for the presence of a large number of cultic characteristics and that many Protestant, evangelical churches have similar problems. Both the literature review and the survey results and analysis make the case for bold moves towards church health so that the Great Commission can be advanced and Christ be glorified.

Download Dissertation in PDF above.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=18 Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

John Piper is one of the great voices for Jesus Christ in our generation. His desire for the deeper things of the Christian life, while at the same time having a passion for world missions, is truly contagious. Thousands of young people have been drawn to a greater commitment to Christ and giving their lives to reach the lost as a result of his ministry. So it goes without saying that none of the discussion which follows is intended to impugn Piper’s heart for God, or his pursuit of truth. Indeed, this paper is a direct result of the latter.

In his Crossway Lecture at the 2008 ETS Conference in Providence, Rhode Island, Piper began by recalling a conversation he had with Wayne Grudem several years ago. He said Grudem told him he should come to ETS more often because he was surrounded at his church by people who largely agreed with him, and might not challenge him in the way he would be challenged at ETS. People at ETS were more critical, and Piper would be helped to avoid error and refine his thinking.

To his credit, Piper took that advice. In fact, his following words were these: “So here I am, and I am looking for criticism – or at least penetrating questions that will help me avoid error and sharpen my biblical thinking.”1 Sharing Dr. Piper’s desire to avoid error, I present these thoughts.

In November, 2007, John Piper delivered the Crossway Lecture at the ETS Conference in San Diego, entitled “Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ.”2 His thesis was that some contemporary teaching on the doctrine of justification “diminishes” the grandeur and wonder of the finished work of Christ. In particular, he pointed to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, what he understands to be the practical outworking of the inner transformation which takes place in justification. In other words, Piper views imputation as “being made righteous” (practically) instead of “being declared righteous” (forensically): The true believer will demonstrate in his behavior the righteousness of Christ. Those who do not hold to his view of imputation, he asserts, “diminish the work of Christ” on the cross, inhibit the normal pattern of spiritual growth in the Christian life, and open themselves up to bondage to sin.

At the outset, it is perhaps self-serving, but nevertheless appropriate, to state as clearly as I can my enthusiastic and total agreement with Dr. Piper in his passion for God’s holiness, his emphasis on missions, and his pursuit of personal holiness. I say this with conviction and seek to demonstrate it with my life, yet I differ with Piper’s view on the doctrine of justification. This is important, as an underlying theme throughout Piper’s presentation is that those who do not interpret the doctrine of justification as he does do not share this passion for missions, do not go on to godliness, and do not pursue holiness. For example, the fact that 20 families from his church had committed to foreign missions was used as anecdotal evidence that his theology was the one which produces such results. But similar results could be shown from groups with very different theology.

I wish to make clear, therefore, that I am not explicitly or implicitly suggesting anything about the real spiritual pursuit of Dr. Piper or any others in my comments. The implication in too much of our invective today is, “Follow my theology and you’ll experience spiritual victory, have a passion for the lost, and your church will grow! Disagree with me, and you’ll struggle with sin, you won’t have passion for the lost, and even if your church grows, you’re just tickling people’s ears with what they want to hear, instead of giving them the tough teaching of Scripture.” This straw man is both arbitrary and demonstrably false. Honest Calvinist theologians will admit that many who disagree with their theology share their practical godliness, and honest Arminian theologians will admit that those who disagree with their theology still share their passion for souls.

Similarly, people from all sides of the argument over aspects of the doctrine of justification have a high view of the work of Christ. One who does not share Piper’s viewpoint on the “imputation of Christ’s righteousness” does not automatically have a diminished view of the work of Christ. Neither does it follow that a person who shares Piper’s theology will always magnify the work of Christ, by having a passion for souls and a large mission’s budget! Indeed, we may all “diminish” the splendor of the work of Christ, regardless of our theology, in many ways. Struggles with sin are not unique to those holding any particular view of justification. Dr. Piper’s own admission of his ongoing struggle with sin is evidence of this fact.3

People with differing interpretations of biblical teaching on the doctrine of justification are inclined at times to exhibit a lack a passion for the lost, a failure to witness consistently for Jesus Christ, or struggle with bondage to sin. In short, we might say that sin is an “equal opportunity disease” that afflicts all mankind, and affects all Christians, regardless of their doctrine of justification. So at the outset, let us dispense with any notion that this or that theology is either the gateway to spiritual success, or the trap-door to spiritual failure.

Two basic issues do, however, come to the surface as a result of Piper’s presentation. The first may be characterized as the answer to the Philippian jailor’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” It is ironic that what Paul and Silas succinctly stated in response, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,” an invitation to believe which evidently required no further explanation, and which the jailor received immediately with joy, is the object of intense division, and increasingly complex theological penumbrae in the writings of modern scholarship.4 It is always worth asking whether or not a person’s soteriology agrees with or undermines Paul’s evangelistic statement.

The second issue is an outgrowth of the first, perhaps more of a ‘felt issue,’ what Piper referred to in his lecture as “the subjective side of the problem, the more pastoral side – namely, the struggle for assurance.” Assurance of salvation is often devalued in theological debate, but it is a crucial and deeply felt issue within the wider Christian community.5 I suspect that the readiness, and even eagerness, of some theologians to make statements that undermine the doctrine of assurance reflects a too cavalier attitude toward what is intrinsic to evangelical faith. I agree with Piper that this is important. How we frame our soteriology impacts the possibility of any real assurance that we are saved, and indirectly affects every aspect of our ongoing Christian walk.

Piper’s Doctrine of Justification

First, a word about the answer to the question “What must I do to be saved?” This question has eternal ramifications. The gift of God is eternal life – that is what is at stake. Because Scripture is so succinct on this issue, it is hard for anyone laying claim to being an “evangelical” to deny that Paul’s answer is entirely adequate: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” But it is truly spectacular to see what creative theological minds can construe within this simple statement. For example, there are those who insist that saving faith includes works! Despite explicit biblical statements that justification is not of works (Eph 2:9), that it is received by those who “do not work, but believe” (Rom 4:5), and it is “by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16), they insist on making works part of the equation. For example, John MacArthur’s writings within the “Lordship Salvation” debate often reflect an inclusion of works in the salvation formula. He writes, “Meritorious works have nothing to do with faith. But faith works have everything to do with it.”6

This semantic ‘slight of hand’ impregnates “faith” with anything and everything from an attitude of sorrow, to abject grief over sin, to a life of godliness, to – and this is the logical end – an absolute holiness. The inevitable result of this thinking is justification based on our works. MacArthur makes this clear when he writes,

Salvation isn’t the result of an intellectual exercise. It comes from a life lived in obedience and service to Christ. . . The life we live…determines our eternal destiny.7

More recently, Paul Rainbow and Richard Gaffin show similar theological dexterity in proposing that there is an “initial justification” which is by faith alone, and a “final justification” which depends on “works of grace.”8 Rainbow clearly states that in his view, “good works will be the ground on which God will approve of believers on the last day.”9 Eternal life is gained, according to this view, by faith and good works. Karlberg’s assessment of Rainbow and Gaffin is succinct:

Whether one is reading The Way of Salvation or “By Faith, Not by Sight,” the message is the same – one that is out of step with Scripture and orthodox Protestant teaching.10

It is difficult to see how John Piper’s comments do not reflect the same perspective. He states that what an unbeliever needs is “the righteousness of someone else” – that is, Christ. But instead of understanding this forensically (judicially), that is, a guilty sinner being “declared righteous” on the basis of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, he sees this as a reference to practical living. Piper is clear: Righteousness “means the way one behaves when one behaves in accord with some right standard.” In fact, he equates Christ’s perfect (practical) obedience in Philippians 2:8 with the righteousness the believer receives in Philippians 3:9. 11 He states: “Christ was found in human form obedient; we are found in him righteous. Which would naturally mean that in Christ – in union with him – his perfect obedience is counted as ours as gift (sic) from God.” Note: It is not the forensic result of Christ’s perfect obedience – a believing sinner being declared righteous by God on the basis of the Son’s finished work – which we receive in justification; rather, “His (Christ’s) perfect obedience is counted as ours as [a] gift from God.”

If we have been so made righteous, if Christ’s “perfect obedience” is received as a gift at the moment of faith, then the demonstration of that obedience in our behavior immediately becomes a sine qua non of justification. Without that “perfect obedience,” how can anyone lay claim to being justified? An inevitable outcome of justification, therefore, becomes a de facto requirement of it. This view was articulated and defended by John Gerstner, who wrote: “The question is not whether good works are necessary to salvation, but in what way they are necessary. As the inevitable outworking of saving faith, they are necessary for salvation.”12 No matter how we couch it in terms of what God is doing through us, the result is simply this: If we do the works, we are saved. If we fail to do the works, we are not saved. To affirm justification sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus (by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) has no real meaning if in the next moment we declare that “perfect obedience” will demonstrate whether or not you are saved. Whatever degree of holiness is viewed as an inevitable result of justification (and no standard can be any higher than Christ’s “perfect obedience”), that holy behavior becomes a requirement for justification.

That Piper’s doctrine of justification includes a requirement of doing good works is borne out in his preaching and writing. Some examples:

“Paul foresees the possibility that some professing believers – in the judgment of charity he calls them brothers, may go to hell… Your works confirm that you are saved.”13

“Getting to heaven in the New Testament involves the use of means… Your perseverance in faith is a means of attaining heaven; it is necessary… Mutual exhortation is a means by which we…help each other persevere to heaven. It is not automatic…”14

“…These are just some of the conditions that the New Testament says we must meet in order to be saved in the fullest and final sense. We must believe in Jesus and receive him and turn from our sin and obey him and humble ourselves like little children and love him more than we love our family, our possessions, or our life. This is what it means to be converted to Christ. This alone is the way of life everlasting.”15

From an evangelical perspective, considering the historical debate between evangelicals and Rome over the role of good works as a means of justification, we might say that ‘the fox is in the henhouse’! We have acceded to the notion that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith and works. Our theology must return to a place where we can be both intellectually honest and as concise as Paul was when he invited the Philippian jailor to “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”

Any inclusion of works into the salvation formula is inimical to the biblical gospel, and could therefore be said to “diminish the work of Christ” (or, to use Paul’s words, to “nullify the grace of God”; Gal 2:21).

Piper’s Doctrine of Assurance

This discussion leads inexorably to the question of assurance of salvation. Piper identified this issue as a major spiritual problem among his parishioners. He stated in his presentation: “I deal with this as much as anything, probably, in the people that I’m preaching to. Fears, and doubts, doubts not about objective ‘Did He rise from the dead’ – very few people are wrestling with that – but ‘Am I in? Am I saved?’ That’s very common for people to wrestle with.” Piper’s solution to this epidemic of a lack of assurance of salvation within his congregation is to point to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness – the practical outworking of the righteousness of Christ in our daily lives. He states that “there are deficiencies – defects – in the sinful human soul that were meant to be remedied by the achievement of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Christ did not perform this great work for nothing. There was a need for it. When that achievement is denied, that need languishes without remedy, and the assumption is made that it can be remedied by Christ’s other achievements, like the forgiveness of all our sins.”

This is a startling statement. Piper suggests that a believer who bases his full assurance on the fact that all his sins have been forgiven will “languish” in a lack of assurance, while a person who understands the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to mean that they will exhibit his “perfect righteousness” in their lives will overcome the “deficiency in the human soul” which undermines our assurance. Piper offers no biblical or logical explanation why this would be so. Instead, he simply admonishes us, “Don’t try to be wiser than God.”

Since Piper views this as a major spiritual problem within his church, we may assume that he views lack of assurance of salvation as a bad thing. We concur with this view.16 But if the aim is that Christians will have assurance, it is difficult to understand how basing it on our progressive works of righteousness will produce such a goal. Indeed, Piper’s own statement would suggest that his theology does not lead to a solution for the problem of a lack of assurance of salvation. Among those who listen to his teaching each week, who are in his congregation and most likely to embrace and embody his theology, it is “very common” for them to wrestle with a lack of assurance.

Beyond this, Piper himself evidently also wrestles with a lack of assurance of salvation. In response to a question in last year’s Crossway Lecture at ETS, he said, “…why I sin against my wife the same at age sixty-two that I did at age forty-two causes me sometimes to doubt my salvation.”17 Unless this was a case of hyperbole, in which Piper overstated his meaning for effect, we cannot but conclude that he himself is, because of his own moral failings, occasionally uncertain of his eternal salvation! While such comments may seem to exhibit a godly humility which reflects well on one’s spiritual destiny, many will struggle to find comfort in the notion that a pastor and Christian leader of Piper’s status is unsure of his eternal destiny!

The fact is, dependence on our works for assurance of salvation ultimately and inevitably undermines any real assurance. Even the best of us falls far short of “Christ’s perfect obedience”! Therefore, we are all left with ever-varying levels of eternal insecurity. This kind of teaching has spread throughout evangelicalism, resulting in a pandemic of lack of assurance.18 This cannot help but “diminish” the doctrine of assurance, that “by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone” a person is justified, possesses eternal life, and with it assurance of salvation.

A Biblical-Historical Corrective

Did Jesus accomplish fully the payment for sin once-for-all on the cross? Was it indeed “finished,” as He said (John 19:30)? Concerning this, Calvin writes:

Now this word, which Christ employs, well deserves our attention; for it shows that the whole accomplishment of our salvation, and all the parts of it, are contained in his death. We have already stated that his resurrection is not separated from his death, but Christ only intends to keep our faith fixed on himself alone, and not to allow it to turn aside in any direction whatever. The meaning, therefore, is, that every thing which contributes to the salvation of men is to be found in Christ, and ought not to be sought anywhere else; or – which amounts to the same thing – that the perfection of salvation is contained in him. . . .

If we give our assent to this word which Christ pronounced, we ought to be satisfied with his death alone for salvation, and we are not at liberty to apply for assistance in any other quarter; for he who was sent by the Heavenly Father to obtain for us a full acquittal, and to accomplish our redemption, knew well what belonged to his office, and did not fail in what he knew to be demanded of him. It was chiefly for the purpose of giving peace and tranquility to our consciences that he pronounced this word, It is finished. Let us stop here, therefore, if we do not choose to be deprived of the salvation which he has procured for us. . . .

…Christ, having once accomplished, by a single oblation, all that was necessary to be done, declares, from the cross, that all is finished.19

Leon Morris agrees:

“Jesus died with the cry of the Victor on His lips. This is not the moan of the defeated, nor the sigh of patient resignation. It is the triumphant recognition that He has now fully accomplished the work that He came to do.”20

Tenney echoes:

“The use of the perfect tense in ‘It is finished’ (tetelestai) signifies full completion of Jesus’ work and the establishment of a basis for faith. Nothing further needed to be done.”21

And Gaebelein writes:

“But who can tell what this one word “It is finished” means? It is as glorious as it is inexhaustible and unsearchable. Never before and never after was spoken such a marvelous word, which means so much. No Saint is able to measure the depths of this triumphant shout. It means that His great sacrificial work, the sin-bearing, was now finished. All that needed to be done to satisfy the righteousness of God and to vindicate His holiness was finished; peace was now made in the blood of His cross; all that God in His eternal counsel had purposed was finished; prophecies and types relating to His matchless atoning work were finished. Yea, all was finished to reach down to man in his deepest degradation and to save him to the uttermost, so that the lost, the guilty, the hell-deserving sinner becomes, trusting in Him, a child of God and an heir of glory. All is finished to put on the side of the believer every spiritual blessing which an infinite God is able to bestow.”22

To the Galatians the Apostle Paul wrote, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly” (Gal 2:21). Concerning this Luther forcefully writes:

“The Antichrist teaches that faith is no good unless it is combined with works; instead of the grace of Christ and his kingdom, he has established the doctrine of works and ceremonies.”23

Undergirding the doctrine of assurance, the Apostle John wrote, “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:12-13).

Was this knowledge only provisional, based ultimately not on believing, but on works, so that those “who believe in the name of the Son of God” cannot really know they “have eternal life”? Such an assertion turns Scripture on its head! As Marshall affirms,

John was therefore writing not to persuade unbelievers of the truth of the Christian faith but rather to strengthen Christian believers who might be tempted to doubt the reality of their Christian experience… Those who believe in the name of Jesus can be sure of their possession of eternal life.24

Beeke has well said, “If assurance is assumed, pastors build congregations that won’t appreciate the depths of Christian experience. If assurance is compelled, Calvinism could collapse into neonomianism. If assurance is ignored, churches may be reduced to legalistic morality that lacks evangelistic zeal for God. But if assurance is cultivated, the faith of believers is brought to rest in a faithful God whose grace is mightier than their proneness to backslide.”25

Conclusion

We should all be grateful to John Piper for tackling difficult issues associated with the doctrine of justification, and laying bare the difficulties both he and members of his church have experienced in the area of assurance of salvation. An objective look at Piper’s view of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, understanding it as “being made righteous” (practically) instead of “being declared righteous” (forensically), leads to the conclusion that it is his own doctrine which is, to use his word, “diminishing” the work of Christ.

It is at best uncertain how Piper’s inclusion of works can do anything but “diminish” historic tenets of the doctrine of justification, and fatally undermine any possibility of true assurance. In our desire to promote holiness, and exalt the finished work of Christ, may we never inadvertently undermine that very work, and “diminish” its completeness and grandeur!

---

FOOTNOTES

1. John Piper, “Why God Is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to Be Worshiped,” ETS lecture, November 20, 2008, Providence, Rhode Island. Text available online in the Resource Library at http://www.desiringgod.org/.
2. Quotations inserted throughout this paper are taken from John Piper’s 2007 Crossway Lecture at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 14-16, 2007, in San Diego, CA. Written copy online at http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByDate/2007/2489_Justification_and_the_Dimi nishing_Work_of_Christ/, or CD copy available from ACTS Conference Products, 11139 South Towne Square Ste. F, St. Louis, MO 63123, online at www.actsconferenceproducts.com.
3. In response to a question about our imperfectness in this life, Piper responded: “I know people, and I would say this about myself, for whom the greatest threat to my perseverance and my ultimate salvation is the slowness of my sanctification. It’s not theoretical questions like ‘Did He rise from the dead?’ or the problem of evil. I’ve got answers. But why I sin against my wife the same at age 62 that I did at age 42 causes me sometimes to doubt my salvation or the power of the Holy Spirit… This question is not theoretical.” John Piper, “Why God is Not a Megalomaniac in Demanding to be Worshipped” 60th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Recording available through ACTS Conference Products, # EV08487 (www.actsconferenceproducts.com).
4. For a breakdown of various approaches to what is required for justification in contemporary scholarship, see Dane C. Ortland, “Justified by Faith, Judged according to Works: Another Look at a Pauline Paradox,” JETS 52/2 (June 2009), 323-39.
5. Joel R. Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), 279-85.
6. John MacArthur, Faith Works (Dallas: Word, 1993), 53. Emphasis his.
7. John MacArthur, Hard to Believe (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 93.
8. Paul A. Rainbow, The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2005); Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “By Faith, Not By Sight:” Paul and the Order of Salvation (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2006).
9. Rainbow, op. cit., pp82-84.
10. Mark W. Karlberg, review of Rainbow and Gaffin, JETS 50 (2007), 428.
11. Piper bases this on the shared use of the passive voice of the word “find” in both verses, but the suggestion that this means our behavior as Christians will (or must) mirror the perfect behavior of Christ is at best an example of finding more in the text than the author ever put there himself, and at worst forcing his own theology on the text. The repetition of a word in two contexts does not allow us to equate the two contexts!
12. John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 210 (emphasis mine). This is not a new view. Arthur Pink, in An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968, p600), quotes John Owens – the prince of Puritan expositors – with approval: “…but yet our own diligent endeavor is such an indispensable means for that end, as that without it, it will not be brought about…If we are in Christ, God hath given us the lives of our souls, and hath taken upon Himself, in His covenant, the preservation of them. But yet we may say, with reference unto the means that He hath appointed, when storms and trials arise, unless we use our diligent endeavors, we cannot be saved” (italics mine).
13. “We Will All Stand Before the Judgment of God (Romans 14:10-13)”; October 30, 2005. Cited by Brian Fisher, “Calvinism’s Resurgence Leaves Many Vulnerable to Bad Doctrine”, Grace In Focus 21:2 (March/April, 2006). If Piper thinks Paul was being ‘charitable’ by calling those who he believed were going to hell “brothers”, I question his understanding of the Apostle’s straightforward presentation of the gospel and passion for the lost!
14. “Do Not Destroy the Work of God (Romans 14:14-23)”; November 6, 2005. Cited by Brian Fisher, op. cit. At times, Piper makes conflicting statements, resulting in confusion as to where he really stands. For example, in “The Justification Debate: A Primer” (CT, July 23, 2009; see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/june/29.34.html), under the heading “The Gospel”, he writes: “The heart of the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. What makes this good news is that Christ’s death accomplished a perfect righteousness before God and suffered a perfect condemnation from God, both of which are counted as ours through faith alone, so that we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth” (italics added). This is both biblical and clear. Yet two paragraphs later, under the heading “Future Justification,” he writes: “Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation” (italics added). How can it be true that “through faith alone…we have eternal life with God in the new heavens and the new earth,” but at the same time also be true that at the “final judgment,” without the “validating transformation” of our good works, “there will be no future salvation”? Which is it – “through faith alone,” or only with the “validating transformation” of “our works”?
15. John Piper, Desiring God (Sisters, OR; Multnomah Publishers, 2003), 69-70. For an excellent response to Piper’s view of Galatians 5:6 making good works part of the justification formula (and clarification on other misused biblical texts in reference to faith and works), see Fred Chay and John P. Correia, The Faith That Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament (Schoettle Publishing Company, 2008), 90-101, available by request at http://www.graceline.net/.
16. Beeke is certainly correct when he writes, “Sadly, the church, for the most part, is scarcely aware that it is crippled by a comparative absence of strong, full assurance.” The Quest for Full Assurance, 279.
17. See footnote 3.
18. Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 155, writes: “I am frankly astonished at the number of times I have explained to classes of Christian college students about the unmerited love God has for us…and how in the course of my explanation students from strong evangelical churches literally will cry. . . …they point to the insecurity they have learned at their home churches. ‘If I don’t feel like God’s child, maybe I’m not.’ ‘If I can’t always act like God’s child, perhaps I never was.’ My office has witnessed such statements from the children of our evangelical households every semester for years.”
19. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Trans. Rev. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), online at http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol34/htm/i.htm (italics mine). For a detailed discussion of Calvin’s understanding of faith, works, and justification, see Sam Waldron, “Does Justifying Faith Include Evangelical Obedience in John Calvin’s Theology?”, unpublished paper, available online at http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/papers/ets/2004/Waldron2004/Waldron2004.pdf. Waldron concludes that the tendency for evangelicals to unify faith and obedience in justification is “contrary to the classic view of sola fide enunciated by Luther and Calvin.”
20. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 815. Italics mine.
21. Merrill C. Tenney, The Gospel of John, (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, Gen. Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:184. Italics mine.
22. Arno Clement Gaebelein, The Gospel of John, (Gospel Publishing House (?), 1919), 371. Italics mine.
23. Martin Luther, Galatians; The Crossway Classic Commentaries, Alister McGrath and J.I. Packer, Series Editors (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1998), 113. Italics mine.
24. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 243. Italics mine.
25. Beeke, 282-3.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=17 Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

For many years, Christians have longed for some biblical ‘middle ground’ between the twin errors of Calvinism and Arminianism. R. T. Kendall noted “the surprising degree of reciprocity that exists between Westminster theology and the doctrine of faith in Jacobus Arminius.”1 One “reciprocal” feature of these theological systems is an inclusion of works in the justification formula. As one who stands unwaveringly for the gospel of grace, this writer unequivocally affirms that justification is by faith alone in Jesus Christ. As the Free Grace Alliance Covenant affirms, “The Gospel of Grace should always be presented with such clarity and simplicity that no impression is left that justification requires any step, response, or action in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”2 The importance of this discussion is obvious, and the need for a biblical alternative is clear.

Kenneth Keathley, professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, provides an alternative to classical Calvinist and Arminian formulas in his book Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.3 The purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss Molinism, examine Keathley’s theological position, and offer a response from a free grace perspective.

Molinism

Molinism is named for Luis de Molina (1535-1600), a Jesuit priest who shared a strong belief in God’s sovereign control with Calvinists, and an equally strong belief in human freedom usually associated with Arminianism.4 As the ‘odd man out’ in the ecclesial battle which ensued between Calvinism and Arminianism, Molinism largely faded into obscurity. But as church history shows, theological ideas never really die, they just lie dormant for a few centuries, until resurrected by new debates. In contemporary discussion, a resurrection of Molinism has been led by Christian philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Flint, and William Lane Craig.5 To its credit, contemporary Molinism still evokes cries of “Arminian!” from Calvinists, and cries of “Calvinist!” from Arminians.6 Of course, what really matters is whether or not it is biblical.

The key issue in any discussion such as this is how it resolves the seemingly insurmountable conflict between God’s sovereignty and human free will (human responsibility). Calvinism’s emphasis on sovereignty renders all events and decisions as necessary – that is God’s knowledge of all that would happen means that nothing else can ever happen. When this is applied to our human choices, it results in determinism – that is, God made everything and every person and even every circumstance, so that even our choices are determined ahead of time, and we do not have the ability to choose to do otherwise than has been already determined for us. This position is sometimes referred to as theological fatalism.7 Calvinism’s logical succession of points, commonly known by the acronym TULIP, affirms God’s sovereign (absolute) control, but in stating that all true believers therefore inevitably continue in the faith (Perseverance of the saints), it ironically made assurance of salvation (and ultimately salvation itself) a result of good works.

Arminians recoiled at the implications of determinism and resolved the conflict by going to the opposite extreme – emphasizing man’s free will. Seeking to give real meaning to the warning passages of Scripture, they concluded that mankind is a causal agent in determining his eternal destiny. This led to conditional security – the possibility of losing your eternal salvation through falling away. Ironically, since all ultimately stay saved by continuing in the faith, Arminians join Calvinists in viewing assurance of salvation (and ultimately salvation itself) as dependent on works.

Molinists seek to resolve the conflict by pointing to God’s omniscience.8 It is not God’s absolute control, or man’s free choice, but God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, which solves the riddle. They posit that God had three ‘moments’ of knowledge (logical, not chronological).

• First, He had “natural knowledge” – He knew all things that were true, and all things that could be true if He chose to bring them into existence. Therefore, He knew all possible worlds He could create, all possible beings, and all possible circumstances.
• Second, He had “middle knowledge” – He knew what every possible creature would do in every possible situation in every possible world (whew!). This is not the same as looking down the corridor of human history to see what a person would do; rather, God’s middle knowledge enables Him to know what each person will freely do in every possible world.
• Third, He had “free knowledge” – that is, God determined to create this world, and thus He ‘knows’ all that will happen based on His free, sovereign decision.

In this way, while retaining His absolute sovereign control, God ‘factors in’ the free actions of His creatures. This approach simultaneously affirms divine sovereignty and human freedom. Instead of determining all events and decisions by His omnipotence, God simply chose the best possible world based on His knowledge of what free beings would do.

Keathley’s Soteriology

Keathley redefines (and renames) the traditional five points of Calvinism, turning a TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints) into ROSES (Radical depravity, Overcoming grace [contra irresistible], Sovereign election [contra unconditional], Eternal life [contra Perseverance], and Singular redemption [contra Limited atonement]. He abandons much of the content and implications of Reformed doctrine, presenting a refreshingly biblical and evangelical approach.

Keathley’s soteriology – as revealed in ROSES – is not an expression of Molinism per se, since not all Molinists would agree with his five points.9 Rather, it is a refreshing statement of salvation truth which applies a Molinist approach, particularly in explaining his view of election.

Radical Depravity

In contrast to the fatalism of Calvinist Total Depravity, Keathley suggests “Soft Libertarianism” and humanity’s moral responsibility. He writes:

Humans are ultimately responsible for their moral decisions in a way the other creatures of the earth are not…because, as causal agents, they are in a limited, derived way, the originators of their respective choices. This ability is a gift bestowed by God and is a way in which humans reflect the divine image.10

While fallen humanity is radically depraved, and is “not able not to sin,” this does not mean he is unable to receive the truth of the gospel

Overcoming Grace.

Over against the Calvinistic idea that God either did or did not predestine each person to believe (to the predestined, believing is irresistible, while to those not predestined, it is impossible), and the Arminian idea that all are able to believe, and simply choose to believe or not to believe (which seems to imply human merit in salvation), Keathley posits an “overcoming grace” model which is both monergistic (meaning justification is totally a work of God) and grace is resistible. Radically depraved humans do not have the capacity to believe; they only have the ability to resist. Keathley writes:

If you believe, it is because (and only because) the Holy Spirit brought you to faith. If you do not believe, it is only because you resisted. The only thing you are able to “do” is negative.11

Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, none would believe. Because of the work of the Holy Spirit, all may believe. Grace is truly offered and available to all. The question is no longer “Why do some believe, and others not believe?” Instead, it is “Why doesn’t everyone believe?!” The answer is found in the free response of radically depraved humans, who – despite the fact that the Spirit draws all men – can decide to refuse the offer.

Sovereign Election.

Theological explanations of election are rife with problems – either to explain God’s character (love) or sovereign control. Supralapsarian Calvinists are logically consistent, but morally repugnant: God decreed both the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate before the fall. The eternal destiny of every person is arbitrarily determined and ordained from eternity past, and nothing can change it. Eternal destiny is all about God’s sovereignty, and nothing about human responsibility. This view does violence to the character of God. As Spurgeon wrote:

Do you believe that God created man and arbitrarily, sovereignly – its all the same thing – created that man, with no other intention, than that of damning him? Made him, and yet, for no other reason than that of destroying him forever? Well, if you can believe it, I pity you, that is all I can say; you deserve pity, that you should think so meanly of God, whose mercy endureth forever.12

In an effort to avoid this awful view (and be more biblical, if less Calvinistic), infralapsarian Calvinists place God’s decree to elect after the fall. God did not damn the reprobate before the fall, but damned them because they are fallen. In this model, God then elected to save some, and simply passed over the rest.13 While solving the ethical dilemma, however, it creates a logical impasse. It is not simply a “mystery” to say God elected some, and yet all are responsible; it’s a contradiction.14 The infralapsarian simply seeks to avoid the inevitable implications of his theological starting point.

Keathley’s Molinistic solution is to affirm both sovereignty and human freedom based on “three moments of election.”15 First, God in His natural knowledge knows everything that could happen, in all possible worlds, in all possible scenarios. Second, God, using middle knowledge, from this infinite number of possibilities, knows which scenarios would result in people freely responding in the way He desires. From the possible options provided by His middle knowledge, God sovereignly chooses which one He will bring to pass. Finally, with His free knowledge (or foreknowledge), God knows with certainty what will occur.

Eternal Life

he Classical Calvinist doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints injects works into the justification formula by making perseverance an inevitable result of salvation. Arminian doctrine injects works into the justification formula by making perseverance a requirement for staying saved. This shared dilemma is reflected in the old saying that “Arminians know they are saved but are afraid they cannot keep it, while Calvinists know they cannot lose their salvation but are afraid they do not have it.”16 Keathley avoids both problems (and is biblical to boot) by stating that a person can know he is saved, and know he will remain saved, based on the finished work of Christ.

Keathley summarizes his position with four points: 1) The only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ. The finished work Christ is the foundation of assurance; good works merely support and confirm.17 2) Assurance is of the essence of saving faith; a certain knowledge of salvation is simultaneous with being saved. Even though doubts may arise, the core conviction remains. 3) Saving faith perseveres; this is more a promise than a requirement. 4) God offers rewards subsequent to salvation for the believer to win or lose.18

Singular Redemption.

Borrowing this designation from Timothy George19, Keathley states that Christ did not die for all people ‘in general,’ but rather for each person in particular. Over against classical Calvinism, Christ’s atonement is not ‘limited’; it is sufficient for all, while being efficient only for those who believe. Christ’s death provided salvation for all humanity, but the benefits are secured only by those who believe, and the benefits are applied at the moment they believe.

A Free Grace Response

There is much to applaud in Keathley’s soteriology. He affirms that God desires the salvation of each and every person in the world. Instead of Calvinism’s “Total Depravity,” in which fallen humanity cannot even believe until regenerated, he presents a “Radical Depravity” in which fallen persons possess the real ability to choose. Instead of Calvinism’s “Irresistible Grace,” which is only for some, and cannot be rejected, his “Overcoming Grace” affirms the work of the Holy Spirit in drawing all men to faith, while preserving their freedom to reject it. He rejects the requirement of perseverance either for salvation, or for assurance of salvation, and recognizes the reality of post-salvation rewards for good works in the believer’s life. And he recognizes that Christ died for all mankind, not only a limited group who are ‘elect’.

On the other hand, Keathley at times leaves himself open to works in the salvation formula, often including repentance as a requirement of salvation, or allowing that behavior indicates whether or not a person’s faith is genuine. His interpretation of Scripture is confusing at times, applying passages to justification which should be applied to sanctification.

The ‘weakest link’ in Keathley’s Molinist soteriology, however, is ironically where he leans on Molinism the most. This is in his discussion of “sovereign election.” In the opening lines of the book’s Introduction, Keathley ‘lays his cards on the table’: What shall a Christian do who is convinced of certain central tenets of Calvinism but not its corollaries? Specifically, what if I am convinced that God elects individuals to salvation but I am also compelled by the evidence of Scripture to reject the notion that Christ died only for the elect?20

It is tempting to avoid egregious elements of TULIP by abandoning them (as Amyraldians denying limited atonement). We sympathize with Keathley’s aversion to the Calvinist idea that Christ died only for the elect, for example, since this is biblically insupportable! However, as Bryson asserts,

…I cannot see how or why one could believe in one or more of the five points without also (logically speaking) believing in all of the five points of Calvinism.21 In other words, each of the points of Calvinism, when understood and accepted as framed within the Westminster Confession (1647), logically demands the other points.22

Each of the points is like a cancer cell, which unless confronted and either eradicated or essentially changed, inevitably spreads the ‘disease’ of Calvinism. Keathley avoids the cancer in four of the points by redefining (and slightly renaming) Calvinism’s tenets. But in his discussion of sovereign election, I believe he has retained a ‘cell’ of Calvinism which compromises his otherwise refreshingly biblical discussion.23

The problem with Calvinistic “Unconditional Election” is that, when push comes to shove, it does not do justice to the biblical evidence of human responsibility. Instead of a God who loves the world and sent His Son to pay for the sins of all men, supralapsarian Calvinists frankly admit that grace plays no role in God’s decree, and even speak of God’s attitude toward the non-elect as one of “eternal hatred.”24 Such assertions are unbiblical and an affront to the character of God.

Infralapsarian Calvinists find themselves in an equally troubling position, accepting a premise (God’s sovereign selection of who would be given eternal life) which they then try to cover up by affirming a bizarre kind of responsibility which they dub “efficacious permission” or “determinative permission.”25 They need to do this to avoid the logical end of their own premise, making God the author of sin. Ware, an infralapsarian, criticizing supralapsarian Calvinists, writes:

It seems to me, that the strain in Calvinism that has been reluctant to embrace the “permissive will of God” simply rejects one of the very conceptual tools necessary to account for God’s moral innocence in regard to evil.26

What a damning indictment of your theology if you must use “conceptual tools” to avoid logical conclusions which your own theological premises demand! Both Calvinist approaches come to grief because they are essentially the same. As Keathley summarizes,

Infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism are simply nuances of the same approach as long as both begin with God’s eternal decrees and reject the notion that God would (or even could) grant any type of libertarian choice to responsible creatures.27

But does Keathley’s Molinist account take care of these problems? To be clear: Does a Molinist explanation of God’s sovereign election and human responsibility really avoid the ethical dilemma of supralapsarian Calvinism, and the rational inconsistency of infralapsarian Calvinism?

The ‘character question’ concerns a loving God, who, according to Scripture, “desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). If this is true, how can it be reconciled with any sovereign act of God by which He chooses to create a world in which some are knowingly predestined to eternal heaven, and others to eternal hell?

Molinists counter with the idea that God did the best that He could while allowing for human freedom and responsibility. William Lane Craig suggests that God “chose a world having an optimal balance between the number of the saved and the number of the damned.”28 Keathley adds, In other words, God has created a world with a maximum ratio of the number of saved to those lost. The Bible teaches that God genuinely desires all to be saved, and even though many perish, still His will is done. Molinism better addresses this apparent paradox.29

Whether or not it deals with it “better” or not, the “apparent paradox” still exists! For what fairly screams from these explanations is this: Would not the “optimal balance” of saved to damned be ‘all to none’? If God is choosing the best of all possible worlds, in keeping with His exhaustive omniscience, why not choose one in which all are saved? Even if we were to grant that this was not possible, why not choose a world in which most are saved? Here, conjecture is the Molinist’s only recourse: Craig, for example, suggests that there may have been “possible worlds in which everyone hears the gospel and is freely saved,” but suggests that such a world might have “only a handful of people in them,” and that perhaps God created a more populated world like ours even though that meant “some people would freely reject Him and be lost.”30

One cannot help but sense that Craig is ‘feeling around in the dark’ for some rational justification for the way things are!

At the end of his discussion, Keathley seems to recognize the persistent unresolved problem. He writes:

Molinism does not provide an explanation as to why God created a world in which it was possible for sin to enter, but it is not necessary to do so. Molinism is a defense, not a theodicy.31

This is all well and good, but I submit it leaves the ethical and logical problems facing Calvinism unresolved. Ethically, we want to know why a God who could create a world in which all are saved did not do so. If He chose to create a world in which He knows many (if not most) of His creation will never hear the grace gospel, and therefore spend eternity in hell, when He could have chosen to create a world in which all would hear and respond to the gospel, why not choose the latter? This scenario makes biblical claims of wanting all to be saved and none to perish ring hollow.

On the other hand, while pushing the question of “election” into the realm of ‘which world God will choose to create’ instead of ‘which people will God choose to save’ is easier to swallow, it remains true that God’s choice to create one world and not another absolutely determined who would be saved and who would not. While within this created world our actions and decisions are ‘free,’ it still seems a fatalistic situation. Keathley seeks to alleviate this perception by quoting Craig:

“It is up to God whether we actually find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world we find ourselves.”32

Since God’s choice according to Molinism is in eternity past, based on God’s middle knowledge of possible worlds He could create, such explanations are unconvincing.

The Calvinist falls down the stairs, gets up, dusts himself off, and says, “Whew, I’m glad that’s over!” – since every event is absolutely determined by God’s sovereign omnipotent decree. The Molinist falls down the stairs, gets up, dusts himself off, and says, “Whew, I’m glad that’s over!” – since every event is absolutely determined by God’s sovereign omniscient decision of what world He would create! Have we truly resolved anything here?

Conclusion

Keathley’s Molinistic approach as reflected in R-O-S-E-S is refreshingly biblical, and agrees in many ways with grace theology. I suspect this is due more to his commitment to biblical teaching than Molinist explanations of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. And at the one point where he leans most heavily on Molinist explanations, he leaves unresolved problems associated with Calvinism’s Unconditional Election.

Although it is not within the purview of this paper, it seems that as long as we retain the Calvinist tenet of sovereign (unconditional) election33 – meaning that God “chose” who would be saved in some way, shape, or form – we will struggle in vain to do justice to the open invitation for all to believe and receive the free gift of eternal life.34

---

FOOTNOTES

1. R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 3-4.
2. The FGA covenant may be accessed at http://www.freegracealliance.com/covenant.htm.
3. Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2010).
4. Keathley, 5. It is suggested by some that the actual connection between Molina’s teachings and the modern tenets of “Molinism” are rather loose. See “Molina, Luis De” in F.L. Cross, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 928.
5. See A. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); T.P. Flint, Divine Providence: the Molinist Account (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and W.L. Craig, The Only Wise God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).
6. Keathley, 5-7
7. Ibid, 31. Also see George Bryson, The Dark Side of Calvinism (Santa Ana, CA: Calvary Chapel Publishing, 2004), 21-22.
8. Ibid, 38-41.
9. See Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 158-164. Tiessen’s discussion is excellent, but does not include Keathley’s approach. He identifies two Molinist views: 1) Some propose a form of “accessibilism,” the idea that salvation is accessible to those who do not ever hear the gospel, based on God’s knowledge of those who would have believed had they heard. This approach is articulated by Donald Lake (“He Died For All: The Universal Dimensions of the Atonement” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975), 43): “God knows who would, under ideal circumstances, believe the gospel, and on the basis of his foreknowledge, applies that gospel even if the person never hears the gospel during his lifetime.” While not claiming to be a Molinist, and even using the term “foreknowledge,” what Lake writes fits within the Molinist view. Tiessen doubts this view, since it requires no actual faith for a person to be saved. 2) Others (most notably William Lane Craig) propose that God sovereignly ‘chose’ to create this world, in which those who never hear the gospel would not have responded to it if they had heard. Both these views undermine the importance of missions, leaving the ultimate destination of every person already determined, based either on what God knows they would have or would not have done!
10. Keathley, 99.
11. Ibid., 104.
12. C. H. Spurgeon, “Jacob and Esau,” in The New Park Street Pulpit (Pasadena: Pilgrim Pub., [1859] 1981), 118, cited by Keathley, 138.
13. It is startling how fiercely Supralapsarian Calvinists attack those who refuse to stay true to the theological system, even when it compromises the character of God! A common method is to accuse the infralapsarian of being Arminian. In his endorsement of The Potter’s Freedom by James White (a supralapsarian Calvinist), a response to Norm Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Daniel Wallace pejoratively refers to Geisler as “one of evangelicalism’s major Arminian apologists,” a designation Geisler would no doubt find surprising! Keathley (p48) writes that “one cannot help but smile at Robert Reymond’s [supralapsarian] accusing John Gerstner [infralapsarian] of being an Arminian.”
14. Keathley, 14, 148.
15. Ibid., 150ff.
16. I. Howard Marshall, Kept By the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 3rd ed. (London: Paternoster, 1995), 267, cited by Keathley, 164, who notes that in response to the question of the possibility of knowing you are saved, “It is more than just a little ironic that though they travel different routes, many Arminians and Calvinists arrive basically at the same answer – assurance is based on evidence of sanctification.”
17. While I think his spirit is in the right place, the meaning of “support and confirm” is rife with problems; the absence of good works biblically concerns sanctification, not justification. If it is allowed a ‘foot in the door’ in ‘supporting and confirming’ assurance of salvation, it will quickly take over! Happily, point #2 seems to correct this potential problem.
18. Keathley, 187-190.
19. Timothy George, Amazing Grace: God’s Initiative – Our Response (Nashville: Lifeway, 2000), 80-83.
20. Keathley, 1.
21. Bryson, 50.
22. Ibid, 50-53. Bryson exhaustively cites Calvinist writers who expound the logical unity and inseparability of the five points of Calvinism. In the blunt words of R.C. Sproul, “To be a four-point Calvinist one must misunderstand at least one of the five points…” (R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishing House, 1986), 13). See Keathley’s quote of J. I. Packer on p.196 as well.
23. I suspect this may be why some Calvinists who have no inclination of abandoning their Reformed soteriology (and do not share Keathley’s positions in Salvation and Sovereignty) have still incorporated aspects of Molinism into their explanation of sovereign election. See Keathley, 41, n.21.
24. Keathley,143, notes that “some supralapsarians such as David Engelsma do not hesitate to speak of God’s attitude toward the nonelect as one of eternal hatred.”
25. Ibid., 146. Keathley notes, with thinly veiled humor, that “Seeing the term ‘efficacious permission’ as something other than an oxymoron is a challenge.”
26. Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 26. Italics added.
27. Keathley, 147-148.
28. William Lane Craig, “‘No Other Name:’ A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation through Christ,” Faith and Philosophy 6:2 (April 1989), 185. Italics added.
29. Keathley, 153. Italics added.
30. William Lane Craig, “Politically Incorrect Salvation,” in Christian Apologetics in the Post-Modern World, ed. Timothy P. Phillips and Dennis L. Okholm (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 91-92.
31. Keathley, 163.
32. Ibid., 154, citing Craig, “No Other Name,” 172-188.
33. Ibid., 153-154; Keathley states that Molinism “provides a better model for understanding how simultaneously God’s decree of election is unconditional while His rejection of the unbeliever is conditional.”
34. For a discussion of “elect” and conditional election, see C. Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth (Cedar Knolls, New Jersey: Global Gospel Publishers, 2005), and “Astounding New Greek Discoveries about ‘Election’”, http://www.mediatetheology.org/uploads/Astounding_Discoveries_on_Election.pdf.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=16 Sun, 01 Dec 2019 13:00:00 MST div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

In 1949, George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was published. It told of a fictional totalitarian state called Oceania, which created a language called Ingsoc (for English Socialism) to progressively weaken the independence of people’s thinking, enabling the ruling Party to get citizens of Oceania to accept anything it decreed, even if it were entirely illogical. For example, the official slogans of the Party, inscribed on the white pyramid of the ‘Ministry of Truth,’ were “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

One could be forgiven for feeling that contemporary theology has been transported to Oceania, for a similar semantic inversion has been foisted on the Church today. With increasing unanimity, we hear that ‘grace involves good works,’ ‘saving faith necessarily results in good works,’ ‘you are saved by faith, but you get into heaven by works,’ and other such maxims. Any dissent is drowned out by the overwhelming volume of material affirming these views from well-known scholars, best-selling authors, and popular preachers. The ‘folks in the pews’ seem to know that something is amiss, but are powerless to stem the tide of this dogma.

The source of this idea is anchored in an understanding of the past. Another Party slogan in Orwell’s Oceania goes like this: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Evangelical theology today is under the sway of Reformed Calvinism, with its well-defined interpretation of Christian history including Augustinian and Calvinist roots.1 This theological oligarchy even has its slogan (of sorts): It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and the faith which justifies is not alone. 2 Based on this motto, Reformed theologians assert that “some good works will always accompany saving faith in a person’s life and will be seen after a person comes to faith.”3 Without this confirmatory or validating evidence, faith will not ultimately result in one receiving eternal life.4 The determining factor in whether or not a person is eschatologically saved eternally (goes to heaven) is therefore good works. Reformed theology controls the present, and thus the past, and thus the future.

If there is a ‘wrench in the works’ of this system, it is grace. To anyone not schooled in Calvinist doctrine, Scripture clearly affirms salvation by grace, through faith, not of works (John 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; Rom. 4:4-5; Gal. 2:16, 21; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; etc.). Grace is a joyful, attractive concept; it is magnified in God’s unconditional love for helpless sinners, the sacrificial death of His Son on the cross to pay the penalty of our sin, and the free offer of forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life to any and all who believe in Jesus Christ. It is therefore not surprising that every theological system, including those which make good works necessary for final salvation, wants to lay claim to grace.

To do this requires some dazzling theological dexterity.5 Granted, some evangelical theologians today have simply ‘come out of the closet’ and baldly pronounce that justification is by works.6 Many fit works in as an inevitable result of faith, or as an integral part of ‘true’ faith. The word “grace” features prominently in their writings or ministries; the requirement of works is usually obscured in the ‘fine print.’ But always, lurking in the background, like the proverbial ‘elephant in the room,’ is grace. Paul’s words in Romans 11:6 loom large: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 The requirement of works is clearly inimical to grace. As a result, the creative effort of numerous theologians is focused on showing that their soteriological system is all ‘of grace.’

New Covenant Piety

The focus of this paper is “New Covenant Piety” (hereafter NCP), one attempt to amalgamate salvation by grace and a requirement of works.8

The concept of new covenant piety is taken from God’s promise of a new covenant with his people prophesied by Jeremiah. In that covenant, God promises to restore the relationship with Israel and Judah by “remembering their sins no more” and to remedy their serial infidelity by enabling their faithfulness to the covenant by “writing the law on their hearts.” Thus, both getting in and staying in under the new covenant are contingent upon God’s initiative to forgive sins and his empowerment of human faithfulness. New covenant piety then conveys the notion that post-conversion faithfulness or obedience is grounded in God’s prior and ongoing empowerment of that faithfulness or obedience. Jeremiah’s prophecy of this promised new covenant became integral to early Christian identity.9

While not using the moniker “New Covenant Piety,” Bradley Green follows a parallel trajectory in his soteriology:

My argument is that in the new covenant, works are a God-elicited and necessary part of the converted person, a constant theme in the New Testament. . . In short, ‘works’ are ‘necessary’ for salvation because part of the ‘newness’ of the new covenant is actual, grace-induced and grace-elicited obedience by true members of the new covenant. When the New Testament documents are read against Old Testament texts such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:22-29 (cf. Ezek. 11:19; 18:31), this obedience is seen as a promised component of the new covenant. . . Indeed, there are solid biblical grounds for affirming a biblical theology of grace-filled and grace-elicited works, obedience, and faithfulness as essential components of membership in the new covenant – that is, of being a Christian.10

NCP takes its starting point from New Perspectives on Paul (hereafter NPP). E. P. Sanders’ seminal Paul and Palestinian Judaism11 dissected the soteriological process into two steps; instead of one simply believing in the Lord Jesus and ‘getting saved’ (and thereafter possessing ‘eternal life’), Sanders divided the saving process into ‘getting in’ and “staying in.”12 NPP’s ‘covenantal nomism’ thus makes ‘initial salvation’ by grace, but works are required to ‘stay in’ (“obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant”13). Sanders (and other NPP adherents) seek to avoid undermining grace by suggesting that while good works ‘maintain’ one’s salvation, they do “not earn God’s grace as such.”14

NCP adherents dissect the salvation process further, from two steps to three essential considerations: “How does one (1) get into the covenant relationship and (2) stay in the covenant relationship in order to (3) get into the age-to-come?”15 NCP then focuses on the middle step, between ‘getting in’ (to the elect community), and ‘getting in’ (to the age-to-come).16 For NCP, the fundamental question is not whether or not works are necessary to maintain one’s position (to ‘stay in the covenant relationship’), but on what basis this happens.

The question is one of anthropology: According to NCP, NPP is “anthropologically optimistic.”17 The motivation for doing good works in NPP is gratitude; a believing convert who ‘gets in’ to the covenant community by faith is thereafter motivated by gratitude to reciprocate with good works, which ‘maintain’ his place (and result in entrance into the eternal state). The New Testament, NCP asserts, does not reflect this optimistism; instead of Christians living obedient lives in response to their reception of God’s grace, the New Testament has a pessimistic orientation. Rather than exhibiting obedience borne out of gratitude, Christians in the first century church display constant spiritual struggle, defeat, and even apostasy. Humans cannot, in and of themselves, be faithful in their relationship with God.18

Beyond this, NPP is open to the charge of synergism.19 NPP theologian N. T. Wright links ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’: “Indeed, very often the word ‘faith’ itself could properly be translated as ‘faithfulness,’ which makes the point just as well.”20 In other words, it falls to the believer to generate the obedience which maintains salvation, and ultimately results in a person entering the age-to-come. According to Talbert, this is unacceptably synergistic and legalistic.

One may be a part of God’s people by grace, but in order to stay in the people and in order to enter into the age-to-come, one must obey the law. Obedience is the condition for eschatological salvation… By God’s grace one gets in the people but by human effort/obedience one gets into the Eschatological Age beyond the last judgment. It is this synergistic, legalistic covenantal nomism against which Paul fights.21

The solution, according to NCP, is to recognize that while the believer cannot on his own perform the good works and obedience needed to ‘stay in,’ divine enablement makes it possible. It is all of grace: One ‘gets in’ by grace, and one ‘stays in’ by grace.22 The Christian does not do the good works; rather, it is God who acts in them; “Christ does the good works of Christians;” “good works of Christians have their origin in the action of God/Christ/Spirit.”23

…legalistic covenantal nomism (in which one gets into the covenant relation by grace and then stays in it and gets into the age-to-come by works of the law)…is seen in contrast to a new covenant piety in which God or Christ or the Holy Spirit enables one to be obedient in an ongoing way after one’s having gotten into the relation. That is, in new covenant piety one gets into the relation by grace and stays in the covenant relation by grace and gets into the age-to-come by grace. In this view, the life of a disciple is by grace from start to finish. This grace is not a substitute for obedience to God’s will but is the enablement of it.24

This ‘enabling grace’ is predicated on God’s promise of a new covenant with His people prophesied by Jeremiah, and integral to Christian identity.25 Green summarizes:

…in two key Old Testament prophetic books – Jeremiah and Ezekiel (and ancillary passages) – there is a pattern in which a future day is coming, a day that will see Spirit-induced, God-caused obedience from the heart. This is pictured in different ways in different passages, but the pattern is clear, and one of the central marks of this approaching era is heart-obedience, an obedience ultimately elicited by God.

This prophesied “future day” is realized, or fulfilled, in the New Testament:

First, there is an affirmation that the new covenant has entered into history through the ministry of Jesus. Secondly, there is also affirmation that the writers saw the key themes from Jeremiah and Ezekiel as realities in the first century.26

In the place of the Mosaic Covenant, which was unable to deal with sin, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 provides the basis on which “God himself enables his people’s faithfulness to the relationship.”27

If there is any human faithfulness in the relation to God…it is due to divine empowerment. It is all of grace! The scriptural root for this basic assumption is the new covenant of Jer 31.28

In summary, the ‘new covenant piety’ understanding of salvation agrees with NPP that good works (piety) are necessary for one who has ‘gotten in’ to the people of God (been ‘saved’) to maintain that position, and eventually enjoy eternal life.29 However, it bristles at the apparent synergism and legalism which this implies. To avoid this charge, it suggests that believers cannot perform the good works necessary to maintain their salvation, but the new covenant promises of Jeremiah 31 are realized in the lives of Christians, and enable them to live faithful lives.30

The questions which this paper seeks to answer are four: 1) Is NCP’s application of the new covenant promises in the Old Testament to Christians living in the Church Age exegetically and theologically sound? 2) Is ‘divine enablement’ as presented in the New Testament given for the purpose of enabling the Christian to ‘stay in’ the people of God (and thus enter the age-to-come)? 3) Does appealing to ‘divine enablement’ as the grounds of good works really solve the problem of synergism and legalism in salvation which NCP theologians say it does? 4) What are the practical spiritual implications of NCP soteriology? Does it promote ethical obedience and joy in the Christian life? What are the logical effects for eternal security and assurance of salvation?

New Covenant Prophecy and the Church

Any discussion of the fulfillment of new covenant prophecies must reckon with two facts. First, the Old Testament prophecies of the new covenant are always and only made between God and national Israel, and the effects of this covenant are radical and pervasive.

The announcement of the New Covenant begins with a declaration that it will be a Jewish covenant, for it will be made with both houses of Israel. . . The result of the New Covenant will be a total national regeneration of Israel.31 …the parties of the new covenant are God and Israel. Jeremiah 31:31 speaks of one covenant and one people, even though the nation was divided and half was exiled at the time of this prophecy. The covenant anticipates a reunited and restored Israel as a national entity. The covenant is not promised to any other group or nation. The OT is unanimous in stating that the new covenant is made with Israel.32

Although only Jer. 31:31 refers to the new covenant by name, the references and allusions to it in late pre-exilic and exilic prophetic writings are widespread and frequent (Isa. 49:8; 54:10; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer. 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezekiel 11:19; 16;60-63; 18:31; 34:25; 36:26; Hosea 2:18-20). Drawing only from two major passages relating to the new covenant, Jer. 31 and Ezek. 36, the new covenant provisions for Israel include 1) the internalization of God’s Word (“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts”); a personal relationship with the nation (“I will be their God, and they will be my people”); intimate knowledge of God (“they will all know Me”); complete forgiveness of sin (“I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more”); the eternal existence of the nation of Israel, the land and the city of Jerusalem restored; responsive and pure hearts, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (“And I will put my Spirit in you”); material prosperity, abundant crops, and increasing population.33 Clearly, these provisions of the new covenant are not presently true of Israel. Furthermore, any attempt to ‘divine’ a fulfillment in the Church is a total intrusion on the text, and requires such a spiritualizing of the covenant’s promises as to make them virtually meaningless.

The second fact concerning the new covenant we must reckon with is the New Testament references to it, which clearly pertain to the Church. Jesus announced it the night before His crucifixion: In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). The Apostle Paul repeated Jesus’ words for the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11:25). Just as the old Mosaic Covenant had been ratified with blood (Exodus 24:8), so too the new covenant – with the shed blood of Christ (Heb. 9:11-20). As the blood of animal sacrifices ratified the old covenant, so too the blood of Christ ratifies the new covenant. Paul writes that he serves under this new covenant (2 Cor. 3:5-6):

Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Literal, historical exegesis requires that we grapple with the question of how the new covenant promises to Israel fit into the experience of Christians in the Church Age. A cursory review of various views on this topic shows that this is, theologically, a ‘vexed question.’

Two very different groups have sought to circumvent the problem entirely, without success. Some dispensationalists suggest that the New Covenant in the Old Testament, made with Israel, and the new covenant in the New Testament, made with the church, are two distinct covenants.34 While this view preserves the veracity of God’s covenant promises to Israel, it is based on theological presuppositions instead of biblical exegesis. New Testament references to the new covenant are clearly based on Old Testament prophecy (Heb. 8:8).

A second group, supersessionists (‘replacement’ or ‘fulfillment’ theology) reinterpret the language of the Old Testament so that the church becomes the ‘new Israel’ and inherits its promises. But this does violence to the specific promises made to Israel, shoe-horning them into the church age. Furthermore, Romans 11 makes a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the church in God’s future program.35

The solution to this conundrum lies in recognizing some continuity or relationship, while at the same time preserving biblical distinctions. Some dispensationalists suggest that the church has no relationship to the new covenant. This view is usually associated with J.N. Darby.36 In this view, the church enjoys some similar spiritual blessings as those promised in the new covenant, but the only relationship between the church and the new covenant is that members of the church enjoy gracious, spiritual benefits by virtue of being united with Christ, the mediator of the new covenant. The only true fulfillment of the new covenant will be with Israel in the future millennial kingdom.37 A similar view is that while the New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel in the future, it is ‘enjoyed soteriologically’ by the church now.38

Progressive dispensationalists use ‘inaugurated,’ ‘already-not-yet,’ or ‘partial fulfillment’ terminology in an effort to explain the church’s participation in the new covenant.39 In this view, the church has a ‘preliminary part’ in the New Covenant, as the ‘spiritual seed’ of Abraham, but the church and Israel maintain their distinct identities.40

Leaving aside the ‘two covenant’ view, and ‘replacement theology,’ there is a common understanding that the church has some connection – enjoying ‘spiritual blessings’ or ‘spiritual benefits,’ having a ‘preliminary part’ in the New Covenant promises. Chisholm summarizes the solution well:

As foreseen by the prophets, the new covenant will be fulfilled in conjunction with the future salvation of ethnic Israel. Indeed, Romans 11:26-27 anticipates this event. However, the prophets’ focus was limited in its scope. In the progress of history and revelation, we discover that this new covenant has a broader application. Prior to the restoration of ethnic Israel, God has implemented this new covenant with the followers of Christ, who are being transformed through the gift of the divine Spirit.41

What exactly is this prophetic pre-fulfillment which the church enjoys? Hodges lists four ‘enablements’ of the New Covenant for Christians, benefits which belong “to all the regenerate of every age since the cross:” 1) an inner inclination to obey God, 2) a firm relationship with God, 3) the knowledge of God, and 4) the forgiveness of sins,42 Anderson highlights the ministry of the Holy Spirit:

By virtue of the New Covenant, we have the Holy Spirit living within us to quicken our consciences in a way unknown to the OT believer who relied more on the Law to spell out right and wrong.43

New Covenant Piety is clearly within biblical grounds in suggesting that fulfillment of New Covenant prophecies in the church provides ‘scriptural warrant’ for the view that there is ‘divine enablement’ that brings about God’s transformative activity in the life of a believer.44 But a problem surfaces in NCP’s view of the purpose of this ‘divine enablement.’

The Purpose of New Covenant Blessings for the Church

According to NCP, the purpose of the new covenant ‘divine enablement’ is to empower Christians to ‘stay in’ the covenant people, to ‘arrive at the finish line’ with our faith intact, in relationship with God so as to enter the age-to-come (heaven). Whitlark states that

both getting in and staying in under the new covenant are contingent upon God’s initiative to forgive sins and his empowerment of human faithfulness. New covenant piety then conveys the notion that post-conversion faithfulness or obedience is grounded in God’s prior and ongoing empowerment of that faithfulness or obedience. Jeremiah’s prophecy of this promised new covenant became integral to early Christian identity.45

In other words, the New Covenant blessings which have ‘preliminary fulfillment’ in the experience of church-age believers are viewed by NCP as determinative of a person’s position as a member of the ‘covenant community’ (maintaining a relationship with God, and thus ‘getting in’ to heaven). But this does not mesh with the differing natures of biblical covenants, or the purpose of the old Mosaic covenant for Israel and the new covenant blessings for the church.

The problem is the distinction between position and condition, between relationship and fellowship. There are two types of covenants in the Old Testament: Covenants of grant, like the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants, are conditioned at the outset on obedience, but once inaugurated, they are unconditional.46 The Abrahamic covenant, once inaugurated (Gen. 15), was irrevocable. Abraham’s descendants are not required to do something in order to maintain their position in the covenant people. The position or relationship between Yahweh and Israel is secure. The Davidic and New covenants, likewise, once inaugurated, were unconditional. Nothing can nullify them.

A second kind of covenant in the Old Testament is the suzerainty-vassal covenant, such as the Mosaic Covenant. This kind of covenant has no conditions at its initiation, but once it is inaugurated, it is conditioned on obedience.47 The purpose of this kind of covenant was for the realization of the blessings, for fellowship between the suzerain (God) and the vassal (Israel). It reflected their condition, not their position or relationship with God, which had been secured on the basis of the Abrahamic Covenant.

To summarize, Israel’s position as the people of God was not the issue in the Mosaic Covenant – the giving of the law; condition was. Her relationship was secure, but her fellowship, and each generation’s participation in the blessings of the covenant relationship, was not. This fellowship depended on Israel’s obedience to the law, the Old Covenant.

But this Old Covenant failed. Although good and just in its requirements, it lacked the power to overcome sin.48 The New Covenant, inaugurated and implemented at Jesus’ sacrificial atonement49, provided an irrevocable promise for Israel that she would one day enjoy the full blessings which she never could through the law (because of her inability to adhere to it). This is because God would supernaturally put His law in their minds, purify their hearts, forgive their sins, and indwell them by His Spirit. Anderson explains:

Yahweh was looking for an ideal generation which would be faithful to the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant (the suzerainty-vassal covenant). Through such a generation, He could fulfill the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He could fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant (the covenant of grant).50

He adds that

…though the fulfillment of the blessings of the grant covenants was conditioned on the obedience of a faithful generation, the promise to the line itself was unconditional after the grant had been given. The only question was which generation would be that faithful generation.51

The point is this: Neither the Old Covenant (law) or the New Covenant were given for the purpose of enabling Israel to either ‘get in’ or ‘stay in’ the covenant community (relationship or position); rather, they both pertain to condition or fellowship, to enjoying the rewards offered to the covenant people for faithfulness and obedience.

This is where NCP makes a ‘category error.’ The purpose of the New Covenant blessings for the church are not to enable people to ‘get in’ or to ‘stay in’ the covenant community (to ‘stay saved’), and in the end, to enter the age-to-come (heaven). They are to enable the faithfulness and obedience which results in present fellowship with God.

By virtue of the New Covenant, we have the Holy Spirit living within us to quicken our consciences in a way unknown to the OT believer who relied more on the Law to spell out right and wrong.52

By ignoring or misapplying the purpose of the Old Covenant Law, to provide a basis for Israel to live in covenant fellowship with Yahweh, then missing the purpose of New Covenant promises, which will bring in this fellowship, NCP incorrectly applies New Covenant spiritual blessings which are realized in the Church as being for the purpose of securing our position as Christians, instead of promoting obedience in the Christian life, and fellowship with God.

The Purpose of ‘Divine Enablement’ in the New Testament

While the ‘New Covenant’ promises in the Old Testament provide a prophetic starting-point and thematic foundation for NCP views, the moral and ethical instruction of the New Testament is its real focus. NCP finds throughout the New Testament ‘imperatives for Christian living’ following conversion which are ‘necessary for final salvation.’53 But is this understanding found in the text, or is it a theological presupposition imposed on the text? History is strewn with the ruins of theological persuasions which imposed a theological system on Scripture; “in the sea of theology many a theologian has found their ship broken up upon an a priori commitment to a theological system.”54 We therefore must ask if New Testament instances of ‘divine enablement’ are provided by God for the purpose of gaining eternal life – to ‘stay in’ the ‘people of God,’ and thus enter the age-to-come.

Go and make disciples…or go to hell? NCP theology views the imperatives of the New Testament as requirements for ultimate salvation, but denies that this is legalism, since ‘divine enablement’ (not our own efforts) make this happen. Their treatment of the Great Commission provides an apt starting point. Talbert writes,

We may begin with Matt 28:19-20. On the basis of all power being given (by God) to him…the Matthean Jesus issues a command to his followers. As you go, make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them (28:19-20a). A promise follows: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” (v. 20b). Jesus’ promise is that he will empower them so they can fulfill the mission he has just commanded them to undertake.55

No one will argue against the idea that Jesus’ promise of His presence is for the purpose of enabling the disciples to fulfill their mission to ‘make disciples of all the nations.’ Indeed, the application of Jesus’ promise to be ‘with’ believers ‘to the end of the age’ is one that provides encouragement and strength.

But what does this have to do with ‘getting in’ to heaven? Nothing. Talbert’s declaration that “grace is not a substitute for obedience to God’s will but is the enablement of it”56 reflects his own theology, but is found nowhere in Matthew. He writes:

Matthew speaks of the divine indicative, divine enablement for the whole of a disciple’s existence from its beginning unto the messianic banquet! Granted, all of this is unobtrusive, almost invisible to the eye that is focused on the surface of the plot of the Gospel.57

It is not only ‘almost invisible’ to one reading the Gospel of Matthew, it is nonexistent. Only the NCP theologian will ‘discover’ this theme which is not there.

Jesus’ prayer enabled Peter to ‘stay saved’? NCP advocates all view works as necessary for one to enter the age-to-come (to ‘go to heaven’ or experience ‘eternal life’), but they vacillate between Calvinist and Arminian positions on eternal security. Calvinists suggest that those who do not persevere were never saved in the first place (they only ‘seemed’ to be saved), while Arminians believe a person may be truly saved, then lose salvation. But while it is not clear what exactly ‘failure to persevere’ entails, all agree that apostasy results in eternal damnation. A key point within NCP teaching then is to show that God’s ‘divine enablement’ empowers a Christian to avoid apostasy, and thus ‘stay saved.’

Focusing on Luke’s writings, Arterbury highlights the danger of apostasy: Luke highlights apostasy as a very real threat for Jesus’ followers, who are between the point at which discipleship begins and the soteriological consummation. Succumbing to the temptation of apostasy then seemingly jeopardizes a disciple’s status as a member of God’s covenant people in the age-to-come. In short, in Luke’s writings, that a person begins the process of discipleship does not necessarily mean that the person will remain on that pathway to its completion.58

Arterbury then finds a solution to the danger of apostasy in a contrast between Judas and Peter, who both exhibited spiritual vulnerability in the events leading up to the cross. Why did Judas fail, while Peter survived? He suggests the answer is in Jesus’ prayer for Peter. He writes:

Both Judas and Peter are heavily influenced by Satan in Luke’s passion narrative as they betray and deny Jesus. Yet, whereas Judas apparently apostatizes, Peter perseveres as one of Jesus’ disciples. The only explanation that Luke provides…for the perseverance of Peter’s faith or faithfulness (πίστις) is found in Luke 22:32. There, Jesus’ prayer and God’s implied, though unseen, work behind the scenes are credited with enabling Peter to survive Satan’s sifting. Consequently, important soteriological and Christological implications are found in Luke 22:31-34.59

This is amazingly weak, both exegetically and theologically. Arterbury arbitrarily gives theological meaning to an event in the Lukan narrative, without any evidence in the text that this has anything to do with Peter’s eternal salvation. Lacking any contextual support, Arterbury appeals to other Lukan texts.

In the Parable of the Sower (Luke 8:4-8), he finds in the rocky and thorny soils refences to those who begin as disciples, but fail to persevere, and therefore do not enter the age-to-come.60 But the person illustrated by the rocky soil “receives the word with joy” and “believes” (Luke 8:13); the person illustrated by the thorny soil bears fruit, but it doesn’t grow to maturity (Luke 8:14). Here we have reception of the gospel, faith, and fruit! The issue in these two soils is not falling away from eternal salvation, but failing to grow spiritually. Dillow explains:

The seed which fell on rocky soil produced growth, but the person in view fell away. But from what did he fall? There is not a word about heaven and hell in the parable. There is much about fruit bearing (Luke 8:8) and progression to maturity (Luke 8:14). The most plausible interpretation of the phrase is simply to fall away from that progression which leads to maturity, to fruit bearing, and become a dead and carnal Christian.61

Arterbury next appeals to Luke 12:1-12, especially the phrase “whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God” (12:8-9), which he declares means that “if Jesus’ disciples fail to acknowledge him publicly, their status as disciples and soteriological insiders will be revoked.”62 Once again, he injects his theology into the text. Jesus never says that a person who denies him publicly on earth is not saved. Dillow again explains:

Only those Christians who acknowledge Christ now will be acknowledged by Him then. Only those Christians who are overcomers now will have their names acknowledged before the Father and His angels… But having one’s name “acknowledged” is not the same as being declared saved. Rather, it refers to the public testimony by the Son of God to the faithful life of the obedient Christian. Conversely, not having one’s name acknowledged is to forfeit the Master’s “Well done.”63

Finally, Arterbury suggests that the judgment of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11 are another Lukan example of “people who begin the discipleship process but who fail to persevere until the soteriological consummation.”64 But for a third time, Arterbury simply injects his theology into a text which has nothing to do with it. There is no indication that Ananias and Sapphira have apostatized. They have not denied Christ, or the faith; they have lied about the amount of a donation to the church. Their judgment is temporal death, not eternal hell.65

Jesus did pray for Peter, that his faith would not fail; notably, this prayer did not prevent Peter thrice denying Christ, but it was no doubt instrumental in Peter’s subsequent repentance and return to following Christ. However, there is no hint of this having anything to do with Peter’s salvation (‘staying in’); Peter is facing spiritual battle in his Christian walk, as he did later with the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2). The issue is sanctification, not salvation.

I suspect that all of us understand Peter. We have all had times when we had a chance to identify with Jesus but remained silent or denied him because we did not know what reaction might set in. We have failed in standing up for Jesus. But like Peter, we also can learn from our failures and grow.66

Clothed in order to get into heaven? Paul exhorts his readers to Christian obedience using the figure of clothing:

“…let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light… But put on Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts” (Rom. 13:12, 14). “…and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph. 4:24). “Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him… So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity” (Col. 3:9-14).

Concerning these New Testament references, NCP theologian Talbert writes:

To be clothed in Christ means to be transformed by Christ and to be enabled by Christ with Christ’s own power. Likewise Rom 13:14’s ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ is an exhortation to appropriate the enabling power within one’s participation in Christ to ‘make no provision for the flesh.’67

Taken alone, this is an excellent statement of Paul’s message: He is calling his believing audience to demonstrate their faith in Jesus Christ in their practical living. Paul uses the language of ‘putting on’ both to describe our position as believers, and to exhort us to live our lives in a way which is ‘fitting’ as believers. Galatians 3:27 states that “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” Bruce comments:

To ‘put on Christ’ is for Paul another way of expressing incorporation into him. The closest parallel to Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε here is Rom. 13:14, ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, but there believers are exhorted to do what they are here said to have done already. This indicative/imperative oscillation is not unparalleled in Paul. ‘Be what you are’, he says in effect, meaning ‘Be in ordinary practice what God’s grace has made you.’68

Bruce highlights here that when Paul uses the imperative, he is exhorting those who are already ‘saved’ to ‘be what you are.’ It is precisely at this point that NCP misappropriates Paul’s use of the ‘being clothed’ metaphor, making the indicative and the imperative both to refer to the process by which a person ‘gets in’ to the life-to-come. After his lucid statement about being ‘clothed in Christ’ cited above, Talbert confuses the issue with this conclusion:

For Paul, grace and obedience are not successive stages in religious life but are bound together in each moment as root and fruit.69

Talbert ignores the purpose of Paul’s exhortation to “put on Jesus Christ” or “put on the new self,” somehow conflating it with the position of believers as already being clothed with Christ, and extrapolating from this the idea that those who do not ‘put on Christ’ have never been clothed with Christ in the first place, or perhaps become ‘unclothed’ as a result of their lack of obedience.70 This imposition of Paul’s exhortation on eternal justification is unfounded.

Does grace (χάρις) imply the inevitability of good works? Ephesians 2:8-10 is one of the clearest summary statements of salvation-sanctification truth in Scripture:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

According to NCP theology, these verses indicate that the ‘good works’ enjoined are actually part of God’s gracious saving act. While the works are performed by the believer, they are not ‘our works’ per se, but really His. Whitlark writes:

In Eph 2:8-10, the author crystallizes the extent of God’s saving χάρις. First, in verses 8-9, the author argues that because the saints have been saved by χάρις there is no room to boast. For the saints’ salvation from first to last is not from themselves but is a gift from God. Second, in verse 10, God re-creates the Christian for good works, works that God has already prepared for them to do. God gives the Christian a nature to do good works and then provides those works for the Christian to do. From first to last, “getting in” and “staying in” are the result of God’s own doing.71

He concludes

In Ephesians, the bond between God and his elect is an expression of his χάρις. Moreover, his χάρις reaches not only to the admittance into a relationship but also the maintenance of that relationship. The saints’ perseverance in holiness, blamelessness, and love is a result of God’s inward working.72

Green writes,

Hence, we are warranted in saying that what God is doing in history is forming a people who are being more and more conformed to the image of the Son (the obedient Son), and as such God is forming a people who – since they are in union with Christ by faith alone – are themselves marked by obedience. . . the targeted outcome of the gospel is a life marked by “the obedience of faith,” the new creation good works (Eph. 2:10) wrought in believers as attendant expressions of their saving faith.73

By making both ‘faith’ and ‘good works’ God’s gracious doing, by which a person both ‘gets in’ (is ‘saved’) and ‘stays in’ (gets into the age-to-come), NCP confuses the position of a person (a justified saint) with that person’s condition (walking in or out of fellowship). In a theological ‘slight-of-hand,’ NCP makes ultimate salvation something which is attained by both faith and works, since the grace which saves includes good works which enable one to ‘stay in.’

NCP introduces two concepts into Ephesians 2:8-10 which are entirely foreign to the context. First, the idea of “staying in” (as if you can get in, then ‘drop out,’ then get back in, etc.) is found nowhere in Ephesians. Second, the idea of “maintenance” of one’s relationship with God (as if without this ‘maintenance,’ the relationship would cease to be in effect) is simply an imposition based on NCP presuppositions. There is no indication of this in the text.

What NCP theology does is confuse the goal of our salvation in this life with the faith through which we receive that salvation.74 We have been saved; this is our present position (the Greek perfect tense indicates past action with continuing present results).75 But when Paul speaks of ‘walking,’ his focus is not on our position, but our condition: Are we living our lives in a way commensurate with our position as redeemed saints? Anderson writes,

And will you notice the word “walk”? Remember we said as soon as we see the word “walk,” the focus has switched to our Condition. He “saved” us (justification) from the penalty of sin (Position) in order to have an impact on our walk (Condition). Position affects Condition. Not the other way around.76

How tragic that NCP confuses one of the clearest statements of the contrast between faith and works, and makes it include good works as a requirement for ‘getting in’ to heaven.

Receive the “word implanted” or go to hell? The epistle of James has historically been the site of soteriological shipwreck for many theologians. Luther felt it undermined salvation by faith alone, and dubbed it “an epistle of straw.”77 NCP theology has no such problems: It asserts that the moral imperatives in James are requirements for getting into heaven. Whitlark writes:

The author of James is concerned that his audience master their passions and desires. . . Thus, to lead a life that leads to eschatological salvation…one must master one’s passions and desire for worldly pleasures.78 Again, when we return to the Letter of James, this self-mastery over the passions and pleasures of this life is vital for its addressees’ realization of their eschatological hope.79 …the author states that the recipients of his letter need wisdom in order to successfully navigate the various trials of their faith so that they will receive eschatological salvation… It must be asked for from God and given by God for the Christian to become “perfect, not lacking anything,” that is, for the Christian to realize his or her eschatological hopes.80 James…uniquely articulates the necessity of a gospel-empowered life from beginning to end for the realization of eschatological salvation.81

How is it possible to require mastering passions and worldly temptations, and being ‘perfect, not lacking anything’ to get into heaven, without undermining salvation by grace through faith alone?82 NCP finds the solution in “the word implanted” (ἔμφυτος λόγος; James 1:21), which fulfills the new covenant promise of Jeremiah. Whitlark writes:

…the implanted word in James conveys the notion of divine enablement, a notion that was especially suited for articulating the hope of divine enablement for faithfulness promised in the new covenant of Jeremiah.83 The ἔμφυτος λόγος makes the imperatives of James possible. . . ἔμφυτος λόγος in Jas 1:21 is a motif of enablement grounded in inward transformation experienced through the gospel proclamation.84 That same deposit of truth that brought the community life also continues to reside in the members of the community to sustain them in their journey to eschatological joy.85

Since the moral imperatives of James are ‘enabled’ by the new covenant “implanted word” which is ‘written on their hearts’ (Jer. 31:33), they aren’t good works the believer must do, but God-enabled good works which come with the new covenant piety.

There are two conceptual flaws in this reasoning. First, Jeremiah prophesied that the new covenant people of God would not need to teach God’s commandments, because the law would be written on their hearts, and that all would know the Lord (Jer. 31:33-34). If this is true of every Christian who enters heaven (presumably many in James’ audience), why does James need to enumerate such teachings? Why does he tell his audience to ‘bridle their tongues’ and “visit orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:26-27)? Why does he warn Christians not to speak against each other (James 4:11)? Why does he exhort Christians to “draw near to God, and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8)? The idea that “the word implanted” is the prophesied new covenant blessing of Jeremiah simply does not fit. NCP reduces the promised spiritual transformation of Jeremiah 31 from a miraculous divine reality to an uncertain human possibility which is dependent on our response to moral imperatives.

Second, James 1:21 is itself a moral imperative. James is not announcing a spiritual reality of a ‘new covenant’ blessing, but rather exhorting his readers to receive something. The Greek term δέξασθε is an aorist middle imperative, commanding the action as a whole: “receive (for yourselves) the implanted word.”86 Reception of this word is preceded by “putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness,” and the one receiving the word must do so “in humility.” This is not a cryptic reference to a new covenant promise, but a call for believers to embrace God’s Word, through which they had been saved (James 1:18).

That Word, James notes in passing, is implanted (emphytos: “inborn”). In context, it is reasonable to take this as a reference to the readers’ new birth (v18), which was effected by the word of truth. Like a seed implanted within them, the Word had imparted new life to them. It was thus an “inborn” Word which was natural and innate to them as born-again people. Now these Christians should receive the instruction of God’s Word…87

By forcing a theological grid into a context entirely foreign to it, NCP transforms what is a vibrant exhortation to believers to humbly listen to God’s truth and obey it (James 1:22) into a cryptic promise of an internal divine enablement which may result in them one day making it into heaven. It is hard to imagine an interpretation more foreign to James’ intended message.

What must we ‘supply’ in order to gain eternal life? In 2 Peter 1:5-11, the apostle lists virtues which the Christian (“in our faith”) should “supply”: moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. At the end of this list, he declares that “if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v.8). The one who lacks these qualities, however, is “blind or short-sighted” (v.9). This leads to an admonition: “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you…” (v.10).

NCP asserts that possessing and increasing in the virtues listed by Peter are requirements for final salvation:

The necessity of progressing in the virtues in order to participate in the fulfillment of God’s promises in the age-to-come is made explicit by the two adverbial, present tense participles of verse 8, both of which are to be construed as continuous and conditional in force: “if [these things] are yours and if they are increasing… If the virtues, represented as a whole, are not increasing, they do not exist.88 The existence of the virtues of verses 5-7 is the very definition of the godly life by which one will participate in the final establishment of the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ.89 Not to increase in “these things,” therefore, would mean…that one had not, in fact, encountered the divine glory, here identified explicitly with Christ, that brings about this conversion-knowledge in the first place.90

But while Peter surely emphasizes the importance of his readers increasing in the listed virtues, it is never stated that this will determine their eternal destiny. NCP has injected this into the context, making it say something Peter never says. Peter’s focus is not on ‘getting in to the age-to-come’ (which is never doubted), but on his readers ‘growing up’ spiritually (see 3:17-18). Applying these virtues to life causes the Christian to be “neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8). The Christian who fails to apply these virtues is “blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins” (1:9). Only a completely a priori reading into the text of NCP theology will find it there. Kistemaker writes:

If we possess these eight virtues, says Peter, and if they continue to increase, we are reaping an abundant harvest. . . . The consequence of this development is that we are not ineffective and unproductive in our spiritual lives (refer to Gal. 6:10). We are busy applying these virtues and thus witness their visible results. When we are innefective, we are idle; and when we fail to be productive, we are useless in society (compare Mark 4:19). Such is not the case when all our virtues increase and bear fruit, especially in reference to our knowledge of Christ. Peter unfolds a favorite theme in this epistle: “Grow in the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord” (1:2,3,8; 3:18). As parents want to see their infants gain weight, so Peter desires our spiritual growth in knowing Jesus more and more.91

Hodges further explains:

Peter was certainly a spiritual realist even if many modern theologians are not. He does not take for granted that spiritual growth will occur automatically or inevitably. Indeed, the character development he thinks of cannot occur apart from the believer giving all diligence toward that end (v.5). This does not mean that the believer does this all on his own. God supplies the basic resources and provides help along the way. But Christian growth will not occur apart from our diligent participation in the process.92

It is notable that Hafemann, in presenting the NCP interpretation of 2 Peter 1, ends his focus at v.10a: “Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about his calling and choosing you…” Although he never exegetes this phrase, his assumption is that it, like the entire passage, refers to the believer’s entry into heaven:

…as 2 Peter emphasizes, those within the covenant must now maintain a life of sustained obedience in order to inherit its promises, at the heart of which is entrance into the eternal kingdom itself.93

But does the phrase “make certain about his calling and choosing you” mean “make sure that you will eventually enter the age-to come” (go to heaven)? Nothing in the context says this, and much in the context mitigates against it. As noted above, Peter is interested in promoting spiritual growth and fruitfulness, not in determining their eternal hope. Immediately preceding this phrase, Peter indicates that these readers have been cleansed from their sins (1:9b). When the reality of our position as forgiven saints is combined with the call to pursue Christian virtues, the meaning becomes clear. Dillow summarizes:

To “make [our] calling and election sure” means to guarantee by adding to our faith the character qualities in 2 Peter 1:5-7 that our calling and election will achieve their intended aim. . . . We have been called to be holy and that we might be obedient (1 Peter 1:1-2), and that we might proclaim His name (1 Peter 2:9). . . . The aim of our calling and election is holiness in this life, perseverance in suffering, and inheriting a blessing in the life to come.94

That this is Peter’s meaning is clinched by verses 10b-11. Those who “practice these things” (the virtues of 1:5-7) avoid stumbling (spiritually) in this life (v.10b), and obtain an “abundant” entrance into the eternal kingdom (“entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you,” v.11). The word “abundantly” is from the Greek adverb πλουσίως, which denotes an enhanced quality of entry. Hodges writes:

Salvation from hell is not in view. Heavenly reward is the real theme. The holy and fruitful lifestyle of vv3-8 can be a demonstration – a verification – that an individual Christian has not only been “called”, but actually “chosen”, for great reward in God’s future kingdom.95

Conclusion. NCP’s essential tenet, that the blessings of the new covenant are presented in the New Testament as the basis for a requirement of God-elicited works in order for a believer to ‘stay in’ the people of God and ultimately enter the age-to-come (heaven), is not exegetically sound. A perusal of passages appealed to by NCP theologians suggests that they have arrived at their conclusions before coming to the text. Rather than inductively studying Scripture (going from observation to interpretation), the foregoing illustrations demonstrate that they deductively read NCP theology into it.

Additional examples could be cited, but a pattern of hermeneutical error is evident throughout. Like wearing rose-colored glasses makes everything look rosy, NCP theologians read every New Testament text through “new covenant” glasses; it is not surprising that they see “new covenant piety as a ubiquitous element of the NT corpus.”96 But like cultists with blinders to any truth outside the matrix within which they exist, NCP obscures, instead of elucidating, the true meaning of New Testament texts.

NCP, Legalism, and Synergism

Promoters of NCP soteriology are consumed with avoiding the accusations of legalism and synergism.97 The constant appeal to “divine assistance” functions as a sort of ‘get-out-of-synergism-prison’ card for NCP: If there is some ‘divine enablement’ which assists a believer in producing the good works required for one to ‘get into the age-to-come,’ then – we are told – those good works are not really ours, but God’s, hence there is no legalism. The Christian does not produce good works; God produces the good works. Talbert states it bluntly: “Christ does the good works of Christians.”98 As Anderson observes:

When challenged on what appears to be a very works-laden orientation to salvation, they just retreat to Philippians 2:13 (meaning God does these works so it is not synergism).99

But NCP writers are not able to sustain this distinction; indeed, the effort to meld salvation by grace with the requirement of works to “get in to the age-to-come” implodes on itself. Three logical fallacies prove fatal to NCP.

First, no matter how many forms of ‘divine enablement’ NCP theologians identify in the New Testament, or how much ‘help’ is provided to the Christian to live an obedient life, the fact remains that it is the believer who must do the good works, or suffer eternal damnation.

No one will suggest that God does not provide assistance to the Christian. The attendant blessings of the Christian life, including the Holy Spirit’s ministry, prayer, fellowship, or the Word (to mention just a few), are real and necessary to spiritual growth and vitality. But all these blessings notwithstanding, the Christian is still commanded to obey. NCP theologians seem to think they are alone in recognizing the existence of ‘divine enablement’ in Scripture. They are not. And the commands to obey, even with God’s help, still require human response.

In ‘unguarded’ moments, NCP theologians reveal the same ‘legalistic’ or ‘synergistic’ tendencies which they criticize in NPP. For example, Hafemann writes:

If “getting in” the covenant is a matter of God’s unconditional grace, “staying in” is clearly conditional, being based on keeping the covenant stipulations.100

Green admits, “It seems clear that at least in some sense our destiny is linked to what we do in this life.”101

This results in logically confounding statements, such as: …the promises of eschatological deliverance in the future are conditioned on increasing obedience in the present. . . The inheritance of God’s promises, which is granted unconditionally, is conditional on persevering in the obedient life of faith that God’s provision and promises themselves create.102 God is a God who saves by grace, expects his people to obey him, and moves his people to obey him. This obedience can be “necessary” without compromising in the least an affirmation of the radical grace of God.103

Statements such as these amount to the theological equivalent of a ‘square circle.’ When that which is “unconditional” is “conditional,” and ‘necessary obedience’ is wedded to ‘grace,’ terms have lost their meaning, and we are playing word-games. NCP cannot hide behind “divine enablement” and pretend they are not synergistic.

Second, God never fails, but in NCP, there is the possibility of failure. To reiterate, NCP declares that in their system, a person ‘gets in’ to the covenant community by grace, ‘remains in’ the covenant community by grace, and ‘gets into the age-to-come’ by grace.104 But ‘staying in’ and ‘getting in to the age-to-come’ are not a foregone conclusion for the one who gets in to the covenant community. Whitlark states that the Christian, in the struggle against sin, has the resources, power, and possibility to be victorious.105 But the possibility of making it to heaven means there is also the possibility that the person will not make it. While the Christian may enter the age-to-come, he may not. No matter how this is framed, the picture is unchanged: A person’s final destiny is dependent on both God’s grace, and good works he or she performs subsequent to conversion, and this is synergism.

Third, any failure on the part of the Christian is not God’s fault! Unless NCP theologians are prepared to say that God’s grace fails, they must accept that the believer who ‘gets in’ to the covenant community, but not into the age-to-come, failed to appropriate the ‘divine enablement’ which was at his disposal. In other words, it is his failure to produce the necessary good works which result in his eternal condemnation. God’s grace provided sufficient ‘divine enablement’ (He did His part), but the Christian failed to appropriate it (he did not do his part). This is the definition of synergism.

NCP theologians begin with ‘getting in’ by faith, but by making good works a necessary result of ‘true saving faith,’ by which a person finally gets in to heaven, they pollute their whole doctrine of salvation with the poison of legalism. Dillow exposes this succinctly:

Here we can lay down a self-evident principle: a necessary result for which we are responsible which must be present for another result to occur is no different than an additional condition for the achievement of that second result. . . . There is no difference between a result for which we are responsible and a condition!106 If the works are a necessary result of faith and if a person cannot be saved without them, then the works are in fact a condition for and a cause of salvation, and the person is responsible to save himself. If they are not present, he will perish. Necessary results for which we are responsible are the same as conditions.107

Practical Implications of NCP Soteriology

Those who espouse NCP no doubt feel that by emphasizing the necessity of good works for entry into the age-to-come, and the divine enablement that makes such good works feasible, they are providing practical motivation and encouragement for believers to live godly, obedient lives. Green even accuses those who do not include ‘good works’ in their soteriology (include a requirement that true believers must ‘behave as covenant people’) as tacitly promoting license:

…certain understandings of salvation, and of justification in particular, can, if one is not careful, lead to an unbiblical passivity. Thus it would appear that some, with a commendable passion to guard the objective nature of justification (i.e. Christ has done, outside us, what is necessary for our justification), are unable to speak meaningfully about the subjective change wrought in the believer.108

Green’s charge is valid to a point: Some wrongly construe that justification by faith alone makes subsequently indulging in sin inconsequential. Paul’s rhetorical question (and answer) in Romans 6:1-2 confronts this notion: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!” Any who would suggest that ‘justification by grace alone through faith alone’ means that holiness of life is unimportant have missed the point of the bulk of scriptural teaching.

But Green (and all NCP theologians) fail to realize the full effect of their doctrine, and ignore the true biblical motivation for a Christian to live a godly, obedient life.

The motivation for God’s people to obey God’s law and pursue holiness, both in the Old and New Testaments, is not to ‘enter the age to come,’ but to enjoy blessings of the relationship they have entered into by faith, and receive eschatological rewards which God will give after this life.109 Failure to include the motivation for blessing and rewards which pervades Scripture forces NCP theologians to make good works a determining factor in whether a person will go to heaven or hell.

Further, NCP theologians are blind to the destructive erosion to a life of faithfulness which results when a believer lives in constant doubt as to whether he or she will ‘persevere’ to the end in such a way as to finally ‘get in’ to the age-to-come. No reader will find any comfort in ‘divine enablement’ when there is no assurance that such divine enablement is actually coming. If there is no assurance of salvation at the moment of faith – if eternal destiny is determined only at the final judgment of our works, and we cannot know until then if we will ‘pass’ the test, the result is uncertainty and despair.

Finally, the undefined “change” which must be “wrought in the believer” to signify that he or she is “truly saved” is self-defeating. Exactly what is required? Who can say? After all, didn’t Jesus say, “Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48)? If this is a requirement for one to eventually attain entry into the age-to-come, who can ever get into heaven?110

A glaring omission from NCP writings is any focus on assurance of salvation. No wonder. In a system which makes ‘divinely enabled’ and undefined ‘good works’ the determining factor in whether or not a person will ultimately enter heavenly bliss, there is no assurance or security. Green confidently asserts,

…the cross unleashes a power that leads to the transformation of God’s people (a transformation that includes the manifestation of works, obedience and faithfulness. . . . Our works, obedience and faithfulness flow from his work on our behalf… …what Christ has done for us leads to a change in us, which includes the manifestation of works, obedience and faithfulness.111

But this has the sound of a television preacher confidently proclaiming the power of faith to heal sickness or provide wealth. The reality of the Christian life is often better reflected by admissions like these of the Apostle Paul:

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. . . . I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (Romans 1:18-24)

Even near the end of his life, the Apostle could refer to himself as “the foremost of all” sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). While no one debates that Paul manifested “works, obedience and faithfulness,” making one’s eternal destiny dependent on a vague estimation of attaining a sufficient number of these works cannot help but erode any assurance.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, NCP theology fails from beginning to end. Its theological foundation, the New Covenant promises realized in the present age, are wrongly applied to the position of Christians (whether or not they are ultimately saved), instead of to their condition (whether or not they are in fellowship). This category error extends throughout NCP.

As a result, their interpretation of New Testament passages injects the question of one’s eternal destiny into every imperative, and ends up being rife with legalism and synergism, even though they seek to avoid this by appealing to ‘divine enablement.’ The practical result of this bad theology and bad exposition is predictable: Insecurity, doubt, and uncertainty.

---

FOOTNOTES

1. It is not in the scope of this paper to discuss views of history, and their effect on and relevance to contemporary theology. For the Calvinist dependence on historical Reformation roots, see Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), Chapter 1, “Not the ‘Faith Alone’ of the Reformation,” 27-39. For a cogent exposé of the faulty foundation upon which Calvinist soteriology rests, see Ken Wilson, “A Theological and Historical Investigation,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology (Grace Theology Press, 2017), 33-65
2. Often attributed to Martin Luther, but see John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, 6th Session, Canon 11. Online: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html. For a defense of this slogan, see Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology, 35-38; for a response, see Fred R. Lybrand, Back to Faith (Xulon, 2009).
3. Grudem, Free Grace” Theology, 28.
4. See David R. Anderson, “The Faith That Saves,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology (Grace Theology Press, 2017), 74.
5. As an example, see Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment: Works, Obedience and Faithfulness in the Christian Life (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), pp. 55-76.
6. Matthew W. Bates, Salvation By Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017); Alan P. Stanley, Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006); Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “By Faith, Not By Sight:” Paul and the Order of Salvation (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2006); Paul A. Rainbow, The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2005). For a trenchant indictment of the departure of Gaffin and Rainbow from historic Reformation doctrine, see Mark W. Karlberg, “Book Reviews,” JETS 50, No.2 (June, 2007), 423-28.
7. NASV (unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Version). The NKJV (Majority Text) here adds: But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
8. NCP should not be confused with ‘New Covenant Theology’ (NCT); authors cited in this paper seem to have gone out of their way to never identify with NCT. However, there are some similarities between the two. In particular, in agreement with NCT, NCP seems to forge a path between traditional Covenant theology and Dispensationalism, views the NT as having interpretive priority over the OT, focuses almost entirely on the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants, and sees the New Covenant being fulfilled in the church. See Dennis M. Swanson, “Introduction to New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 149-163; William D. Barrick, “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 165-180; Larry D. Pettegrew, “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 181-199; Michael J. Vlach, “New Covenant Theology Compared with Covenantalism,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 201-219.
9. Jason A. Whitlark, “Introduction,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), 3-4
10. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, pp.17-18.
11. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
12. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp.17, 424.
13. Sanders, 422; Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p.14.
14. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p. 2.
15. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p. 2.
16. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p. 3.
17. Ibid.
18. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p. 32.
19. Michael Horton pulls no punches, bluntly equating covenantal nomism with synergism (Michael Horton, “Traditional Reformed View,” in James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds., Justification: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), pp.106-7). In his response to Horton in this volume, NPP theologian James D.G. Dunn reacts strongly to this connection, suggesting that the criticism is not without merit (see pp.121-22). See also Whitlark, “Introduction,” p.3.
20. N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 96.
21. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.14.
22. Michael W. Martin, “Salvation, Grace, and Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), pp. 119-20.
23. Timo Laato, Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 115; Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 161-62; Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.29.
24. Charles H. Talbert, “Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 97.
25. Whitlark, “Introduction,” pp.3-4.
26. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p.54 (see also pp. 167-68).
27. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p. 31.
28. Ibid., p.34.
29. Dr. Ken Wilson adroitly summarizes this view, adapting the classic Calvinist maxim: “Faith alone justifies, but the faith that glorifies is not alone.” See David R. Anderson, “The Faith that Saves,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology (Grace Theology Press, 2017), p. 19.
30. While this paper focuses specifically on ‘new covenant piety’ soteriology, its essential idea that the requirement of good works does not undermine the doctrine of justification by faith because these works are ‘divinely enabled’ is reflected in Roman Catholic, Reformed Calvinist, and Arminian soteriological statements. A Catholic publication states, “We cannot ‘earn’ our salvation through good works, but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life” (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth (San Diego: Catholic Answers, 1993), p.23). Calvinist John MacArthur writes, “Furthermore, we are protected through faith. Our continued faith in Christ is the instrument of God’s sustaining work. God didn’t save us apart from faith, and He doesn’t keep us apart from faith. Our faith is God’s gift, and through His protecting power He preserves it and nurtures it. The maintenance of our faith is as much His work as every other aspect of salvation” (John MacArthur, Faith Works (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), p. 185). Jacobus Arminius wrote that “those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith…possess sufficient powers to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies, – yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit” (James and William Nichols, The Works of James Arminius (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, reprint 1999), vol. 1, p. 664).
31. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, rev. ed. (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2003), pp. 404-5.
32. Rodney Decker, “New Covenant, Theology of the” in Mal Couch, Gen. Ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996), p. 278.
33. Decker, p. 279. Many more New Covenant eschatological blessings for Israel are found throughout the OT.
34. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. 7, pp. 98-99. See Rodney Decker, “New Covenant, Dispensational Views of the,” in Mal Couch, Gen. Ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996), p. 281.
35. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2002), p. 196. Whether or not any or all NCP theologians hold to ‘replacement theology’ is not clear, and not explicitly addressed in NCP teaching. However, by ignoring any national ethnic fulfillment, and when discussing Jeremiah 31, moving immediately from prophecy to “Israel and Judah” to fulfillment in Christian experience, there is an appearance of replacement theology, and it sometimes ‘bubbles to the surface.’ One NCP theologian writes that “the church has superseded Israel as God’s people” (Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 207.
36. The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby, 34 vols. (Sunbury, Pennsylvania: Believers Bookshelf, Reprint 1971), vol.25, p.370. John Master is a modern advocate of a position similar to Darby’s. See Rodney Decker, “New Covenant, Dispensational Views of the,” pp. 281-82.
37. Elliott Johnson, A Dispensational Biblical Theology (Allen, TX: Bold Grace Academic, 2016) takes this view, or something very similar to it. The “ratification” of the New Covenant occurred at Christ’s death (p. 327); believers are “benefactors” through their reception of the gospel (p. 25). “At the return of Christ, the New Covenant will be inaugurated with Israel” (p. 495).
38. Homer A. Kent, Jr, “The New Covenant and the Church,” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (Fall, 1985): 289-298. Rodney Decker, “New Covenant, Dispensational Views of the,” pp. 282.
39. Rodney Decker, “New Covenant, Dispensational Views of the,” pp. 283.
40. J. Paul Tanner, “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, 2 vols. (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 2:1063: “Though inaugurated at the Cross, it would be best to think of the New Covenant as being progressively fulfilled, since there is still an aspect of it that awaits fulfillment with Israel as a nation.”
41. Chisholm, p. 196.
42. Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2 vols. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983), p. 800. It is interesting that Hodges uses the favorite word of NCP writers, ‘enablement,’ to describe the New Covenant benefits which Christians enjoy.
43. David R. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, rev. ed. (Grace Theology Press, 2012), p. 238.
44. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p. 7; Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p. 32.
45. Jason A. Whitlark, “Introduction,” pp. 3-4 (italics added).
46. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, 140-46.
47. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, pp. 140-46.
48. A fact NCP admits; see Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p. 31.
49. Chisholm, p. 196.
50. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, p. 145.
51. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, p. 144.
52. Anderson, Free Grace Soteriology, p. 238.
53. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p. 3 writes, “The fundamental questions asked here are: (1) How is post-conversion faithfulness or ‘staying in’ the covenant relationship so as to experience eschatological salvation understood by the various NT texts? And (2) do these Christian texts…[support] a new covenant piety (divine enablement) for staying in the covenant relationship?” His answer to the second question is ‘yes’ (cf. pp. 4-8).
54. Fred Chay, John P. Correia, The Faith that Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012), p.11.
55. Charles H. Talbert, “Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 115.
56. Talbert, “Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology,” p. 97.
57. Talbert, “Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology,” p. 118.
58. Andrew E. Arterbury, “ ‘I Have Prayed for You’: Divine Enablement in the Gospel of Luke,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 156. Arterbury cites Arminian I. Howard Marshall here, perhaps resulting in his Arminian-sounding suggestion that a once-saved person may end up ‘unsaved’.
59. Andrew E. Arterbury, p. 155.
60. Andrew E. Arterbury, p. 157.
61. Joseph C. Dilliow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings (Grace Theology Press, 2013), p. 535. See Charles C. Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship (Grace Theology Press, 2015), pp. 87-89.
62. Andrew E. Arterbury, p. 157. Cryptic terminology like “soteriological insiders” is common in NCP writings, since bluntly declaring that failure to acknowledge Jesus publicly condemns one to hell is too pejorative. Bock (Darrell L. Bock, Luke: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), p. 338) seeks to equate ‘acknowledging Christ’ with “choosing to believe in Jesus,” but this does not match the meaning of either ὁμολογέω (acknowledge, confess; v.8) or ἀρνέομαι (deny; v.9).
63. Joseph C. Dilliow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 687. See Bing, Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship, pp. 78-80.
64. Andrew E. Arterbury, p. 158.
65. At the very least, we concur with Bruce: “It is idle to ask if Ananias and Sapphira were genuine believers or not. …we cannot be sure that they were not, unless we are prepared to say that no one who is guilty of an act of deliberate deceit can be a true Christian. The fear which fell upon the whole community suggests that many a member of it had reason to tremble and say to himself, ‘There, but for the grace of God, go I.’” F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), p. 115.
66. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: The NIV Application Commentary, p. 564.
67. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.33.
68. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 186.
69. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.34.
70. Talbert seems to lean toward the Arminian idea that one loses salvation by failure to live an obedient life. “One may be a part of God’s people by grace, but in order to stay in the people and in order to enter into the age-to-come, one must obey the law. Obedience is the condition for eschatological salvation” (Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.14). Hafemann, in contrast, takes the Calvinist view: “though based on God’s eternal election and sure promises, the command to make one’s calling and election firm cannot be down-sized to an exercise in subjective assurance… …the promises of eschatological deliverance in the future are conditioned on increasing obedience in the present” (Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation: The Theological Logic of 2 Peter 1:8-10a,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 261.
71. Jason A. Whitlark, “Enabling Χάρις: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 53.
72. Jason A. Whitlark, “Enabling Χάρις: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians,” p.56.
73. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p. 143, italics his. With similar ‘theological dexterity,’ Green also suggests that since the gospel requires one to believe, “it is impossible to say that command, or law, is excluded from the message of the gospel” (Covenant and Commandment, p. 61).
74. “The words διὰ πίστεως, “through faith,” denote the subjective means by which one is saved.” Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002), p.340.
75. Hoehner, Ephesians, p. 341.
76. David R. Anderson, Position and Condition: An Exposition of the Book of Ephesians (Grace Theology Press, 2017), p. 56.
77. Martin Luther, “Preface to the New Testament,” in Word and Sacrament, ed. Theodor Bachman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 35:362.
78. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), p. 199.
79. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 200.
80. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 200-201.
81. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 215.
82. Whitlark even suggests that “getting enmeshed in business affairs” (James 4:13-17) is a way in which the lure of wealth leads Christians down a path “that ultimately ends in the failure to achieve eschatological salvation.” Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 204-05.
83. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 195.
84. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 197.
85. Jason A. Whitlark, “’Έμφυτος Λόγος,” p. 202.
86. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), pp. 421, 485.
87. Zane C. Hodges, The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing (Irving, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994), p.40.
88. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 244-45.
89. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 246.
90. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 248.
91. Simon J. Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, New Testament Commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 253-54.
92. Zane C. Hodges, Second Peter: Shunning Error in Light of the Savior’s Return (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2015), p. 26.
93. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 242.
94. Joseph C. Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 461.
95. Zane C. Hodges, Second Peter: Shunning Error in Light of the Savior’s Return, p.32.
96. Jason A. Whitlark, “Introduction,” p.8.
97. This is evident in the number of pejorative references to these ‘isms, usually aimed at NPP (which is referred to as “legalistic nomism”), in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”; see pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
98. Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists.” p. 29.
99. David R. Anderson, “The Role of Repentance in Salvation,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology (Grace Theology Press, 2017), p. 106.
100. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 259-60 (italics his).
101. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p. 33.
102. Scott J. Hafemann, “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation,” pp. 261 (italics his).
103. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p. 68.
104. Charles H. Talbert, “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” p.12.
105. Jason A. Whitlark, “Enabling Χάρις: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians,” p.53 (italics mine).
106. Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992), p. 233.
107. Joseph C. Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, p. 596.
108. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p.62.
109. On eternal rewards, see Joseph C. Dillow, Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings, and “The Doctrine of Rewards” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology (Grace Theology Press, 2017), 311-45; R. T. Kendall, When God Says “Well Done” (Christian Focus Publications, 1993); Bruce Wilkinson, A Life God Rewards (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2002); Erwin W. Lutzer, Your Eternal Reward (Chicago: Moody Press, 1998); Robert N. Wilkin, The Road to Reward (Irving, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2003); Kenneth F. Dodson, The Prize of the Up-Calling (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1989; Robert Govett, Reward According to Works (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1989), and Joe L. Wall, Going for the Gold (Xulon, 1995); Randy Alcorn, The Law of Rewards (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1989; Zane C. Hodges, The Hungry Inherit (Dallas, Texas: Redención Viva, 1997).
110. John MacArthur calls the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus’ quote is found, “pure gospel.” John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Gospel According to Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988), p.179.
111. Bradley G. Green, Covenant and Commandment, p.91.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Alcorn, Randy. The Law of Rewards. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1989.
• Anderson, David R. Free Grace Soteriology, rev. ed. Grace Theology Press, 2012.
• ________. “The Faith That Saves,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Grace Theology Press, 2017, pp. 67-87.
• ________. “The Role of Repentance in Salvation,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Grace Theology Press, 2017, pp. 89-119.
• ________. Position and Condition: An Exposition of the Book of Ephesians. Grace Theology Press, 2017.
• Arterbury, Andrew E. “‘I Have Prayed for You’: Divine Enablement in the Gospel of Luke,” in
• Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 155-75.
• Barrick, William D. “New Covenant Theology and the Old Testament Covenants,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 165-180.
• Bates, Matthew W. Salvation By Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of
• Jesus the King. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2017.
• Beilby, James K. and Eddy, Paul Rhodes, eds. Justification: Five Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
• Bing, Charles C. Grace, Salvation, and Discipleship. Grace Theology Press, 2015.
• Bock, Darrell L. Luke: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.
• Bruce, F.F. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.
• ________. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
• Calvin, John. Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote, 6th Session, Canon 11, online at https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html.
• Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.
• Chay, Fred, ed. A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Grace Theology Press, 2017.
• Chay, Fred and Correia, John P. The Faith that Saves: The Nature of Faith in the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.
• Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. Handbook on the Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2002.
• Couch, Mal, Gen. Ed. Dictionary of Premillennial Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996.
• Darby, J. N. The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby, 34 vols. Sunbury, Pennsylvania: Believers Bookshelf, Reprint 1971.
• Decker, Rodney. “New Covenant, Theology of the,” in Mal Couch, Gen. Ed., Dictionary of
• Premillennial Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996, pp. 278-80.
• ________. “New Covenant, Dispensational Views of the,” in Mal Couch, Gen. Ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1996, pp. 280-83.
• Dillow, Joseph C. Final Destiny: The Future Reign of the Servant Kings. Grace Theology Press, 2013.
• ________. “The Doctrine of Rewards” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Grace Theology Press, 2017, pp. 311-45
• ________. The Reign of the Servant Kings (Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.
• Dodson, Kenneth F. The Prize of the Up-Calling. Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1989.
• Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic
• Events, rev. ed. San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2003.
• Gaffin, Richard B. Jr. “By Faith, Not By Sight:” Paul and the Order of Salvation. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2006.
• Govett, Robert. Reward According to Works. Miami Springs, Florida: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1989.
• Green, Bradley G. Covenant and Commandment: Works, Obedience and Faithfulness in the Christian Life. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
• Grudem, Wayne. “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
• Hafemann, Scott J. “The (Un)Conditionality of Salvation: The Theological Logic of 2 Peter 1:8- 10a,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of
• Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 240-62.
• Hodges, Zane C. “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 2 vols. Edited by John F.
• Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1983. Vol. 2, pp. 777-813.
• ________. The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing. Irving, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994.
• ________. Second Peter: Shunning Error in Light of the Savior’s Return. Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2015.
• ________. The Hungry Inherit. Dallas, Texas: Redención Viva, 1997.
• Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002.
• Johnson, Elliott. A Dispensational Biblical Theology. Allen, TX: Bold Grace Academic, 2016.
• Karlberg, Mark W. “Book Reviews,” JETS 50, No.2 (June, 2007), 423-28.
• Kendall, R. T. When God Says “Well Done”. Christian Focus Publications, 1993.
• Kent, Homer A. “The New Covenant and the Church,” Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (Fall, 1985), pp. 289-298.
• Kistemaker, Simon J. Peter and Jude, New Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1987.
• Laato, Timo. Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 115. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995.
• Luther, Martin. “Preface to the New Testament,” in Word and Sacrament. Ed. Theodor Bachman. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960.
• Lutzer, Erwin W. Your Eternal Reward. Chicago: Moody Press, 1998.
• Lybrand, Fred R. Back to Faith: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence. Xulon Press, 2009.
• MacArthur, John. Faith Works. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.
• ________. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1988.
• Martin, Michael W. “Salvation, Grace, and Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New
• Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 119-54.
• Nichols, James and William. The Works of James Arminius. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, reprint 1999.
• Pettegrew, Larry D. “The New Covenant and New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 181-199.
• Rainbow, Paul A. The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2005.
• Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
• Stanley, Alan P. Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? The Role of Works in Salvation in the Synoptic Gospels. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2006.
• Swanson, Dennis M. “Introduction to New Covenant Theology,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 149-163.
• Tanner, J. Paul. “The Epistle to the Hebrews,” in The Grace New Testament Commentary, 2 vols. Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010. Vol. 2, pp. 1031-1098.
• Talbert, Charles H. and Whitlark, Jason A. Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011.
• Talbert, Charles H. “Indicative and Imperative in Matthean Soteriology,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 95-118.
• ________. “Paul, Judaism, and the Revisionists,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark,
• Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011), pp. 11-34.
• Vlach, Michael J. “New Covenant Theology Compared with Covenantalism,” TMSJ 18/1 (Fall 2007), pp. 201-219.
• Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Xulon, 1995.
• Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
• Whitlark, Jason A. “’Έμφυτος Λόγος: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James,” in Charles
• H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 195-215.
• ________. “Enabling Χάρις: Transformation of the Convention of Reciprocity by Philo and in Ephesians,” in Charles H. Talbert and Jason A. Whitlark, Getting “Saved”: The Whole
• Story of Salvation in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011, pp. 35-57.
• Wilkin, Robert N. The Road to Reward. Irving, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2003.
• Wilkinson, Bruce. A Life God Rewards. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2002.
• Wilson, Ken. “A Theological and Historical Investigation,” in Fred Chay, ed., A Defense of Free Grace Theology. Grace Theology Press, 2017.
• Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=15 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

A genuine conversion experience has as its primary characteristic a divine illumination of the sinner’s conscience brought about by a supernatural message: The Gospel, from a supernatural book: The Bible. The primary focus of the devil’s energies on this earth is to keep the supernatural light of the gospel from impacting upon the darkened conscience of those who have never believed.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

One tool that the devil has developed to allow people to go through life religious but unconverted are man-made clichés. Man-made clichés like “ask Jesus into your heart”, “surrender to Christ” or “ask for forgiveness” are just a few of the many man-made clichés which people can perform, apart from illuminating power of the gospel, upon which they believe they can hang the eternal destinies of their souls. They are things that people can DO, instead of hearing and believing a messaging concerning something that the Lord Jesus has already DONE concerning their sins.

In considering the event which causes people to pass from death unto life, there is no substitute for the illuminating power of the gospel impacting a receptive human conscience to illuminate a person to the point of being able to believe unto life. No man-made clichéd response to God will EVER substitute for such an event in a person’s life. It is only the illuminating power of a properly articulated gospel impacting a sinner’s receptive conscience which can function as the illuminating power of God unto salvation.

Do not fall for one of the devil’s counterfeit conversions. Seek out a place where you will hear the gospel, exposure your heart to its supernatural power and believe it. There is no other way to pass from death unto life.

Romans 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=14 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

A false premise is an underlying error which serves as the basis of an argument or discussion. In Matthew chapter 19:16 the Lord is met with a rich man who starts off a discussion with the Lord with a question based upon a false premise:

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

The Lord immediately points out the false premise of this original question, a clarification which apparently nobody catches (either then or today).

Matthew 19:17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Notice here the Lord immediately blows the false premise out of the water: “No one is good but One, that is God” From this point on, the Lord decides to continue the discussion with the rich man in order to point out the absurdity of the false premise of the original question which was, “what good thing SHALL I DO that I may have eternal life”.

The false premise of the inquiring rich man was that it MIGHT be possible to produce enough good works within his own unregenerate soul to, in fact, BE as Holy as God is Holy, thus enabling this rich man to forever remain in the presence of a Holy God, A God who can never and will never gaze upon sin without the source of that sin immediately being annihilated from His Holy presence.

So, the remainder of the exchange between the Lord and this rich man is focused on silencing the original false premise. So the Lord eventually cuts to the chase of the self-justifying discussion by telling the rich man to “sell all that he has and give it to the poor”.

In other words, if you want to be as righteous as God is righteous, (which is the standard which one must perfectly and without fail produce in his person in order to be as selfless as God is selfless), then sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because, that is exactly what the Father did when He sent his son into the world to become sin for us. In other words, if you want to forever dwell in the presence of God on the basis of your own goodness (the original premise of the rich man), then that goodness MUST be equal to the goodness of God.

Everything that meant anything to the Father, that is His Son, He gave over to become sin (which He cannot look upon) in order to satisfy the sin debt of sinners, sinners who, for the most part, are not really interested in a relationship with God. It was the perfection of God’s character which enabled him to selflessly die for people who, at the core of their being, were antipathetic towards having a relationship with Him.

This was the selfless perfection of character the rich man would have to perfectly emulate if he were to forever dwell in the presence of God on the basis of the false premise of his original question. Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

So, not liking the answer the Lord gives, the rich man hastens away. Apparently the disciples did not catch the strategy of the Lord, for they had been sucked in to the false premise of the rich man’s original question.

Matthew 19:25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

So the Lord once again addresses the absurdity of the false premise in the following verse:

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus looked (straight at) them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

In other words, the false premise of the rich man was impossible to fulfill. However, God has a different way, in which men can forever dwell in the presence of God….. The New Birth. Unfortunately, most people will never experience that because, they too, have embraced the false premise of the rich man.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=13 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

The new birth does not occur as the result of a person praying a prayer, turning over a new leaf, surrendering to Christ, Inviting Jesus in or some other man-made response to God. A person is saved when he/she exposes their conscience to a particular message in the Scriptures, until that message produces a persuasion concerning its truthfulness. That message which produces this persuasion unto faith is the message of the cross:

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

Being saved is about hearing and being persuaded concerning the truthfulness of a message, and once being persuaded, resting your eternal destiny on the truthfulness of that message. That message is that the Lord Jesus has settled your sin debt to the Father’s satisfaction by the offering of himself in your stead. The satisfaction with which the Father views the work of the Son can, through faith, become your eternal standing before the Father. Believe that for yourself.

When a person is persuaded that the good news is true, and rests the eternal destiny of His soul in the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, he is immediately born again. Twelve times in the New Testament Paul’s evangelistic method is described in terms of persuasion. Here are two:

Acts 13:43 Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ." 4 And some of them were persuaded; and a great multitude of the devout Greeks, and not a few of the leading women, joined Paul and Silas.

I remember when I was a kid, the shortest Gospel tract I ever saw read as follows:

1. You are a sinner.
2. Jesus died for your sin.
3. Rely on that for yourself to be saved eternally saved.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=12 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. - Revelation 3:5

The problem created by this verse is as follows: if the book of life contains a list of all those who are saved, then to be blotted out of the book of life would equate to a forfeiture of one’s salvation in Christ. I think the problem with this passage is that, for years, we believers have just assumed that, since Revelation 20:15 tells us that whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire, we just assume that the book of life contains a list of all of the saved.

Quite honestly, Revelation 20:15 deserves a second look. Here is the verse in our English translation immediately followed by the Greek:

English: Revelation 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Greek: καὶ εἴ τις οὐχ εὑρέθη ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ζωῆς γεγραμμένος ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός

The key to understanding this verse is to observe the tense of the participle which is translated “written.” In the Greek it is a perfect passive participle. A basic rule of Greek syntax (as well as English) relates to how the tense of the participle relates to the main verb of the sentence. For example, if a participle is in the aorist (past tense), it puts the action of the participle antecedent (or before) to the action of the principle verb of the sentence. Likewise, if a participle is a present participle, then the action of the participle is simultaneous with the principle action of the verb. To make a long story short, the translation before us in our English Bibles would demand a present tense participle. However, the word “written” is a perfect tense participle which places the timing of the participle as having been initiated before the verb “found” which is the principle verb of the sentence. Any translation of this verse needs to account for the fact that the word “written” is a perfect passive participle. A more accurate translation to Revelation 20:15 would probably be as follows:

And if anyone was not found HAVING BEEN written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

In other words, it doesn’t matter if his name has been blotted out. What matters to the person in question is this: was his name EVER THERE? The practical implication of this truth is that Revelation 3:5 becomes for us, not a threat of forfeiture of eternal life, but rather a threat of forfeiture of privileges that might accrue to the faithful believer whose name remains written in the book after the judgment seat of Christ.

Armed with this knowledge, let us now look again at our verse in question:

Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before My Father and before His angels.

The verb “blotted out” is one of four future tense verbs in this context. These are all future verbs because they describe the results of a future event, which is the judgment seat of Christ. In this context, those emerging victorious from the Judgment seat of Christ will have bestowed upon them at least four special privileges:

1. They shall walk with Christ in white.
2. They shall have a white cloak thrown around them.
3. They shall not be blotted out of the book of life.
4. They shall have their name confessed before the Father and His angels.

The very fact that not having your name blotted out of the book of life is a result of the Judgment seat of Christ should tell us that at least the person in question made it to the judgment seat of Christ. Moreover, anyone at the judgment seat of Christ is already among the saved. Whatever loss having your name blotted out of the book of life might suggest, it does not suggest a forfeiture of an eternal home in heaven. The person at the judgment in question has already made it there.

If the possibility of having your name blotted out of the Book of Life as a result of the judgment seat of Christ is not a threat of forfeit of eternal life, then what might it forebode to the believer with defiled garments? How about a loss of privileges in the age to come? One thing that needs to be pointed out in this passage is that it presents for us a contrast between having your name blotted out of the book of life and having your name confessed before the Father and His angels.

So, what might be the purpose of having your name confessed before the Father and angels as a result of the judgment seat of Christ? As in keeping with the other promises to the overcomes in the seven letters to the churches, the promises all appear to have to do with access to the center of the administration in the age to come. The angels are the divine bouncers, so to speak, in the age to come. Having your name confessed before the angels as the result of the Judgment seat of Christ is, in effect, the Lord saying to the angels, “This guy will be helping me call the shots; he is part of the divine cabinet; he is granted special access.” This, by the way, is also in keeping with the other three promises of the context in question. For example, walking with the Lord in white might suggest walking with Christ in the midst of brilliant luminance, which one would expect to experience when conferring with Christ in the presence of His unveiled glory.

Notice also the phrase at the end of verse 4: “for they are worthy.” This cannot possibly be a reference to results of being saved, because being saved is not a reward for obedience. Being saved is a gift bestowed upon the sinner who has embraced the work of Christ as that which merits his eternal standing before God. Being “worthy” is not the language of the gift of righteousness; it is, however, the language of reward for faithfulness.

A similar promise is made to Joshua in the following verse: Zechariah 3:7 Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in My ways, And if you will keep My command, Then you shall also judge My house, And likewise have charge of My courts; I will give you places to walk Among these who stand here.

Once again, in the above verse, we see a special distinction in the age to come will be afforded to those who in this life were consistence in their walk. Joshua in the above context was standing before the Lord. In the age to come, faithful believers in this life will be afforded special status and responsibilities in the next.

Notice also the second promise to the overcomers which is found in Revelation 3:5: They shall have a white garment cast around them. This is the garment of authority, similar to a kingly robe. Like walking in white in the presence of the Lord, it speaks of promotion to leadership capacity in the age to come.

In keeping with the promises of promotion in the age to come, not having your name blotted out of the book of life must, by association, also anticipate a promoted status in the age to come. That is precisely what we see in one other context which mentions the book of life. Consider this following passage:

Revelation 21:26,27 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it that they may enter in. But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Notice this above context grants the privilege of entering into the holy city only to those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. It appears that not having your name blotted out of the book of life also equates to special privileges in the age to come. Having our names confessed before the angels is for the purpose of positive angelic attention being afforded to the person whose name is confessed. Be it an earthly saint serving the Lord or a glorified saint serving in the Kingdom, special angelic attention is to be afforded the one who experiences his name confessed before the angels

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=11 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question; what does Hebrews 6:4-6 teach regarding security of salvation? There are three main views; one, that a Christian can lose their salvation, two that a Christian never truly believed to begin with, and three that the Christian can fall into a perpetual1 state of apostasy yet still remain eternally secure. Hebrews 6:4-6 says:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

Hebrews 6 is no doubt a difficult passage and when read in isolation it almost seems to indicate that if a believer falls away from Christ i.e. fall away from the truth, they can either lose their salvation or they never had it to begin with.

With all difficult passages one of the first principles in Biblical Interpretation is to use the simple passages to interpret the difficult ones. While student of scripture may not initially know what it is saying, they can determine what it is not saying as the Bible does not contradict itself. In order to help understand what this passage is saying, I will begin with a brief background on salvation and the difference between assurance and eternal security. This will be followed by an analysis of Hebrews 6:4-6 that will show various viewpoints, be followed by my analysis, and conclude with how it applies to us today.

Salvation, Assurance, and Eternal Security

Before beginning an analysis of the text, it is important to define terms. Assurance is the believers understanding of his or her Eternal Security in Christ. Security simply means that a person is held tight, protected, or free from danger. In the context of Christ, eternal security means that Christ is the guarantor of eternal life and He will never take it away. A simple way of stating eternal security is the old adage ‘once saved always saved.’ Consequently, Eternal Security found in Christ cannot be influenced by outside forces and is independent of even the believers own behavior; good or bad. If this was not the case, assurance of salvation would be impossible and his or her security would depend on the individual or others.

Eternal life is the second word that should be defined biblically. Scripture is clear that it is a gift (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom 6:23, Rom. 1:16, John 6:47, John 1:12, Titus 3:5). How this is viewed will ultimately determine how Hebrews 6 is interpreted. Since eternal life is ‘eternal,’ once given it will last forever and therefore cannot be returned. Christ himself said in John 10:28 “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” Notice it says ‘neither shall anyone,’ this means no one and that includes oneself. If a person says that they can give the gift back then they’re saying that they can get out of the grasp of God’s hand. Paul, in Romans 8, also supports this idea when he notes that “Nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.” The term nothing, by definition, includes ourselves.

Therefore eternal security can only be conditioned upon the power and promises of God, not of the believer. Dr. Anderson agrees stating “In the final analysis, the eternal security of the believer rests on the power of God to preserve the saints, not on the power of the saints to persevere.”2 If salvation didn’t rest solely on Christ it would beg the question; “by whose commitment are we saved?” If our salvation, and consequently our eternal security, was dependent on any measure of works on our part, assurance would be impossible. Yet 1 John 5:11-13 makes it clear that we can know that we have eternal life.

And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

Hebrews 6:4-6 – Common Interpretations

As stated earlier most commentators have primarily3 taken Hebrews 6:4-6 in one of two ways; either to assert that a person can lose their salvation or that a person never had it to begin with. Most five point Calvinists fall into the latter category and John Piper is no exception when he teaches that “This passage says that there is a spiritual condition that makes repentance and salvation impossible. … this text is a warning to us not to assume that we are secure when our lives have some religious experiences but no growing fruit [a.k.a. works]. And the reason for showing us this serious situation is so that we will flee from it, and move to solid ground4 [solid ground being works a.k.a. ‘growing fruit’] and lasting joy”5 [emphasis mine]. If Piper is correct, works are required to prove that we’re saved by Christ. Based on the understanding of the simple passages above it’s clear that the security of the believer rests in the power and promises of God and not on an individual’s works or “growing fruit.”6

John MacArthur holds a similar view in dealing with “pretenders” of the faith but concludes that the writer of Hebrews is directing his warnings to unbelievers who hear the Gospel and reject it. These ‘non-believers’ apparently “fall away” from Christ by denying Him. He states there are “No terms familiar to salvation are there because these people aren't saved. They had all of this short of salvation. No mention of believing, no mention of receiving the truth”7 This begs the question of how one can fall away from something they were never a part of. MacArthur continues his interpretation and applies it as a dire warning to those who reject Christ: “This is the verdict of any person who rejects the full revelation of Christ. If you would dare to do this, you will never be saved.”8 [emphasis mine] Forget for a moment the fact that his double predestination bias comes into view; the immediate problem with this interpretation is the fact that he is forced to neglect the context and redefine the terms “enlightened,” “tasted”, and “partakers” in verse 5.

However, if a believer assumes that based on Hebrews 6 they could lose salvation or that they never had it to being with, where is the assurance of salvation that John and Paul speak of so clearly? Who’s to say that in the future a believer would not deny Christ? Logically they cannot know and they can only hope this is the case. In fact, R.C. Sproul openly concludes this point.9 Sproul’s conclusion to the question of assurance is long, but provides valuable insights into what happens when a person views passages such as Hebrews 6 in the way described above:

There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. The presence of such people causes genuine Christians to doubt their salvation. After all, we wonder, suppose I am in that category? Suppose I am mistaken about my salvation and am really going to hell? How can I know that I am a real Christian? A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: "R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?" Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified. I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, "Well, it's a good sign that I'm worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation." But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all." I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, "Well, here I am. I can't point to my obedience. There's nothing I can offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw myself on Your mercy." Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could not be sure about my own heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68. Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, "Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life." In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option!10

Sproul’s conclusion is that assurance is impossible; and in fact that’s okay, it’s better to be with Jesus in doubt. This is like saying that it’s better to be in a marriage not knowing whether or not your wife or husband is about to divorce you the next day.11 How can you build a marriage this way without trust and assurance that this is not a possibility? The same holds true with Christ, how can we truly grow as disciples if we always fear permanent ‘divorce’ from God? Sproul’s conclusions also fly in the face of John and Paul’s assertions regarding our security in Christ.

The question remains, according to Hebrews 6, can a believer “fall away from the truth”? Can a person who one day believes in Christ as savior then a day or month or years later, say they don’t believe anymore? Can they fall away from the truth? The answer is yes; it happens to people all the time. Christians get hung up in the wrong crowd and don’t guard themselves and succumb to the sinful nature. But can they lose salvation? When they trust Christ are they saved and are they saved forever? If our security rests in the hands of Christ and God, then the answer is a resounding yes; they are forever saved.

Hebrews 4:4-6 – What it really teaches

The real crux of explaining Hebrews 6 not only lies in the context but the target audience. Are these believers or unbelievers? Dr. Storms recognizes the importance of the issue stating: “Are these born-again Christian men and women? If so, the doctrine of eternal security is shattered.”12 Dr. Storms believes the audience in view is unbelievers, but what does the context clearly indicate?

Believers or Unbelievers?

Hebrews was written by an unknown author13 and was directed towards a group of unknown Jewish believers. Dr. Constable notes that

“The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.14

The author also refers to his target audience as brothers, a term used exclusively in scripture for those who are saved…

3:1 – therefore holy brethren 3:12 – take here brethren 6:9 – beloved 10:19 – therefore brethren 13:22 – I urge you brethren

In addition verse 5:12 states “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” Why would the writer tell unbelievers that they should be teachers by now? The writer would only make this statement if they were already believers. Thus, it is clear that believers are in view, specifically immature ones in need of the milk of the word.

Looking at the pericope in view, verses 6:1-9, verse 1 begins saying “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God…” Note the writer says “let us go on to perfection,” he is including himself in the goal. Are we to believe that the writer of Hebrews is not a believer?

Verse 2-3 “…of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.” In verse 2-3 the “of” could be translated as “regarding”, “now regarding baptism, hands etc.” he’s telling them that he wants to move them along in the discipleship process, but he can’t do that yet because they don’t have the basics down yet. It is clear the writer did not have unbelievers in view when he desired to teach them the meat of the Word. Verses 4-5 are critical, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,” The participles, φωτισθέντας (literally to make known), γευσαμένους (tasted), μετόχους γενηθέντας (become sharers), are all being used to not only describe who these people are, but what these people have experienced in the past as a single event (aorist tense). It could be translated as “it is impossible for the ones once having been enlightened, for the ones once having tasted of the heavenly gift, and for the ones once having become sharers of the Holy Spirit and having tasted of God…”

It’s interesting to note the Greek word μετόχους is used only five other times in the New Testament. Luke 5:7, Heb. 1:9, 3:1, 3:14, and 12:8. Hebrews 3:1 is of particular interest because it is used in the same way …. “Therefore, holy brethren, partakers (or sharers) of the heavenly calling.” There’s no escaping that “holy brethren” a.k.a. believers are in view. Heb. 3:14 “For we have become partakers (sharers) of Christ…”, and Heb. 12:8 “…for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers (sharers)…” The author is making the point that because you are sons; expect to be sharers in “chastening.” One should observe that in all these instances, the context of who the partakers are is made clear and is unquestioned. Why is it questioned in Hebrews 6:5?

In verse 5 if the descriptions; being a partakers, tasters, and enlightened, are not clear enough, the pericope starting from verse 1 to verse 9 makes it clear. As stated earlier the writer includes himself in Verse 1 (let us go) and 3 (let us do) because he uses a first person plural verb φερώμεθα and ποιήσομεν respectively. These are also the same ones who were to move on from the basics and be taught about baptism and laying of hands. The writer wishes to do this as well! In verses 1-9, there is no contextual or syntactical reason why the writer would shift from first person plural in verse 1-3 to describe believers, to describing second person plural unbelievers in verse 5 then shift back to calling them beloved in verse 9. What’s clear is that those who have fallen away are believers who have gone astray. When a person uses these participles to indicate the attributes of unbelievers, it really brings into question whether or not a person is allowing their theology to drive their exegesis rather than let exegesis drive their theology. A natural reading of this passage in context makes it clear the readers are believers. Dr. Bing concludes likewise stating

The evidence is overwhelming, both in the general nature of the epistle and in the warnings themselves, that the author is addressing Christians. The fact that he so often and so clearly reminds them of their salvation experience is a crucial basis for his appeals to go on to maturity. Based on these clear affirmations in the text, attempts to explain away the obvious seems theologically driven. They are not in need of salvation, but faithful endurance.15

The Purpose is Key

Recall that this book was written in the 60AD time frame. It was a time of great derision for Christians by the Romans, particularly for Messianic Christians as they came not only under duress from the Romans, but from unbelieving Jews. Because of persecution, many Messianic Jews decided that it would be better to simply go back to the law and tradition and avoid the onslaught of persecution. Dr. Constable notes “He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter.”16 The point of the book of Hebrews is to show that Jesus Christ is superior to all things that Jews held dear. Constable summarizes it succinctly; “We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.17

These readers were Jewish people who placed their faith in Christ. Some lost homes, property etc. Persecution came more and more and as it came some of them went back to the Law and Judaism. They even began sacrificing again, as if Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t enough! Chapter two has clear indictors that falling away after believing is a real possibility. The writer is encouraging them to remain in the faith. “Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.” – Heb. 2:1. He continues and encourages them to be like Christ who fulfilled His work and was faithful to God. "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.” – Heb. 3:1-2. From there he gives a warning as to why believers should not stray and why they should work together; “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,…” – Heb. 3:12-14. What can clearly be seen then is that there are believers who have given up on Christ and gone back to the Law, and believers who have remained faithful; this as opposed to a comparison between believers and non-believers.

In Chapters 1 through 3 the writer is saying that Jesus is better than the law, better than Moses, better than the high priest, better than Melchizedek etc. In the last part of chapter 5 and beginning of 6 he warns them because of what they have been doing. They’ve been placing Judaism above Christ. So in verse 6 when he says “and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” In other words every time they make a sacrifice they’re crucifying Christ again and saying that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough.

But he’s warning the Hebrews if they continue in sin, expect God’s judgment and expect loss of rewards (vv 7-8) and that those things that will be burned up. But in verse 6 many theologians conclude that the phrase “when you fall away it’s impossible to come to repentance” means “when you fall away you lose salvation and can’t come back.” Before describing the meaning here it will be helpful to define what it means to fall away and what does it mean to renew them again to repentance.

Falling away does not mean they fall away to hell. The author is describing falling away from the truths of God’s word which is exactly what the author was warning them not to do. Remember these Jewish believers had walked away and were going back to the law system because they didn’t want to be in persecution anymore. They were taking the easy way out. They were denying the truths of God’s word. They were saying this is too tough I want to conform to the world.

So the problem for them is that it is impossible to get those who have ‘fallen away’ to have a change of mind (a.k.a. repentance) as long as they crucify the son of God. Another way of saying it is….It is impossible for them to have a change of mind as long as they continue to practice the sacrificial system under the law and deny God’s word! Still another… it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

Repentance does not mean to turn from sin. It is the Greek word metanoia which means ‘change of mind’. These Jews will remain out of fellowship with God unless they change their mind about what they are doing. As long as they are working for salvation, by practicing the law, they will never have a change of mind and understand that the law doesn’t save. The general principal is that works never save, and unless they change their mind about that it will be impossible for them to understand that Christ is the best, that Christ is better than anything, that He is better than the law, He is better than the sacrifices.

Conclusion and Application

In conclusion, what does this passage mean for us and what does it teach about eternal security? Regarding the latter, it means that this passage doesn’t invalidate that truth ‘once saved always saved.’ Our understanding of how one is eternally saved should be based on simple passages like John 3:16 and an understanding of God’s power and character. Regarding the former, because of our understanding of our security in Christ we can be assured we will always be eternally safe. However, if a believer turns away from God and goes his/her own way, they will experience the judgment of God, they will experience the death rendering effects of sin, and they will lose rewards in heaven. It does not mean they will lose salvation, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they were never “true” Christians as many assert. Dr. Bing summarizes it well “believers don’t need to fear burning in hell, but they should fear an experience of God’s burning anger if they willfully turn away from the benefits of the eternal salvation which Jesus Christ provided through His death and resurrection.”18

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Note I didn’t say permanent.
2. Anderson, 189.
3. There are some expositors such as Kent who hold the view that falling away is purely hypothetical. Ye he does say that if it did occur that individual would end up in hell. (Homer A. Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), 115;)
4. Piper routinely uses nebulous language such as this, but to claim that our works are somehow ‘solid ground’ as opposed to the power and promises of God is farcical.
5. Piper, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/when-is-saving-repentance-impossible
6. Note that assurance is the Achilles heel of the reformed position. Scripture along with sound logic and reason dictates that assurance is impossible if it has any basis in a person’s works. I have to give RC Sproul credit for being consistent in his presuppositions and concluding that he too can’t ultimately know that he is saved. Enter web address here.
7. MacArthur, A Warning to Pretenders, Sermon on Hebrews 5:11-6:8 August 20, 2000. Grace to You Unleashing God's Truth, One Verse at a Time
8. Ibid.
9. Most who hold this view fall into two categories: they either illogically hold to assurance while at the same time undermine it; or they are sound logically and conclude, as Sproul does, that assurance is ultimately impossible. I respect Sproul for openly admitting and following his theology to its logical conclusion as most laymen and theologians do not.
10. R. C. Sproul TableTalk (Nov 6, 1989): p. 20.
11. It would be better to not be married than to have to deal with that because at least a person knows where they stand.
12. Dr. Sam Storms, The Possibility of Apostacy, http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/hebrews-6:4-6-and-the-possibility-of-apostasy, last accessed July 2013.
13. Most likely not Paul, as Paul didn’t receive the message of Christ second-hand. (Heb. 2:3)
14. Dr. Constable, notes on Hebrews, 2.
15. Dr. Bing http://www.gracelife.org/resources/articles.asp?id=21, Dr. Bing lists 12 detailed reasons why believers are in view.
16. Dr. Constable, 4.
17. Ibid.
18. Bing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Anderson, David R. Free Grace Soteriology. USA: Xulon Press, 2010.
• Bing, Dr. Charles. Is There Hellfire in Hebrews, GraceLife. Burleson, TX, 2010. GraceLife Ministries. http://www.gracelife.org/resources/articles.asp?id=21, last accessed July 2013.
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on Hebrews. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition. Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.
• Kent, Homer A., The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.
• MacArthur, John. Sermon: A Warning to Pretenders, Hebrews 5:11-6:8. Grace To You, Code 80-219, 2000.
• Piper, John. When is Saving Repentance Impossible. Desiring God Ministries, 1996. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/when-is-saving-repentance-impossible, last accessed July 2013.
• Sproul, R.C. TableTalk, Ligonier Ministries: Tabletalk Magazine, Nov 6, 1989.
• Storms, Sam. The Possibility of Apostacy, Sam Storms, 2006. http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/hebrews-6:4-6-and-the-possibility-of-apostasy, last accessed July 2013.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=10 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

Arminians commonly use the warning passage of Hebrews 10:26-27 as a proof text to teach that a believer can lose their salvation. Calvinists on the other hand teach that this passage shows that if a believer continues in some perpetual sin1 it’s a strong indication that they never had salvation to begin with, and should heed the warning of damnation in hellfire that is mentioned2 in the passage. Each differs as to the state of the readers, but both share a common view regarding God’s judgment. These two3 views have historically shaped people’s interpretation of Hebrews 10:26-27.

However, there is another possibility which is the focus this paper. This third option regarding the warning of Hebrews 10:26-27 is consistent with the context, and with the rest of scripture. I will begin by briefly addressing the commonly held views as stated above, address the various Bible translations that have caused confusion, and then provide background and context, and conclude with interpretation and application. The warning passage in question is as follows:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. – Hebrews 10:26-27

Hebrews 10 is no doubt a difficult passage4 and when read in isolation it does seem to support either of two views mentioned above. However, upon careful exegesis of the passage it can be shown that neither view is what the author intended or implied.

Common Interpretations

As noted earlier, common interpretations of the passage have taken one of two positions. The first assumption is that true believers are in view.5 This stems from a natural reading of the context, which will be addressed more in-depth later. But to illustrate the viewpoint, McKnight rightly asserts that “the author includes himself in the audience, and uses the first person plural: ‘we’…second he calls them brothers [and holy brothers], …and at 2:11, 12, 17 when they are identified as those whom Christ has saved.”6

The Calvinists on the other hand, maintain that those being warned were never regenerate to begin with. Based on their view of perseverance of the saints, salvation cannot be lost. Piper argues this point; “In Hebrews 3:14 he [the writer] says, "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end" - meaning that if we do not hold fast to the end, then we "had not become a partaker of Christ." Failure to persevere in faith is not a sign of losing salvation but of never having been a partaker of Christ.”7 Consequently, those in view, who are destined for hell for the sin(s) committed, were never saved to begin with.

Likewise, John MacArthur concurs stating that those in view were “Jews, who understood the gospel, who may have even believed in the truth of the gospel, but had not embraced the gospel. They knew it but were hanging onto their Judaism.”8 Therefore they were not true believers, despite the clear rendering of the text.

If it is the case that true believers are in view, the Arminian would suggest that the believer can lose their salvation; God will reject the subjects in question because they have rejected Christ. This is derived from the interpretation of the judgment noted in the various warnings, including the warning in question.

This leads to the second assumption, which proves to be common ground between Arminians and Calvinists. This assumption is that the fire and judgment spoken of throughout Hebrews are metaphors and/or phrases that, according to them, clearly imply eternal damnation. Scot McKnight emphatically states,

“The language of 10:26-31 is particularly clear and needs to be decisive evidence if other images and expression remain ambiguous. Nonetheless, when the exegete ties together “no escape” (2:2, 12:25), God’s anger (3:10, 17), falling short of the rest, … a condition where no sacrifice remains for someone (10:26), death without mercy (10:28) … one is forced to conclude that the author is presenting eternal damnation.”9 Likewise John Piper remarks on the state of those in question in Hebrews saying that “the warnings are not that we might forfeit a few heavenly rewards, but that we might forfeit our souls in the fury of God's wrath.”10 In other words, those apostates are damned to hellfire. John MacArthur would agree, as he views Hebrews from an evangelistic perspective to the lost who are pretending to be believers; “Here's the warning. And what the writer says is...Folks, if you don't come to Christ and you fall away, you're forever damned.”11 Fallacious logic12 aside, the point McArthur is making is that he believes the warning passages in Hebrews deal with eternal damnation.

So not only do various theologians have varying opinions that create confusion, but some of the Bible translations have added fuel to the fire.13

Bible Translations

There are several translations that add additional words and imply meaning to the text that is simply not there. Intentional or not, these translations do not help clarify the difficult passage. The problem lies in verse 26 in explaining the present participle in use:

ESV: For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins14 [emphasis mine]

NKJV: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins15 [emphasis mine]

Koine Greek: Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν μετὰ τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία16

The word in question is the Greek word ἁμαρτανόντων which is a present tense participle. The ESV and NKJV render the words with the phrase “go on sinning” or as in the case of the NIV “keep on sinning.” These translations seem to imply that the sin that is in view is some type of perpetual sin that a person is not dealing with properly before God. In the case of the NKJV it’s simply translated as “sin”, which is an appropriate rendering. Since in English we often think of present participles as a continuing action, the translators of the NIV and others chose to add the additional phrase “keep on” and “go on.” This is an attempt to render the nature of a participle.

However, the present aspect denotes action in progress not necessarily one that is continuous. Reading more into the participle than what is there does the author an injustice. This is where context if key and helps determine the true intent of the writer. The writer of Hebrews repeats himself with respect to the warnings, not to abandon Christ; for example, Hebrews 3:12 – “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God;”17 Apostasy is the particular sin in mind. “So, whatever you do with the syntax of the present participle, it has to revolve around that one particular sin.”18 Dr. Bing agrees noting that,

The author of Hebrews apparently has a particular sin in mind, which becomes evident as we consult the context. He had exhorted his readers previously to hold fast to their confession (3:6; 4:14) and has warned them about the dangers of not pressing on in their faith.19

This is critical because the Greek both grammatically and in context, does not support a common misinterpretation that perpetual sin is what is being warned against. Dr. Constable also agrees that the willful sin that is in view is a specific sin. “Willful sin in the context of Hebrews is deliberate apostasy, turning away from God (2:1; 3:12; 6:4-8).”20 Furthermore the incorrect phrasing neglects the reference back to the Old Testament21 which the author of Hebrews was using to make his point and which the readers would have been very familiar with. This point will be examined in more detail later. This now leads to the context of the passage which will help clarify the true nature of the warning.

The Readers Spiritual State and Predicament

The real crux of explaining Hebrews 10 (and the other passages) not only lies in the context but the target audience. Are these believers or unbelievers? Hebrews was written by an unknown author22 and was directed towards a group of unknown Jewish believers who were obviously familiar with the law. Dr. Fruchtenbaum agrees and makes the case that “they were Jewish believers, because only these would be in danger of going back into Judaism….[and] the author uses terminology which could only be true of believers.”23 The author refers to his target audience as brothers, a term used exclusively in scripture for those who are saved; e.g. holy brethren (3:1), brethren (3:12, 10:19, 13:22), and beloved (6:9). In addition, verse 5:12 states “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.” Why would the writer tell unbelievers that they should be teachers by now? The writer would only make this statement if they were already believers. Thus, it is clear that believers are in view, specifically immature ones in need of the milk of the word.

Furthermore, as seen in the passage in question, to reiterate the words of McKnight, the phrase “we [ἡμῶν] have received” is first person plural indicating that the author is including himself.24 Are we to assume the author is not truly born again? It’s clear then that the people in view are Jewish believers, to suggest otherwise stretches credulity and highly suggests eisegesis of one’s theology.

The state of the readers and to those who have decided to return to Judaism is also clearly indicated. The timeframe was 60 AD during the height of Nero’s reign,25 as an Emperor of Rome he had Christians fed to the lions for sport and used them as human torches to keep his garden parties lit at night.26 Dr. Fruchtenbaum states the following: “Jewish believers were experiencing tremendous persecution and were seriously contemplating going back into Judaism, at least temporarily, until the persecution subsided.”27 The writer was dealing with Jewish believers who wanted to return to the law system to avoid persecution. The writer’s desire then is three-fold;28 deal with apostasy (2:1-4; 10:19-25), provide encouragement to grow spiritually (5:11-14; 10:32-39), and to provide words of comfort and truth during their time of duress (11:1-12:3). To deal with this the writer emphasizes the superiority of Christ over all the law, over Moses, over the order of Melchizedek, over the continual sacrifices. He also gives them five dire warnings, the fourth of which is the passage in view.

Warnings to the Readers

All of these warnings are given to the same people. The first is the danger of drifting (2:1-4), the second is an admonition against disobedience (3:7-19), the third is to exhort them to maturity (5:11-6:20), the fourth is a warning against purposefully sinning (in this case, leaving the faith for Judaism) (10:26-31), and the fifth, to guard against indifference to Christ (12:25-29).29 All the warnings follow the same four-part form; the subjects, the sin, the exhortation, and the consequences. Time does not permit an exegesis of the other four warnings, but it’s important to note that they all tie together and should be interpreted consistently with each other. Point being, what is discussed regarding the fourth warning is directly applicable to the other four, and vice versa, e.g. the subjects and the sin in view.30

Interpretation and Application

At this point, the context and setting are clear. Earlier the point was made that the ‘purposeful sin’ that was in view was apostasy, a turning away from faith in Christ. The same a in Heb. 2:1; 3:12; 6:6 and 12:25. It’s also made clearer with the postpositive ga;r in the greek. The “For” (γὰρ) in verse 26 could also be translated as “because,” which ties back to verse 23 which states “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.” … because, if we don’t hold fast and we willfully reject Christ, we’ll experience God’s judgment as his children. Again, it becomes even clearer that the sin that is in view is the rejection of Christ for something lesser. It should also be noted that it’s not apostasy towards Judaism, it’s apostasy from Christ. Christ who is the final and only saving sacrifice. The authors concern and focus is on the devaluation of Christ. So the relevance of this book and warnings stands today. It just so happens that for some of the readers, the way prior was Judaism.

Continuing, to paraphrase verse 26, the writer warns “Because if we [which includes the author] purposefully choose to reject Christ [apostate], there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” The phrase “sin willfully”, as was alluded to earlier “suggests a connection with … sin of a high hand”31 spoken of in Numbers 15:30-31 which says the following.

‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off [put to death] from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’” [emphasis mine]

Understanding that presumptuous sins had no sacrifice is critical to understanding the text at hand. The Law of Moses had sacrifices for any number of sins, which are outlined in Leviticus, and with them came various types of sacrifices and ritual cleansings that had to be undertaken in order to have the specific sin atoned for.32 But if the sin was presumptuous, a.k.a. done intentionally, there was no sacrifice; the individual was now under the direct judgment of God Almighty.33

It’s also important to point out that in Numbers 15:27 Moses describes unintentional sins. Tanner notes that “Moses used the combination of aekousios (an antonym of hekousios) And hamartano (“to sin”) in Num 15:27 to describe the concept of “sinning unintentionally,” implying that the opposite idea (“to sin intentionally”) would be expressed by hekousios and hamartano – which is exactly what the author of Hebrews does.”34 As Tanner rightly observes this further emphasizes the point made earlier, that perpetual sin is not in view, it was a specific sin that brought physical death.

This is why the writer of Hebrews states that “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins …but a fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.” – Heb. 10:27. The readers of this would have been well acquainted with the Levitical law stated, and would have known that physical death was the punishment. The strong language, judgment and fiery indignation, is a picture of a Jealous God who is forced, because of His Holiness, to deal with his children severely (Heb. 12:6).

In addition, because believers are in view, and because we know believers are held secure by the power and promises of God (John 10:28); the judgment in view cannot be the great white throne; and fiery indignation cannot be discussing hell. In fact, noticeably absent in all the warnings is hell, or Gehenna.

There seems to be a tendency among Christians to believe that God’s love will override his justice and holiness in dealing with His people. However, there are many examples where God dealt with His people severely at times; “So the fire of the Lord burned among them [Israelites]” -Num. 11:1-3.35 And in the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira were instantly put to death for their sin (Acts 5:1-11). And all too often, Christians immediately think of fire and/or judgment in anger as speaking of hell.36 This would be akin to believing that every time blood was spoken of in scripture, it was Christ’s blood. It’s important to point out that Christians will be judged (see Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Cor. 5;10), this may or may not be a time of rejoicing for that individual at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The indignation spoken of the Greek word ζῆλος, which is often translated as ‘zeal’. Thus the phrase ‘fiery indignation’ could be thought of as ‘fervent zeal’;37 not for eternal condemnation but for bringing a sinner to repentance. And this is an expression of God’s love since he, “scourges those he loves and he chastises every child receives.”

Conclusion and Application

In conclusion, Hebrews 10:26-27 is not a warning against loss of salvation; neither is it discussing unbelievers, hellfire, and persistent sin. To interpret the passage in this manner would at the least result in inconsistencies with other passages and at worst result in loss of assurance of salvation. What is seen, is believers that were leaving Christ for Judaism to avoid persecution. While they may have thought persecution from man was bad, the writer makes them well aware in this warning that God dealing with them could be just as bad or more severe. The writer is imploring them to recognize the significance and the power of Christ in their lives and attempting to motivate them to grow to maturity. The application for us today is threefold; The first is that Christ is better than anything and worthy of our worship; He’s the only one that can save, He’s the only one that can progressively sanctify us. The second is that judgment (temporal) for believers is real both in the present and in the future. And lastly, God is a God of love and security who cares enough to discipline His children. Interpreting the passage in this manner makes the passage clear and easy to understand; it is consistent with the plain reading of the context, the obvious state of the readers, and the rest of scripture. As the writer of Hebrews says:

let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. – Heb. 12:1-2

---

FOOTNOTES

1. It’s interesting to note that no person who holds this view can point to what sin or sins would prove or disprove whether or not one is part of God’s family.
2. Based on their interpretation of this passage.
3. There is another view, which is a subcategory of Calvinism, which says that the warning passages in Hebrews are hypotheticals. The warnings are real but they couldn’t be committed because of their view of perseverance of the saints. Because the hypothetical view creates more problems than it solves, it is this writer’s opinion that it has been rejected by most Calvinists and consequently will not be addressed in this paper.
4. It’s only difficult for those who hold to ‘experimental predestination’ (see Dillow). If one does not hold to eternal security this verse is less of an issue but that creates more problems than it solves!
5. Meaning they have placed their faith alone in Christ alone without requiring works either before or after salvation as a means of securing their eternal state.
6. Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992): 43.
7. John Piper, “Woe to Those Who Trample the Son of God.” http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/woe-to-those-who-trample-the-son-of-god, last accessed March 30, 2014.
8. John MacArthur, “Willful Sinning (Hebrews 10)” MacArthur Commentaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huNu9H-8qWU, last accessed March 31, 2014.
9. McKnight, 34. (Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.)
10. John Piper, “Woe to Those Who Trample The Son of God.” http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/woe-to-those-who-trample-the-son-of-god. (last accessed March 30, 2014).
11. John MacArthur, “A Warning to Pretenders.” http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-219/a-warning-to-pretenders.( last accessed March 30, 2014).
12. MacArthur’s appeal begs the question; How can one fall away from something they were never a part of?
13. No pun intended.
14. English Standard Version; see also NASB and NIV.
15. New King James Version: see also KJV and HCSB.
16. Teknia Greek Font; The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006).
17. See also Heb. 2:1-4; 10:19- 39; 12:1-4.
18. Personal conversation with Dr. Tom Eckman, Former Professor Grace School of Theology (April 1, 2014).
19. Dr. Charlie Bing, “ Can the Willful sin of Hebrews 10:26 be forgiven?” GraceNotes. http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=45 (last accessed March 31, 2014).
20. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Hebrews (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004), 55.
21. Specifically Number 15 and it too was dealing with a very specific type of sin.
22. Most likely not Paul, as Paul didn’t receive the message of Christ second-hand. (Heb. 2:3)
23. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Publishing, 2001). 591.
24. The writer does this routinely, see also 6:1, “let us”.
25. The narcissistic Roman Emperor who ruled Rome from 54 to 68 AD.
26. Well documented throughout historical texts.
27. Fruchtenbaum, 951.
28. Ibid.
29. For well laid out explanations of these, read Dr. Fruchtenbaum’s work on Israelogy listed in the Bibliography.
30. One could argue that each warning should be taken in isolation from the others, but that argument has weak to no support as there’s nothing to indicate that the writer shifts to another audience or sin.
31. J. Paul Tanner and Robert N. Wilkin ed., The Grace New Testament Commentary, Volume 2. (Denton:2010), 1074.
32. Note atonement is a covering, not a payment for. The sacrificial system was temporary, and was never meant to pay for sins – “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” – Heb. 10:4
33. This cannot be understated as this is exactly what the writer of Hebrews was referencing back to. In preparation for this paper I found it interesting that what I came across (albeit not exhaustive), none of the prominent Calvinists and Arminians made mention of this fact, let alone pull up any Old Testament for context.
34. Tanner, 1074.
35. See also Isa. 9:19; 10:17; 29:6; 42:25; Jer. 11:16; 15:14; 17:4; Lam. 2:3-4; 4:11; Eze. 22:20-22; Amos 2:5; Obad. 18; Ps. 78:21; 80:16.
36. The Holy Spirit might take issue with that as He guided the Israelites as a ball of fire.
37. For further information visit GraceLife and article entitle “Hebrews on Fire” - http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=34 (last accessed, March 31 2014)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bing, Dr. Charles. Can the Willful Sin of Hebrews 10:26 be forgiven?, GraceLife. Burleson, TX, 2010. GraceLife Ministries. http://www.gracelife.org/resources/articles.asp?id=21, (accessed March 31, 2014).
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on Hebrews. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004.
• Dillow, Jody. The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man. Hayesville:Schoettle Publishing Co., 2006.
• Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G.. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries Publishing, 2001.
• Logos Bible Software. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. Bellingham, WA: 2006.
• MacArthur, John. “Willful Sinning (Hebrews 10)”, MacArthur Commentaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huNu9H-8qWU (accessed March 31, 2014).
• MacArthur, John. Sermon: A Warning to Pretenders, Hebrews 5:11-6:8. Grace To You, Code 80-219, 2000.
• McKnight, Scot. “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13NB (1992): 29-51.
• Piper, John. “Woe to Those Who Trample The Son of God.” http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/woe-to-those-who-trample-the-son-of-god, (accessed March 30, 2014).
• Tanner, J. Paul and Robert N. Wilkin ed., The Grace New Testament Commentary, Volume 2. Denton, TX: 2010.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=9 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief introduction to the book of James with an emphasis on chapter 2 verses 14-26. This will include an outline, purpose, audience, key passages followed by an explanation of James 2:14-26. The reason for this approach is to apply context towards this often misunderstood and misapplied passage in question. This is critical to unlocking the nature of James’ argument and its application to the audience and to believers today.

Purpose of the Epistle

Dr. Charles Swindoll once said "there are really two messages in the Bible; the way to God and the way with God."1 This couldn’t be truer as the latter is the focus of most of the New Testament including the book of James. James is addressing believers who were being persecuted and who had been ‘scattered’ (see Js. 1:1) and were facing challenges in their Christian walk. He encouraged them to persevere in trials (5:7-10) and to seek peace amongst brethren (5:9). James is filled with instructions for Christian living as opposed to becoming a Christian. This can be quickly attested to as a simple study reveals that of the 100 verses of instruction, 54 of them are commands for believers to follow.2

Without this key understanding the book can become very difficult to reconcile with Pauline theology, as James uses various words and phrases similar to that of Paul, but with a very different context and thus different meaning. Martin Luther said of this book that it was "the epistle of straw."3 The reason for this was he was attempting to reconcile passages like James 2:24 which says that "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only"; whereas Paul in Romans said that "But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." – Romans 3:28. The question that arises is whether or not James is teaching that eternal life and justification before God comes by faith plus works. Or did Paul simply forget to address works in his writings and its role in eternal life salvation?

Authorship, Audience, & Date

The epistle of James was most likely written by the half-brother of Jesus, not to be confused with James, the brother of the Apostle John. This is the most common view and was held by the early church and is largely derived from the process of elimination of the others James mentioned in the New Testament. The internal evidence includes similarities in the Greek to the speech given in Acts 154, and the numerous references to Judaism and other internal evidence about the life of the author and what the readers would have been familiar with in Palestine (e.g. not far from sea (1:6), land has figs, oil, and wine (3:12) etc.)5. The likely conclusion then is that this is James, the half-brother of Christ.

It was also likely written prior to 62 A.D.. The Jewish historian Josephus indicated that James was stoned to death by an angry mob.6 Dr. Constable and Dr. Bing favor a date in the mid 40’s as "it was probably written before the Jerusalem Council in AD 49 because there is no hint of controversy over Gentiles and circumcision."7 Hodges favors an even earlier date of mid 30’s noting that this was to dispersed Jews "probably at a time before Paul’s initial mission to the Gentile world."8 In either case, it can be argued this was likely one of the first epistles written, if not the first.

As stated earlier, James’ audience was believers. This is proven by a simple word study that shows that James addresses his readers as ‘my brothers and sisters’ no less than fourteen times!9 In addition, in verse 1:1 he addresses the letter to "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad". This phrase twelve tribes indicates he is referring to Jews; and the dispersion, (en te diaspora), translated here as ‘scattered abroad’ could mean one of two things; these could be Jews "who had scattered from Palestine"10 or as Hodges notes "the scattering of the Jewish Christians (at the first persecution, Acts 8:1)".11 The second meaning could be simply a title or eschatological metaphor. "James here may be creating with the term "dispersion" "a symbolic world: they had become.""12 In either case, scholars tend to agree Jews were in view and they were certainly believers.

Outline

It has been said that the structure of James has puzzled scholars,13 some have described it as ‘a string of pearls’ in literary form.14 In other words, random ideas all strung together. While it is true that sections use different vocabulary and metaphors, all sections point to a consistent key theme; despite circumstances,a believer’s attitude and actions should reflect God’s love. The latter point is critical due to the fact that if there wasn’t a structure, there would not necessarily be a key theme throughout. Hodges, Bing, and other theologians maintain there is a discernable framework. A simplified outline15 is as follows:

1. Introduction: 1:1-20 – Theme: Behavior in trials
2. Response of action towards God: 1:21-2:26 – Theme: Obedience to the Word both in thought and action.
3. Response of words towards God: 3:1-18 – Theme: Obedience to the Word via the tongue.
4. Response to Worldliness: 4:1-5:6 – Theme: Humility towards God and others
5. Conclusions: 5:7-20 – Theme: Perseverance, patience, and prayer in trials.

Key Theme

As noted earlier the key theme throughout James is that ‘despite circumstances, a believer’s attitude and actions should reflect God’s love.’ The believer should understand that because they have been saved by grace through faith, they should now live a life by faith in the law of liberty (see also Gal. 5:1, and law of love or Christ, Gal. 5:14). Faith, or pisteuo, in this sense, simply means believing God, or taking Him at His word. James is encouraging his readers that their actions should be a reflection of what they believe; that believers need to speak and act as though they belong to Christ. James says in the introduction verses 1:22,25 "be doers of the word, and not hearers only …he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." What James says here regarding the law of liberty is consistent with Paul in Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." What Paul and James are saying is that the believer has freedom and liberty from sin and is now able to express who they truly are in Christ.

What quickly becomes clear is that James is not discussing eternal life salvation; he is not asking believers to look back at their works to prove they are saved as some many assert.16 The believer is being encouraged to live for God and show the world how God views them and who they are. In other words, believers cannot use their works to prove that they are a believer (non-believers do good works too and Christians are not without sin (1 John 1:8)), but the works and the use of their tongues can give insight to the world as to who they are. If the believer spends time trying to prove they are saved through their works (a fruitless effort), it necessarily takes the focus off of Christ. It also leads to lack of assurance of salvation and contradicts simple passages like 1 John 5:13 that say we can know we are eternally saved.

With this important axiom in mind, the book of James becomes one of the easiest to apply. James gives explicit directions and principles throughout the book. For example, verses 1:2-3 says "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience." We are to welcome trials as they mold us and conform us into God’s image. James is encouraging his readers to find the positive side of hardship in this life. James sets the tone as to the attitude required, one of joy (not necessarily happiness). This is the opposite of the worldly reaction to trouble. As Hodges notes, "James is exhorting these believers to view their hard times with the eye of faith."17

Another passage that is an imperative is verses 1:22 mentioned earlier, "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." Burdick notes that "The call do ‘do what it says’ lies at the center of all that James teaches. It sums up the message of the whole book"18 As with many believers from this time to now, it’s easy to listen and do nothing. James is imploring them to live out what they hear. It’s interesting to note that James had to make this explicit, as it was the mindset of Jews to equate hearing with obeying. The Shema, is sometimes translated as ‘hear’, although it rarely simply meant to perceive sound. It often encompassed the whole idea of listening and responding with action. In Exodus 24:7 the Israelites, in response to the reading of the Word, said "All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient." The word obedient is the word shema. The Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear (shema), O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is one" In saying the Shema, it was understood that the person was saying "Listen and obey!" It was a commitment to God and His commandments. Point being, the words hear and obey are synonymous in Hebrew and this idea would not have been new to the readers but apparently they needed to be reminded.

These types of instructions continue throughout the rest of the book of James with themes that follow the basic outline given in James 1:19 that says "let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath." Hodges noted that "James is the voice of a great Christian leader whose grasp of the spiritual life and of human nature is equal to any in the NT."19

James 2:14-26

FWith a solid understanding of the overview of the book and key verses, James 2:14-26 more easily comes into focus. One of the important foundations to scriptural interpretation is to use the simple passages to interpret the difficult ones. If the exegete realizes that one truth is expressed clearly and routinely, then through process of elimination they can determine what the author is not saying, since the Bible cannot contradict itself. For example, it’s clear in John 3:16 that God loved all of mankind and that He sent his son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty of sin for everyone, and in order to gain all the promises that come with that, including eternal life, all they simply need to do is believe in Christ for it; to take God at his word; no more, no less. This passage should not be reinterpreted from the simple plain reading; its truths can be understood by children and thus applied throughout scripture, including James 2.

As briefly mentioned earlier, many have attempted to distort James 2. Some claim that justification used in James is soteriological and that the works spoken of are to be used as evidence of ‘true saving faith.’20 As opposed to "simply an assent to doctrines (2:14-20)."21 Faith in their view must be active otherwise that individual may not have been saved to begin with.22 It’s interesting to note that faith in the proper object [Jesus Christ] without strings attached has been under attack since the New Testament was written. Paul fought this heresy in Galatians. Likewise Martin Luther was ridiculed by many including Trent who was "alarmed that anyone should believe that they could be justified [declared righteous by God] by faith, without any need for obedience or spiritual renewal."23

James begins his pericope from verse 14-26 on the topic of living out one’s faith. This is not unlike the rest of the book as seen earlier. The exception here is that James uses very forceful words and terminology similar to those of Paul and John; for example, "if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (Js. 2:14), and "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (2:17). Likewise "even the demons believe and tremble…O foolish man, faith without works is dead?" (2:20), and "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (2:24). This is the common misinterpretation which leads to theological cul-de-sacs, and the potential of a stunted Christian life. If it was faith plus something John, Paul, and Jesus could have easily expressed this, but they didn’t; in fact they refuted it! So if James is not saying that eternal life salvation includes works, what is he saying?

Recall the theme of the book; James doesn’t suddenly shift gears in this passage from telling his brothers and sisters in Christ they need to look to their works to be saved. He already knows that they are saved otherwise he wouldn’t have called them brother and sister. He’s continuing to encourage them and show them the futility of not living out what God has done within them and he uses three strong character examples and metaphors to illustrate this point. Because, how can people who are not saved know the love of God without seeing it being expressed outwardly by His disciples?24

It should first be understood though that faith is simply being convinced of something as true; as Hebrews 11:1 states "faith is being sure of what is hoped for and certain of what is not seen." Faith in the Greek is the noun form of the verb, believe. To have ‘saving faith’ simply means that a person has placed their faith in the proper object to save them eternally. Faith in and of itself cannot save and the result of that is faith in faith which becomes works. But the question remains, why would James say "if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" (2:14). The answer to the rhetorical question James expects is no. But the question must be asked, what does the word save mean or refer to? Saved from hell? Saved from enemies? Many Christians automatically assume that the word ‘save’ measn salvation from hell.25 James is not discussing eternal damnation; James is talking to believers and discussing discipleship and failure of proper actions. The ‘save’ here is to save them from God’s temporal judgment (Heb) and save them from succumbing to the wages of sin (Gal. 6:9). Based on the immediate context and the context of the book, this could not mean eternal life salvation as it would immediately contradict the simple passages and stretch credulity of the context at hand. James’ use of the word save is temporal in nature.

James also uses the metaphor ‘dead’ to say that "faith without works is dead" (2:17). Note this does not say "faith without works is non-existent." The word dead simply means ineffectual or not operating; similar to having a dead battery in a car. The battery (faith) is there, it’s just not working (dead). James goes on to explain that expressing one’s faith to the world needs to be done through action. He states "show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (2:18). This is an opposing contrast meant to motivate the believer to action.

James follows this using his first character example, demons, when he says "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" (2:19). This passage has been used to assert that "head faith" isn’t enough to save because "even the demons believe." If this is the case one needs to illustrate the absurd with absurdity and ask: "if the demons had the right kind of faith can they be saved?" What James is doing is using an illustration from the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 "hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" The demons also believe God is one just like the Jews do, they are monotheistic. But Jesus didn’t die for the demons, he’s their judge,26 which is what the fear and trembling is likely referencing. James is using a strong character example and saying ‘my brothers and sisters, believing in monotheism is commendable, but it can be held by both men and demons to no profit if it is without appropriate good works.’ James is making the case that faith without action is useless, using the demons as an extreme example.

James’ next character example is Abraham. This differs from Paul however in that Paul discusses Abraham’s conversion. Paul’s focus is justification before God. James on the other hand discusses Abraham offering Isaac on the altar (vv. 21-24). James’ focus was on justification before man. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

Justification means "to declare right", it does not mean "to become right." It was a judicial term used in this era and in scripture it is used in two ways. The first is a declaration by God that we’re declared right. Kenneth Allen notes:

What does it mean to be justified? It means to be declared righteous; to be accounted righteous. It is not a work done within the sinner, but a work done on behalf of the sinner. It is a legal term (or more precisely, in relation to salvation, a legal fact) by which the believing sinner is declared righteous before God while still being himself unrighteous.27

The second is a declaration before man via works. Man can only see the external; he cannot read another person’s heart. Paul in Romans 4:2 said that "If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." Keep in mind, this was written after James penned his epistle. The implication is that justification by works does exist, but not simply in a soteriological nature and neither are the two ever coupled in scripture. There are two kinds of justification that are expressed in scripture. The kind James is driving home is easily discerned by the two character examples being discussed.

Recall the story of Abraham offering up his son Isaac. In Genesis 22 God instructed Abraham to head to the mountains in the land of Moriah. 22:3 says "So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son;" Abraham had two witnesses28 with him as he headed up the mountain to carry out God’s instructions. Abraham would have thus been justified before men through his actions.

James proceeds further and uses Rahab as an example of faith in action. "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" (James 2:25). She was a prostitute, someone unlikely to be trusted with mere words. Joshua chapter 2 discusses this incident where two spies were sent into Jericho to gather intelligence on the city and its fortifications. The king of Jericho accused Rahab of meeting with the spies which she didn’t deny, but she lied to redirect the king’s men and buy the spy’s time to escape. After this heroic act, Rahab went into a discussion about her faith in God. She then says the following in verse 12 "Now therefore, I beg you, swear to me by the Lord, since I have shown you kindness, that you also will show kindness to my father’s house…" [Emphasis mine]. Rahab showed the spies through action what was in her heart. Hodges agrees stating: "Rahab is selected as a striking example of a person whose physical life was "saved" precisely because she had works. … Rahab, like Abraham before her, was justified by works in front of other people – i.e. before the nation of Israel."29

James concludes in verse 26 reiterating his point "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." In other words, without a spirit, the body, while it exists, cannot function properly. Likewise faith that isn’t accompanied by works results in a useless, ineffectual tool; like a dead battery.

Conclusions and Application

The conclusion then is that James is not discussing eternal life nor eternal damnation, but he’s exhorting believers to not sit idly by as believers. To do so is a danger every Christian faces, the results of which are apathy towards God and apathy towards others. Hodges rightly points out the antidote "Faith remains vital and alive as long as it is being translated into real works of living obedience."30 James then is a powerful letter for practical Christian living. James exhorts his readers to live out their faith, so that others can see that they’re bond-servants of Christ. James does not say that they should live out their faith so that they can prove to themselves if they’re a Christian.

The application for believers is this; Can others easily determine that you’re a Christian? People judge Christians by their actions. Are you a servant and do you have the servant attributes Romans 12:1-2?

"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand." – James 5:7-8

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Time, date, and venue unknown.
2. Based on a word/verse study. I could have missed a few.
3. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Book 7, (Peabody, MA: 1985), 253.
4. See Hodges 9 for further discussion and comparison of passages.
5. See Hodges, 9 for further discussion.
6. Gary Burge, Lynn Cohick, The New Testament in Antiquity. (Grand Rapids: 2009), 382.
7. Dr. Charlie Bing, "The New Testament Introductions and Analytical Outlines" (Burleson: 2013) http://gracelife.org/resources/bibletools/ (last accessed April 13, 2014).
8. Zane Hodges, The Epistle of James Proven Character Through Testing (Irving:2004), 12.
9. See James 1:2,16,19; 2:1,5,14; 3:10, 12; 4:11; 5:7, 9, 10, 12, 19.
10. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on James (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004), 1.
11. Hodges, 11.
12. Burge, 376.
13. Burge, 379.
14. Hodges, 14.
15. For a detailed outline see Hodges, 16 and Bing online at http://www.gracelife.org/resources/bibletools/
16. e.g. Piper, MacArthur, Sproul
17. Hodges, 19.
18. J. Paul Tanner and Robert N. Wilkin ed., The Grace New Testament Commentary, Volume 2. (Denton:2010), 175.
19. Wilkin, 1099.
20. There are no ‘kinds’ of faith in scripture. Faith is faith, which is the noun form of the verb to believe. Which simply means to accept something as true; this can only be done with the mind not an appendage.
21. Wilkin, 376.
22. A common interpretation by Calvinists such as Piper and MacArthur.
23. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology, An Introduction (Malden, MA: 2007), 379.
24. Unbelievers cannot read minds like God can.
25. 75% of the time in the Old Testament when save is used it means deliverance from an enemy.
26. Matthew 8:29
27. Kenneth Allen, "Justification by Faith," Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (April-June 1978): 112.
28. It’s interesting to note that Deuteronomy 17:6 declares that two witnesses are critical in judgment.
29. Hodges, 71.
30. Hodges, 72.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bing, Dr. Charles. New Testament Introductions and Analytical Outlines, GraceLife. Burleson, TX, 2013. GraceLife Ministries. http://www.gracelife.org/resources/bibletools, (accessed April 13, 2014).
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on 1 John. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004.
• Burge, Gary M., Cohick, Lynn; Green, Gene. The New Testament in Antiquity, A survey of the New Testamen
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on James. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004.
• Hodges, Zane. The Epistle of James, Proven Character Through Testing. Irving, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society (1994).
• McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology, An Introduction, Grand Rapids: Blackwell Publishing (2007).
• Tanner, J. Paul and Robert N. Wilkin ed., The Grace New Testament Commentary, Volume 2. Denton, TX: 2010.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=8 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief introduction to the book of 1 John and to address whether John's letter was intended to be used as series of tests to determine if they are eternally saved, or if it was intended as a series of practical guidelines for developing a believer's relationship with God. To state it another way, was John's intent to help the readers determine if they were part of God's family or was the intent to determine how to develop fellowship within the family that they were already a part of? The reason this becomes important is two-fold. First, it can have detrimental effects on how a person views who they are in Christ, and negatively impact their understanding how God views them and what He expects from them. Second, it can have detrimental effects on a person's understanding of their assurance of salvation, which is critical to developing an intimate fellowship with God.

The majority of theologians view First John as a series of tests for salvation. Stedman is an example of this view when he says "the marks that John emphasizes as proof to anyone that he or she is a Christian. The letter gives us a wonderful measuring stick whereby we can test our own lives."1 Because of commentaries like these, many churches pass out studies for their congregation or Sunday school to test if they are 'in Christ' and thus truly saved; and if they don't pass the test(which is very arbitrary), they are warned to place their faith in Christ again. One example states that if you failed the test, "You may have been deceived into thinking you are a Christian, but are not. If this is the case, you need to repent and trust Christ as your personal Sin-bearer and receive the gift of new life by faith in Him"2 This entire way of thinking about First John seems to contradict the concept of assurance of salvation which leads one to ask, is this what John and the Holy Spirit intended in the message of First John?

I will argue that this is not what was intended, and that such claims create more theological and practical problems than it solves. I will include a purpose, audience, key passages, and defense of John's intent to encourage a believer to grow in fellowship.

Tests

First John contains many "tests" or self-assessments throughout the book. Many could be considered difficult passages, but with proper context and an understanding of the words John uses makes them less so. Time doesn't permit an exposition of all of them, but many are worth noting.

1. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. – 1:6
2. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him – 2:4
3. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. – 2:15b
4. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. – 3:6b
5. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. – 3:8
6. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. – 3:15
7. He who does not love does not know God – 4:8

These passages seem to imply that if a believer doesn't love God, love one another, or loves the world over God is not a Christian. These verses taken in isolation from the surrounding context may indicate this, however when studied contextually the audience, purpose, and language reveal a more accurate interpretation of the text.

Audience

John's target audience was believers. This is made clear as he refers to them as 'beloved' six times and 'children' six times. He also addressed them as 'brothers' ten times, a term reserved exclusively for believers. In addition John also associates himself with the readers, using first person plural terms. For example, the word 'us' is used 39 times, "because He has given us of His Spirit." – 4:13. And 'we' is used 80 times in 44 verses! "We know that we are of God," – 5:19.

It should also be noted that while pronouns are important, John clearly indicates the eternal salvation of the readers with certain statements. The aforementioned verses state that they have the Spirit (4:13), they know they are of God (5:19); and at the outset he clearly states "that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us." - 1:2b. The evidence is extremely clear that the readers (and the author) are believers. So it begs the question why John, who knows the readers eternal state (including his own), would write to them a list of 'tests' to determine if they are saved. The only answer is; that was not his purpose, since John cannot be affirming their salvation and questioning their salvation simultaneously.

Purpose

The purpose of John's letter seems to be two-fold. The first was to instill confidence in his readers that Christ is who he said he was and that salvation came through Him.3 Verse 2:18-30 give indication of this. This lack of confidence came about because there were apparently false teachers promoting false doctrines; "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you." – 2:26. Dr. Constable indicates that one heresy John might have been addressing was called Docetism. "The false teachers and teachings to which he alluded suggest that John wrote about conditions that existed in Asia: Judaism, Gnosticism, Docetism, the teachings of Cerinthus (a prominent Gnostic), and others."4 Docetism was the false doctrine that Jesus' human side was merely an illusion. Likewise, Dr. Niemela makes the observation that in 1 John 2:24-26, John writes to preventatively counteract deceptive teachers; "Evidently, the deceivers denied Jesus Christ's promise of everlasting life, because the conclusion of John's response to them emphasizes everlasting life." And that "John sought to prevent leaders of congregations from developing spiritual-amnesia."5

The second purpose is more clearly spelled out and that was to encourage his readers to find greater fellowship with God. John states his purpose at the outset of the letter in verse 1:3, "that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full." His desire then was to have his readers to experience the joy God intended for them, which comes through fellowship with the Father and the Son. Dr. Constable summarizes John's letter in one phrase; "Fellowship with God is the essence of eternal life." Fellowship differs greatly from eternal salvation given freely at the time they place their faith in Christ; which makes a person a child of God. Once children, one's fellowship with Christ can be developed and grown; but there are some necessary steps, both through thought and action, the believer needs to do in order to grow closer to God which John outlines.

Key Words

Fellowship

Fellowship is translated from the Greek word koinonia, which could be thought of as joint participation or binding. A similar Hebrew word chabar was used to describe a shared house (Prov. 21:9). Paul used koinonia extensively to illustrate not only the deep relationship believers have with Christ, but also other believers. Likewise John does the same in 1 John 1:3,6-7 where he emphasizes that fellowship with God and Christ leads to fellowship with others. As noted earlier, this is the stated purpose of the book. Dr. Bing agrees stating that "Fellowship (literally "sharing") refers not to the establishment of a relationship, but to growing more intimate in that relationship. In other words, John's purpose is not to establish a new relationship, but to enhance an existing one."6 More specifically, John wrote to enhance an existing relationship with God, Christ, and other believers. To accomplish this koinonia relationship, one must be free from tension that might strain the relationship, hence the need for confession and forgiveness.

Forgiveness

This is a term "used to indicate pardon for a fault or offense." In the New Testament it's used in two aspects, one is initial or judicial forgiveness God grants us as judge, it's one of the things we receive when we believe. "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" – Eph. 1:7. This forgiveness is a one- time event that ushered in the relationship. However, like any relationship, including interpersonal ones, forgiveness is essential for maintaining a healthy fellowship. Dr. Constable emphasizes this point when commenting on 1 John 1:9. He states:

Some expositors teach that this verse cannot apply to Christians since God has already forgiven Christians and therefore we do not need to ask for what we already have. This viewpoint fails to distinguish between forensic forgiveness that we receive at conversion and family forgiveness that we need after conversion.7

Once forgiven, the fellowship can be restored and be maintained by abiding in Christ so that we do not fall back and weaken the bonds of that fellowship.

Abide

The word abide, is probably the most telling as to John's purpose. In the book of John, he uses the word 'believe' when discussing eternal salvation over 100 times, but when discussing fellowship he uses the word abide. Abide is used 21 times in 1 John and it is apparently a critical component to fellowship with God. But it is a two-way street. John expresses that not only should believers abide in God (1 John 2:6, 10, 24; 3:6, 24; 4:13, 16), but that God abides in the believer (1 John 2:14, 24; 3:9,17,24;4:12,13,15,16). "If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit." 1 john 4:12-13. To abide means to do what God has commanded (2:3), to remain in fellowship. "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." – 2:6. As we abide in God, God abides in us keeping us from sin. A believer is incapable of sinning if they are abiding in Christ, thus they are able to achieve the joy that John spoke of at the outset.

In summary then, John builds a case in his letter for how to find joy; and finding joy comes from abiding in Christ and maintaining healthy fellowship with God and others. This is what John refers to as 'walking in the light' (1:5-2:2), a figure of speech for abiding in Christ.

Summary and Conclusions

1 John becomes a deep, rich, satisfying book when one understands that it's about fellowship, and he provides practical 'tests' to determine if the individual is on the path of abiding in Christ. To interpret it as a series of tests to determine if one is believer creates many theological problems. Arguably the most significant problem is that the believer cannot determine whether or not they have assurance of salvation.8 When believers look to their works as tests for salvation, this necessarily 'backloads'9 the gospel message of faith alone in Christ alone. So not only does assurance become logically impossible, but the fear that is created in one's life makes growth in fellowship difficult. Fellowship cannot grow upon the foundation of fear, growth only happens through unconditional love. John exhorts his readers to love, "Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." – 4:11. A marriage cannot grow properly if one spouse is constantly threatening divorce as a means of maturing the relationship. Similarly a child's fellowship with parents does not grow when the parents are threatening to disown them if they misbehave.

In addition, the test for eternal salvation interpretation logically results in no assurance of salvation thus it is in direct conflict that God wants us to know that we are saved! "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" – 5:1310 It becomes clear then that to adhere to the idea of testing to determine salvation is contradictory to this clear passage. It's also worthwhile to point out that those who subscribe to the view of First John as a series of tests for eternal salvation, provide no measure of works, it becomes incredibly relative and can manifest itself as legalism. So the problem is, there is no precise measure of good works (how much, how often?) and this nullifies assurance and makes assurance subject to one's own internal idea of how holy they feel at that moment. This is destructive and Christians will begin to focus on themselves and others rather than focus on Christ, who is the author and perfector of our faith.

Often times, theologians will allow their theology to drive interpretation rather than allow the plain reading of the scripture to form and shape their theology. This can be seen in interpretations of First John. While often well intentioned, practical application of the works based interpretation results in logical inconsistencies at the least, and can create Christians who do not understand the true joys of eternal life now. The intent of First John is to grow the believer experientially rather than determine who they are positionally.

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." – 5:20

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Ray Stedman, 1 John: The Fruit of Fellowship with Christ. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stedman_ray/Adv_1Jo/Adv_1Jo.cfm?a=1160001 (last accessed May, 2014)
2. Paul Tautges. 10 Tests of Genuine Faith.. http://counselingoneanother.com/2011/09/01/10-tests-of-genuine-faith/ (Last accessed May, 2014)
3. See vv 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 3:16; 4:10,14
4. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on 1 John (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2005), 1.
5. John H. Niemela, Grace in Focus May/June 2014: Initial Assurance or Reassurance? (1 John 5:13), 31.
6. Dr. Charlie Bing, GraceNotes: "Interpreting 1 John". http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=37 (last accessed May, 2014)
7. Constable, 14.
8. Catholics are at least honest and consistent on this matter, as they say that assurance is a mortal sin, an impossibility.
9. As opposed to 'frontloading' the gospel with works. Meaning adding works prior to salvation. Backloading means to add works after salvation, which, for all practical purposes, has the same result of frontloading.
10. See also Romans 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bing, Dr. Charles. Interpreting 1 John, GraceLife. Burleson, TX, 2013. GraceLife Ministries. http://www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=37, (accessed April 13, 2014).
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on 1 John. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004.
• Niemela, John H.. Grace in Focus, Initial Assurance or Reassurance? (1 John 5:13), 30. May/June 2014. Grace Evangelical Society (2014).
• Stedman, Ray. 1 John: The Fruit of Fellowship with Christ.http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stedman_ray/Adv_1Jo/Adv_1Jo.cfm?a=1160001 (accessed May, 2014)
• Tanner, J. Paul and Robert N. Wilkin ed., The Grace New Testament Commentary, Volume 2. Denton, TX: 2010.
• Tautges, Paul. 10 Tests of Genuine Faith. Sept. 10, 2011. http://counselingoneanother.com/2011/09/01/10-tests-of-genuine-faith/ (Last accessed May, 2014)

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=7 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is three-fold; the first is to briefly present and critically examine various views regarding creation as described in Genesis. The second is to defend a literal six twenty-four hour day interpretation (which I will call the literal view) and why it's critical to do so, and the third, is to graciously move believers to have a consistent Biblically based worldview.1 The major theories presented will be Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution, Gap Theory, Progressive Creation (a.k.a. Day-age), and literal six day creation. I will provide a description, history, and critical evaluation of each and how each aligns itself with a Biblical world view.

Before beginning though, it's important to understand why all these views exist. This is often overlooked and critical to understanding why this is not simply and solely a disagreement about interpretation, as it's so often framed. It's an issue about one's world view and the authority of scripture. Satan asked Eve in the garden, "did God really say" (Gen. 3:4-5), bringing into question God's simple and straightforward instructions to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve chose to believe Satan over the word of God. This same mindset is followed by all those who believe man's fallible scientific theories over the perfect word of God. This then is the key to understanding why the various views exit.

It's often been asked whether or not mankind can live without God. It is at this philosophical level that we find the answer as to why the various views exist. Thus the debate is one of starting points, God versus no God axioms.

Neither axiom can be proven,2 but because mankind doesn't know everything, we have to assume a starting point and determine whether or not, based on observation, facts, and logic if our starting point makes best sense of the evidence. One's starting point combined with evidence and conclusions is referred to as a paradigm, or one's world view.3

But there are two issues to take away from this; the first is that when dealing with the topic of creation, the argument is not over the evidence, it's about one's paradigm. Does one start solely with God's word as their bias and draw the meaning out, a.k.a. exegesis; or does the individual start outside of scripture and read into the text their bias, which is external from scripture, otherwise known as eisegesis. Every believer commits eisegesis on one topic or another, the goal is to do it less frequently as we grow in Christ.4

Secondly, Creationist views such as Theistic evolution, Gap Theory, Framework Hypothesis and Progressive Creation are a product of taking axioms from one worldview and applying them to another worldview. As will be shown in this paper, any attempt to compromise between the two axioms will result in compromising the Biblical account given in Genesis.5

Framework Hypothesis

The Framework Hypothesis is a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-2 which seeks to place the focus on the meaning or impetus behind the text, not on the details of the text itself. In other words, what's written in Genesis 1-2 is a literary 'framework' within which God teaches us about Himself and His creation. The notion that "God made it" is essentially all that matters with this viewpoint; the details are inconsequential and thus relegated to uncertainty which, in their minds, conveniently eliminates the discussion about the age of the earth, how God did it, and whether or not it even matters. This is seen as a strength not a weakness in their view.6 Two notable advocates of the view are Lee Irons and Meredith Kline; they state that the Framework Hypothesis is:

That interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 which regards the seven-day scheme as a figurative framework. While the six days of creation are presented as normal solar days, according to the framework interpretation the total picture of God's completing His creative work in a week of days is not to be taken literally. Instead it functions as a literary structure in which the creative works of God have been narrated in a topical order. The days are like picture frames.7

The writers also emphasize that the days of creation are...

...narrated in a nonsequential order within the literary structure or framework of a seven-day week. Thus there are two essential elements of the framework interpretation: the nonliteral element and the nonsequential element.8

This view was first proposed by a Dutch theologian by the name of Arie Noordtzij in his work Gods word ender Eeuwen Getuigenis, published in 1924.9 Framework Hypothesis has since gained popularity today with many evangelicals for several reasons. First is due to the parallels seen between the literary style that Moses used and pagan ancient near-eastern (ANE) writings of the day, second is in part to the supposed insurmountable issues with a literal reading, and third, because it allows one to believe what they want, bringing apparent harmony between believers and bridging the gap to non-believers.

The key to this view as Kline noted above, is that Genesis 1 and 2 are to be read non-literally. In a similar vein, the theologian Bruce Waltke states that "a non-literal view is consistent with the text's emphasis on theological, rather than scientific, issues."10 And that the author of Genesis' intent was "not scientific or historical but theological and indirectly polemical against pagan mythologies."11 A more recent work entitled, The Lost World of Genesis One, by Dr. Walton from Wheaton, supports this idea as well but with some expansion on the premise.

The major premise of Walton's book is that Genesis 1 should be interpreted in a strictly functional sense; to interpret it in a material sense would be tantamount to "cultural imperialism;"12 Which he defines as forcing our modern culture and modern thinking into the text (a form of eisegesis). Walton supports a corollary to this that the amount of time that matter took to physically materialize is unimportant; a fact he says we cannot know.13

Since discoveries of ANE literature, many theologians have rightly observed similarities between the ANE's and Moses' work in the Pentateuch. Walke observes that Genesis' use of "widely attested seven-day typology" of the ANE shows that the narrator is using a stereotypical formula that is not intended to be taken literally."14 Walke also observes that the structure of Genesis 1 is symmetrical; days 4-6 parallel days 1-3 "and that this symmetry demonstrates its non-literal nature."15

But are these assumptions warranted? Should Genesis 1-2 be read non-literally because the ANE's were written in similar vein, does the literal approach have insurmountable problems, and is this the best solution to bring peace among believers and allow for God's word to remain untarnished?

The emphases placed on the ANE's by those who espouse framework in my opinion exceed basic hermeneutical methods. One aspect of proper Biblical interpretation is the historical nature of it and we should try to immerse ourselves completely into a culture as best we can, then to view a text from that perspective. But to what degree should we allow the pagan writings of the past to drive our interpretation? Also, do the pagan ANE's provide enough insight into the overall cultural relevance of the Israelites of the time as Walton and others have assumed? I posed this question to Dr. Bing16 and he had this to say:

I think knowledge of those forms can give us insight into meaning, but the scripture must be allowed to speak for itself, sometimes at odds with contemporary form. For example, many interpret Deut. by ancient king-vassal treaties. But when you think about it, any treaty or covenant is going have a basic form (preamble, conditions, etc). Any epistle is going to have a basic form (but why then does Hebrews not follow it?). I think many have overcooked the Psalms by putting them into tight literary categories. So Scripture has to trump form, but form can sometimes add insight.17

Dr. Rene Lopez concurs when commenting on the relationship of ANE's to the covenants God made with the Israelites:

Finally, it is clear that God sought to clarify the meaning and relevance of the Israelite covenants by modeling them after ancient Near Eastern covenants. By using a well-known ancient model, God successfully communicated His meaning and intention.18

The ANE's then can add depth to an interpretation, but they are not required for us to understand the scripture, nor should they be pressed into scripture so-as-to be eisegetical rather than exegetical.

Another reason framework advocates are compelled to take a non-literal approach is they believe there are several inconsistencies and difficulties implicit in a literal reading of Genesis, e.g. the earth being 6000 years old. The Framework Hypothesis makes a many claims against a literal reading. I will analyze a few of the key claims in the following discussion.

Lastly, I believe they are attempting to seek harmony among believers and non-believers with regards to creation. This is certainly a noble and Biblical admonition. Paul says in Ephesians 4:11-13 that we should all seek to attain "unity of the faith" within the body of Christ. This does not mean that we should accept all views as true; it means that we're to understand God's truths in the same way. If one's goal is to stop the infighting and character assassinations it's certainly a worthy one, but I argue that compromise with paradigms will almost always result in fighting and more importantly result in undermining the authority of God's word.

Another question that gets raised with this view is who determines where the metaphor begins and ends? Genesis is clearly a historical narrative from beginning to end but the implications of a non-literal interpretive method, suggests that we've misinterpreted it for the last 2000 years. This raises more questions than it has answers.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic Evolution is simply the idea that God used 'goo-to-you'19 evolution as His method of creating all that exists. Dr. White notes that "evolution has supposedly occurred, with God controlling the processes. They [theistic evolutionists] also believe that God still controls these processes and that evolution is still proceeding."20 In other words Theistic Evolution is identical to atheistic evolution except they have added God to the mix. Dr. Werner Gitt summarized Theistic Evolution succinctly in the following formulas:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods. Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

But just what is evolution? Evolution is not just a theory, it is a religion for an individual with a No God paradigm. Religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature,and purpose of the universe."21 Scientifically speaking evolution ultimately means the change of one kind of animal to another; in their own words,

Modern evolutionary theory incorporates these concepts: species change over time; genetic mutations are responsible for the changes; individuals with beneficial genetic mutations will survive preferentially compared with their competitors, in a process known as natural selection;22 [emphasis mine]

In other words, it is simply change over time; an undirected process whereby death disease, mutation and time determine the change. But it begs the question, what type of change?

The problem with evolutionists is one of equivocation.23 They have two definitions they use interchangeably, and setup a straw-man against opponents. One definition is scientifically reasonable, like speciation and natural selection;24 the other definition is going from one kind of animal to another, goo-to-you. Darwin's problem, as is the problem with all evolutionists, is that they only focus on outward appearances (definition 1) as proof of goo-to-you (definition 2) evolution. The problem is they seem to deny the underlying instruction manual, DNA,25 and its critical role.

Each animal has a blueprint that instructs itself to form eyes, ears, even hooves on a horse. DNA is the blueprint26 which contains this information.27 The DNA is not the information, it's just the information storehouse, just like a book is a sequence of dots, letters, and sentences which can be deciphered if one has the translation package. The information contained in the DNA for a bug is decidedly different than one for a horse. While they both contain similarities, both have eyes and feet, they have very different manuals. The problem is, nothing in nature has ever shown an increase of information in the genome, and that's exactly what you'd need in order to go from a "simple single cell" organism to human. Speciation, mutations, and natural selection, the three pillars of goo-to-you, can only act upon the available information; none of the pillars of evolution, including time can add information to the genome. It is not scientifically possible. 28 Neither is going from non-living matter to living matter, this is referred to as Abiogenesis a.k.a. spontaneous generation, and was proven wrong by Louis Pasteur.29

Several other issues arise and Dr. Gitt again notes that;

1. God used evolution as a means of creating.
2. The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
3. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over Biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.30

Based on the last statement, it's a wonder why anyone want to hook their cart up to this mutated horse.

To summarize, God used a slow, tumultuous process where death and suffering are said to bring about new created kinds. Unfortunately the idea behind goo-to-you evolution is a non-directed process, unguided and unloving. God is the polar opposite, He is about meticulous design and He is love. Often time's people will say "God could have done it this way," but that's not the point. It's not an issue about what God could have done, He could have created in any way He chose to, the issue is about what God said He did!

Gap Theory

While not all Gap Theorists agree on all points, they do agree that there's an unknowable amount of time that took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Weston Fields, in his book Unformed and Unfilled, notes that…

...the one unifying principle of all gap theorists is that Genesis 1:2…records the ruin of a once-perfect earth, and a lengthy time-gap between the original creation and the restoration recorded in Genesis 1:3 to the end of the creation narrative.31

This "Gap" was first introduced by pastor theologian Thomas Chalmers in 1804.32 It wasn't until 1814 when Chalmers entertained a larger audience that this view became widely accepted for the next 50 years.33

Many modern-day theologians have espoused this view such as R.B. Thieme.34 He held that Genesis 1 represented a creation that "was instantaneous from the hand of God"35 and that "the six-day period recorded in Genesis 1:3-31 is not a description of the original creation."36 but that it represented a "preparation of the earth for habitation"37

It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss every detail38 as "embellishments are neither essential to the theory, nor universally held by all gap theorists."39 One primary argument in support of a Gap is the Hebrew phrase tohu waw bohu, often translated as "without form and void." According to Gap theologians, this means that there was chaos on the earth that "represents a sinful, and therefore, not an original state of the earth."40 This is an unwarranted expansion of the meaning and has no support contextually or lexically. Fields again notes that "tohu is used in a morally neutral state, describing something unfinished, and confused, but not necessarily evil."41 So why then does a Gap theologian attempt to add millions of years? The reason is two-fold, first, Gap theorists, like Chalmers realized they had no other place to add millions of years, the second is that Gap theorists are reacting to secular influences.

It's commonly believed that Gap was a reaction to Darwinism,42 when in fact it was a reaction to secular geologists like Lyell43 and publications on geology claiming that the earth was millions of years old, or in the case of Lyell, infinitely old. Many theologians such as Chalmers succumb to these claims and the outside pressure to conform to what old earth geologists were advocating, lest they appear foolish for not believing science, falsely so-called.

Theologians incorporating uniformitarian Geology into scripture is confirmed by Dr. Mortensen in his book, The Great Turning Point:

Such rationalism insisted on explaining everything…by the supposedly inviolable laws of nature, which was a view often accompanied by a total denial of miracles. It also insisted on a completely natural…rather than supernatural origin of the Scriptures. This in turn affected how the Scriptures were interpreted. The Bible was believed by some to contain either historical errors or only theological and moral truths conveyed through myth or some other symbolic literary genre, just as other ancient religious literature contained…All of this was contributing to a gradual, but profound, shift in world view in society and a radical redefinition of Christianity.44

Gap Theory epitomizes eisegesis in allowing outside ideas to guide one's theology and it often results in absurd claims. Thieme notes that "between verses 1 and 2, a catastrophe occurred…this catastrophe includes the fall of Satan…in the course of the angelic conflict it turned the pre-adamic world into chaos…between verses 1 and 2 the earth was packed in ice, underneath the ice was "tohu waw bohu", over the ice darkness!"45 None of these events are in scripture, thus the Gap Theory, extends beyond what scripture clearly teaches in an attempt to meld two opposing paradigms.

Progressive Creation / Day Age

This is arguably one of the more widely accepted views of creation today and has been around in evangelical circles since the mid 1850's.46 The term Day-Age and Progressive Creation (PC) are somewhat synonymous; although PC is really a subset of Day-Age. The commonality between the two is that the days described in Genesis 1 were of an unknown age, perhaps millions of years. Progressive Creationism is an expansion of that idea and is currently championed by Dr. Hugh Ross of Reason's to Believe Ministry.

Progressive Creation (PC) espouses that each day given in Genesis 1 is not a literal 24-hour day. The days spoken of each represent an unspecified amount of time in which God progressively created new species of animals while others became extinct. This is what is meant by the term 'progressive.' Ross also adds that even the seventh day is not yet completed.47 With respect to ages, Dr. Ross stated that:

'Therefore it allows me to make an interesting paraphrase of John 3:16, if you'll permit—For God so loved the human race that he went to the expense of building a hundred-billion trillion-stars and carefully shaped and crafted them for sixteen-billion years so that at this brief moment in time we could all have a nice place to live.'48

PC's come to this conclusion not because of any perspicuous reading of scripture, but because of the geologic uniformitarian49 assumptions and Big Bang cosmology which holds to an age of the universe of approximately 10-15 billion years. In like manner, their order of events in the creative process does not follow scripture, but follows a secular timeline. For example, the sun and stars were created before the earth and land animals preceded flying creatures, there is also overlap in the creation and extinction of species.

PC's must be given credit as they are correct on two accounts; firstly, they deny a purely naturalistic creative process, and secondly, they are consistent in their beliefs and follow their logic throughout scripture. However, this is also to their detriment, namely because of the sheer amount of scriptural gymnastics that must go on in other theological areas in order to arrive at a self consistent view. Thus it quickly diverts from the issue of how long the day is in the first chapter of Genesis.

With regard to the order of events in creation, a leading Day-Age proponent named Davis Young recognized this issue.50 He came to the conclusion that no harmony between the order of events in Genesis and secular theories existed. Young noted:

Ingenious as all these schemes may be, one is struck by the force nature of them all. While the exegetical gymnastic maneuvers have displayed remarkable flexibility, I suspect that they have resulted in temporary damage to the theological musculature.51

Unfortunately Davis Young left the faith and accepted evolutionary thought. Young is not alone in his observation of a conflict between secular theories and the Biblical text, and it has driven many away from the faith.

Another good example of gymnastics is the fact that PC's are logically forced to hold to a local flood event because they assume that uniformitarian geologists are correct regarding the sources and ages of the strata. Naturalists are forced into this corner because they deny catastrophism, especially on the scale that the Scripture discusses regarding the flood. But this isn't because of lack of evidence;52 it's again a paradigm issue. Interestingly, Dr. Ross when asked during a debate if the Noachian flood was global replied that it was "universal." Which of course begs the question, what is universal? His explanation was that the Bible describes Noah's 'universe', all that he knew, being decimated.53

It can clearly be seen then that PC and Day-Age place science above scripture. In fact even atheists recognize what PC's are doing, and joyfully so. Ken Nahigian of the Nation Center for Science Education54 remarked that:

"Ross's belief that true theology must conform to true science cheers me greatly;….Dr. Ross seems more in league with British evangelicals of the 1830's who wrote that if "sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."55

One area of focus in criticism of PC's is their claim to be reading Genesis literally, yet they place a different definition on the Hebrew word yom in the first chapter. I will address this in the next section.

Literal Six-Day

This is by far the least accepted view in Christendom today, but ironically the view that is most consistent Biblically and Scientifically.56 It is also the most widely held by theologians throughout history.57 Literal Six-day is just as it espouses, that the creation of the universe was performed by God in six 24hr days, the same as we experience today, and this occurred about 6000 years ago based on a simple addition of genealogies. Literal Six-day also holds to a world-wide, global flood that covered the entire planet and destroyed all life with the exception of life on the Ark. The latter, according to scriptural geologists, say that this accounts for the better part of the geologic strata and sedimentary rock found all over the earth. Again, it's important to note, this view differs from all others in that it starts with the description given in Scripture. Where the scriptures speak, interpretation of science, especially historical, must come secondarily to God's Word. This is the strength of the view and even opponents of the view recognize this fact. Hebrew scholar, Dr. James Barr of Oxford University noted that:

'...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience. 2) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story. 3) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.'58

The literal view is also consistent in that it places death, disease, and struggle after Adam's sin; death is a consequence not an antecedent of sin. All views, other than a literal view, place death before Adam's sin. This is untenable; Romans 5:12 says that death was a consequence, a result of Adam's sin. In addition, Romans 8:19-22 tells of God frustrating the entire creation as the result of sin.

Thus far I have purposefully strayed from a discussion of the Hebrew word yom in order to emphasize the point that the debate on views is not simply a discussion about semantics per say; but a brief discussion is in order. The Hebrew word yom is a critical point of contention, yom means day, and just like in the English language the word can have many meanings. For example in the sentence, "back in my father's day, it took 6 days to cross the outback during the day."59 The word day is used three times in one sentence, but all with a separate meaning. As can be seen in this example, the context determines the meaning. If I were to say "I made this car in three days, on the first day I put together the chassis, then in the evening I went to bed and then woke up in the morning. The second day I placed the engine, then evening and morning came; then on the third day I put the body on." Everyone would know that I was outlining a specific sequence of events in three consecutive 24-hour days, not some unknowable epoch of time. These descriptions are analogous to the description given in Genesis. Moses used yom with two qualifiers (evening and morning) and an ordinal (first, second, third etc.), which makes it exceedingly clear. In addition, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 support a literal six-day reading as this was the framework for the workweek for the Israelites. The ministry Answers In Genesis, in a word study, found that;

"whenever the word day is used with a number, or with the words evening or morning, or with the word night, or whenever the phrase 'evening and morning' is used, outside of Genesis 1 the Hebrew word for day always means an ordinary day, or the phrase evening morning means an ordinary day"60

It is inconsistent that when less of a context is given to define yom critics of a literal view assume it's a 24-hour period of time. Nobody ever questions day outside of Genesis 1. It begs the question of how long Joshua walked around Jericho, or Jonah remained in the fish, or Christ in the grave.

Consequences and Conclusion

It's often been said that "the time of Creation is not as important as the fact of creation."61 This is a straw-man argument that seeks to divert attention from the very point and issue at hand, which is that compromise with secular paradigms' ultimately injure the authority of the word of God. Jesus said in John 3:12, "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" In other words, if one cannot trust what the Bible says about history and physical matters which we can see and touch, then how can one trust the things that are immaterial or spiritual? Norman Geisler in the forward of The Genesis Debate stated that:

"the church needs to shift its focus to the real enemy-evolutionism-not to other forms of creationism that remain true to the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis… Evangelicals need to start turning their cannons on naturalists, not on other supernaturalists."62

While well intentioned this thought fails at various levels. As we've seen, no view except the literal view remains true to the historicity of the events as they're actually described in scripture and all other views attempt to compromise or outright deny a literal interpretation. The danger of compromise cannot be understated. Hitler understood this and sought to use it as a weapon against the church, he says:

It's "not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death." Hitler explained to his aides. "A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic."63

Hitler, a devout atheist, understood the importance about concessions from an antagonistic viewpoint; I just pray that more Christians would see its importance as the protagonist. My attempt was to present a brief but accurate view of each while at the same time sounding a warning Paul sounded to the church of Colossae, that is, to not make compromises between man's opinion and God's word;

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." – Col. 2:8

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 reminds us to demolish every pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and to take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ. Paul doesn't say demolish every person that sets themselves up against the knowledge of God. My goal is not to attack anyone in particular, though I will mention proponents of the various views.
2. Atheism means "no God" which is a definitive claim. This is self defeating because how can one make the definitive claim that there is no God unless they know everything?
3. It's not wrong to have a starting assumption, in fact everyone has a bias. The only difference between those who don't and those who do is whether or not one admits they have a bias.
4. It's up to the individual to study and conform themselves to Christ and present their bodies, which includes their minds, as a living sacrifice to God. Romans 12:1-2
5. Judges 21:25 - In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.
6. David G. Hagopian, The Genesis Debate (Mission Viejo: Crux Press, 2001) 217.
7. Ibid., 219.
8. Ibid,. 219.
9. Dr. Terry Mortensen, Coming To Grips With Genesis (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009) 151.
10. Coming To Grips With Genesis, 151.
11. Ibid, 76.
12. Dr. John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove: 2009), 9. The accusation of cultural imperialism should really be directed at himself for placing pagan religious culture into God's Word. He's committed "literary form imperialism." I think it would be best if we all had scriptural imperialism!
13. Although ironically he makes the claim that the material was created in the distant past prior to Genesis 1.
14. Coming To Grips With Genesis, 76-77.
15. Ibid, 156.
16. Dr. Bing received his ThM. and PhD. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an author and was the pastor of Burleson Bible Church for 19 years. He is currently the head of GraceLife Ministries.
17. From a personal e-mail discussion with Dr. Bing on ANE's, June 7, 2009.
18. Dr. Rene Lopez. Israelite Covenants in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants. (CTS Journal, Spring 2004) 106.
19. This phrase along with microbes-to-men, particles-to-people, were coined by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati.
20. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/future-of-humans last accessed Feb. 12, 2011.
21. http://www.Dictionary.com, Last Accessed, February 9, 2011.
22. LiveScience is an ardent supporter of evolutionary thought. http://www.livescience.com/topics/evolution/
23. Equivocation, is using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different.
24. Often referred to as Micro-evolution, but I don't prefer that term because it incorporates the word evolution and can add confusion to a discussion. I hesitate to give any sort of credence to this hollow and deceptive philosophy.
25. Deoxyribonucleic acid
26. DNA contains not only the instruction manual for the organism, but also for translating itself. The code is meaningless unless it has a translation packet. When and how this chicken-before-the-egg process got started is unknown to the evolutionist. Both had to be in place at the same time.
27. I highly recommend Dr. Werner Gitt's book, In the Beginning was Information.
28. Information is key; this is Achilles heel of the goo-to-you axiom.
29. Not just the inventor of pasteurization but also a creation scientist.
30. Dr. Werner Gitt. Did God Use Evolution? (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2006.) 13-16, 24.
31. Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, A Critique of the Gap Theory. (Collinsville, IL: Burgener, 2000). 7.
32. Dr. Terry Mortensen. The Great Turning Point, (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004). 33.
33. Ibid.. 34-35.
34. Retired Colonel Thieme was a graduate of Dallas Theological and pastor of Berachah Church.
35. Augustine also held the idea of an instantaneous creation.
36. R.B. Thieme Jr. Creation, Chaos, and Restoration. (Berachah Church: 1973). 12.
37. Ibid.. 12.
38. For a full discussion on every aspect of the Gap theory, see Weston Fields unparalleled work Unformed and Unfilled: A critique of the Gap Theory.
39. Fields, 7.
40. Ibid.., 8.
41. Fields, 129.
42. Dr. Constable makes this claim; (Notes on Genesis, 12). See Mortensen's discussions on Chalmers in The Great Turning Point.
43. Principles of Geology
44. The Great Turning Point. 235-235.
45. Theime, 14-15.
46. The Great Turning Point. 35.
47. Hagopian, 64.
48. Dallas Theological Seminary Chapel Service, September 13, 1996, presented in the article http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp, last accessed Feb. 15, 2011. He needs to reread John 3:16.
49. Uniformitarianism, popularized by Lyell, simply means that the present is the key to the past, it's the assumption that the geologic events/processes occurring today have always occurred and at the same rate. (See The Great Turning Point p. 32) I contend that the past is the key to the present!
50. Davis Young was a geologist and son of orthodox Old Testament scholar, Edward J. Young. See Refuting Compromise, p. 144.
51. Sarfati, 145.
52. If there really was a worldwide flood, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth.
53. This view was espoused by Dr. Ross during the Great Debate on the Ankerberg television show. It is a common tactic and belief espoused by Dr. Ross.
54. Technically they're the national movement to keep God out of science and indoctrinate in naturalistic philosophy.
55. Sarfati, 48.
56. I make a distinction between historical science (science dealing with past) and observational science (science dealing with the present). The former requires many assumptions, thus the need for a starting point.
57. See Refuting Compromise, p 121 for a table listing statements made by early church theologians.
58. Sarfati, 289.
59. Ken Ham, Answers Academy Curriculum. Answers In Genesis-US DVD, 2005.
60. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp, last accessed Feb. 9, 2011.
61. Hagopian, 12.
62. Hagopian, 12.
63. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, The secret history of the American left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning, (Doubleday, 2008). 363.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Answers In Genesis. PowerPoint Illustrations, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020208_104.asp (accessed Feb. 9, 2011).
• Answers In Genesis. Dr. Monty White, 2006: Theistic Evolution and the Future of Humans,
• http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/future-of-humans (accessed Feb. 12, 2011).
• Answers In Genesis. Ken Ham, 2008: What's wrong with 'Progressive Creation?' http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp (accessed Feb. 7, 2011).
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on Genesis. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• Fields, Weston. Unformed and Unfilled, A Critique of the Gap Theory. Collinsville, IL: Burgener Enterprises, 2000.
• Gitt, Dr. Werner. Did God Use Evolution? Observations from a Scientist of Faith. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2006.
• Gitt, Dr. Werner. In the Beginning Was Information. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2006.
• Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism, The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2008.
• Ham, Ken. Answers Academy Curriculum. Answers In Genesis-US DVD, 2005.
• Hagopian, David G. The Genesis Debate, Three Views on the Days of Creation. Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001.
• LiveScience. LiveScience Topic: Evolution, 2010: http://www.livescience.com/topics/evolution/ (accessed Feb. 12, 2011).
• Lopez. Dr. Rene. Israelite Covenants in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants. CTS Journal, Spring 2004, 106.
• Morris, Dr. John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2002.
• Mortenson, Dr. Terry. The Great Turning Point, The Church's Catastrophic Mistake on Geology – Before Darwin. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004.
• Mortenson, Dr. Terry, Ury, Dr.Thane. Coming To Grips With Genesis, Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2009.
• Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Orange, CA: Promise Publishing, 1989.
• Sarfati, Dr. Jonathan. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004.
• Thieme, R.B., Jr. Creation, Chaos, and Restoration. Berachah Church: 1973.
• Walton, Dr. John. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2009.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=6 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of whether or not the flood described in Genesis 6-9 was global or a local Mesopotamian event. I will defend the idea that it was a global catastrophe and support this from four lines of evidence; The Bible, historical writers/commentators, flood legends, and Christ’s own words. I will contrast this with local flood advocates opinions and determine if their interpretation lines up with God’s Word and extra-Biblical evidence. Before beginning though, it’s critical to understand why this question is even posed; frankly I’m amazed it is!

The debate about the extent of the flood began in the days of Greek Philosophers like Socrates (470 BC) and Plato (428 BC) . It was originally the secularists who held that if there was a flood it was local and the Biblicists held that it was global. It remained this way consistently for 1700 years; however, several things happened in the 18th century that created the debate among evangelicals. This began in the late 1700’s with the publication of James Hutton’s book, Theory of the Earth (1795), and several decades later Charles Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology (1830).

Hutton was a medical doctor, turned farmer, turned amateur geologist. Ironically with his lack of geologic expertise, he is considered today as the father of geology. In his book he proposed the idea of slow and gradual geologic processes, he stated that:

The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now…no powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.1

Hutton is displaying his dogmatic naturalism and an outright denial of other possible explanations, such as catastrophism. Although Hutton was an atrocious writer, his book helped set the stage for Lyell’s books, which were to later have a significant influence on theologians and even Charles Darwin.

Charles Lyell built upon Hutton’s idea of slow and gradual processes, he too approached his works with the same dogmatic naturalism. It was his ideas that were coined as uniformitarianism.2 He outrightly rejected any sort of catastrophism, such as the global flood, which was supported by many good scriptural geologists of the day. Ironically many of them were better scientists than their secular counterparts. Dr. Mortensen in his book The Great Turning Point, lists many scriptural geologists such as George Young, George Fairholme, and William Rhind. Dr. Mortenson notes that many of their ideas and arguments against uniformitarianism are still very applicable today. It’s unfortunate that their warnings were not heeded by Christian laymen and theologians of the day.

Interestingly, the source of attacks against a global flood shifted, and historical writings began to show that the greatest opposition to a global flood started coming from Christians. These Christians who adopted the old-earth ideas were thus forced to make the flood either myth, local, or tranquil. They were forced into this corner because if Noah’s flood produced the majority of sedimentary deposition and fossils, which is what you’d have in a worldwide flood, then there’s no room left for the evidence to account for strata being laid down over millions of years and evolution to take place. Since the layers of strata were supposedly laid down over slow and gradual processes, the same as we see today, over vast amounts of time; then in accepting those claims they could not say that the layers were created by a singular, year-long event as described in Scripture. To their credit, the compromising theologians were being logically consistent, unfortunately they didn’t side with the clear perspicuous reading of scripture and may not have fully understood the consequences of what adopting these views did to their theology as well as the consequences it has upon the authority of scripture.

Historical Interpretations

Before moving to the scriptures, it’s important to note in this discussion that a local flood view is a recent belief among evangelicals. The point here is not to claim that because these men believed a global flood we should too, scripture is to remain paramount, but what it does provide is ample evidence that outside influences have affected commonly held theology. The following table provides a summary of the opinions of ancient writers, Dr. Sarfati notes that "many of them reacted strongly against local flood ideas held by all the Greek philosophers (including Plato), except for Xenophon. Only Psuedo-Justin seems to have supported a local flood."

Writer	Date	Extent of Flood		Reference
		Local	Global
Philo	c.20 B.C-c.A.D. 50	–	x	Abraham, 41-44
Josephus	A.D. 37/38-100	–	x	Antiquities, 1.3.4 (1.89)
Justin Martyr	c.100-c.165	–	x	Dialogue, 138
Theolphilus of Antioch	Wrote c. 180	–	x	Auolycus, 3.18-19
Tertullian	c. 160-c.225	–	x	Pallium, 2; Women, 3
Gregory of Nazianzus	330-390	–	x	2nd Theol. Orat. 18
John Chrysostom	374-407	–	x	Genesis 25.10
Augustine of Hippo	354-430	–	x	City 15.27

Table 1: The Opinion of Ancient Writers Concerning the Extent of Noah's Flood3

After extensive research into the historical writers, Bradshaw notes, "In this the fathers cannot be said to be simply parroting the commonly held views of contemporary culture, because many used it to counter the local flood view which was held by all the Greek philosophers."4

John Calvin (1509-1564) held the global flood view; in several remarks throughout his commentaries of Genesis 6-9 he always treated the deluge as global in scope. One example is Genesis 6:18 where he commented on the covenant God made with Noah:

Now, the sum of this covenant of which Moses speaks was, that Noah should be safe, although the whole world should perish in the deluge. For there is an understood antithesis, that the whole world being rejected, the Lord would establish a peculiar covenant with Noah alone.5 [emphasis mine]

He went on to address the issue of God terminating not just all of mankind, but all creatures he created; with of course the exception of those on the ark. So, not only did he recognize the global nature of the deluge, but he never mentioned a debate about whether or not the flood was a local Mesopotamian event. This is curious, as he did often mention debates of his day throughout his commentaries; apparently this wasn’t one of them.6 So again, the point is not an argument of ad populum, but to stress the source of the belief among compromising evangelicals.

Scriptural Support

In Genesis 6-9 Moses, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, spent an enormous amount of time describing not just the reason for the flood, but the actual events themselves. There are several things to note in these four chapters that support the idea of the flood being global, such as details of terms like "earth," "all," and "every;" the description of Noah’s ark along with a timeline of the sequence of events; and then maybe more importantly the Noahic covenant. I will address these topics in the following paragraphs.

Semantics

Earth

Some have said that the term earth used in Genesis 6-9 is used in a limited regional sense, they argue that nobody prior to our scientific knowledge of today would have understood that the term meant the entire planet.7 A prominent local flood advocate,8 states:

We moderns think of our earthly habitat as a roughly spherical astronomical body. But that’s a relatively recent conception. The majority of people who have ever lived on "the earth" never knew it as a planet and never envisioned it as such.9

This claim has no merit because it presupposes that the Hebrews had no understanding of God’s creation. This is highly unlikely based on our understanding of ancient cultures and their knowledge of astronomy.

Genesis 6 begins with the reason for the flood, that man (all of mankind, with the exception of Noah) was wicked and needed to be removed. Genesis 6:5 specifically states that it was because "the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Even the Godly line of Seth was corrupted.10 For this reason God states that man’s "days shall be one hundred and twenty years." (6:3). Meaning that God was graciously going to allow Noah to preach another 120 years before the flood was to come and destroy mankind. Point being, the idea of the global nature of man’s wickedness and corruption upon the earth is reiterated in not just one or two passages, but repeated many times, emphasizing the cause for the flood and its extent.

In any case, the Hebrew word אֶרֶץ ‘erets’ is often translated as earth, which means globe or planet. For example, Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Here it clearly means globe as it wouldn’t make much sense to say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the local region of Mesopotamia." While a true statement, the overall context of God creating everything in Genesis 1 makes ‘eret’ mean planet and all therein. ‘Erets has been translated as ground as in the case of Genesis 48:12 "then Joseph took them from his knees and bowed with his face to the ground (erets)." The context makes it clear that Joseph was bowing down to a point on the earth which makes it local in scope.

When scripture is unclear, and in this case I do not believe it is, it’s good exegetical practice to stick with the common meaning. When God makes statements like "They were blotted out from the earth" (7:23), "Nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood" (10:32), "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (9:7), "lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth" (11:4), we can only reasonably assume the basic meaning of the term; which is to describe the entire planet. In most cases though, the Biblical text is much clearer.

When God’s emphasis is the destruction of all mankind and every creature because it was corrupt; only Noah was found a righteous man, He means everyone to the exclusion of one. Thus in the context of the phrases like all, everything, and everywhere under the heavens (6:17) ‘eret can mean nothing other than the whole planet earth. When Jesus gave the great commission in Acts 1:8 "and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." was Jesus telling his disciples and us to spread the gospel to just the Mesopotamian region?

Beyond that, God said He was going to destroy not just mankind, but all creatures in whose nostrils was the breath of life. Local flood advocates often claim that all of mankind may have lived in a local region, but to think that all the animals did the same, or to say that only animals that lived in that local region died, denies common sense and the plain meaning of the text. Point being, nothing in the context would indicate in Genesis 6-9 that ‘erets’ referred to a local region.

All Flesh and Every Creature

The words "all," "every," "whole," or "everything" are used prolifically in Genesis 6-9. This repetition in scripture makes a strong case of the totality that is in view. Genesis 6-9 is emphasizing that every creature in existence was wiped out with the exception of every creature on Noah’s ark. Dr. Sarfati notes that "It’s repetition that matters, …In Hebrew, as in any other language, repetition is a way of emphasizing the literalness of the meaning "all in this Flood account."11

For some perspective, all is used 66 times in just 4 out of 50 chapters which represents 20% of the usage in Genesis alone. 57 of the 66 usages describe nouns that represent creatures, living things, mankind, swarming things, things under the heavens, creeping things, flesh, birds, beasts, clean animals, and breathing creatures. Two times it’s used to stress that Noah did all that was commanded of him, not just some. Three times it’s used to describe the whole of the earth or features of the earth such as the fountains and high mountains. And twice it’s used to describe all that mankind could now eat. Point being is that 86% of the time it represents the whole of creatures on the earth, sometimes it’s not used with the term earth, under heaven, face of land, or ark; in those cases it stands alone.

When the term "all" is used as an adjective, it means without exception, the whole of or as an adverb entirely or completely. In every case it’s always the whole of the object or noun being described; it encompasses wholly what it refers to. So the question is; were all creatures, without exception, swept away in the flood around the entire earth, or were all creatures swept away in a local flood while leaving others outside of the region alive? Does "all" refer to a local scope or global scope?

It’s important to note an inconsistency here if one holds to a local scope. In the flood account there’s a contrast between every creature that died, and every creature that was saved. If one were to argue that every creature that died was just in the local area, and others survived outside of that region, then by all logic and exegetical consistency they would have to say that only some in the ark were saved, while others in a local region in the ark died. This is just one of many issues that arise.

To illustrate what I mean by scope, if for example I ask my children to "pick up all the toys downstairs", I mean every toy within that scope as defined by the noun "downstairs". But if I say, "I want all the toys picked up in the house", I mean every toy throughout the whole of the home; in this case the scope changes with the prepositional phrase "in the house." But if I say, "pickup all the toys" without referencing a scope, I mean every single toy in the whole of the house, not just a room or a local region in the bedroom. The term "all" sets the scope in this case, and by default, it means the whole.

Similarly, with respect to the terms all and every in Genesis, the scope of those terms is often set by the term itself and reiterated in the context of earth and under heaven. Genesis 6:17 in its use of the term "under heaven" makes the term all in conjunction with earth even more abundantly clear that the entire planet is in view. Thus, unless otherwise noted, the scope of all flesh is planetary even though the term may not be used in conjunction with earth.

Verses 8:16-17 illustrates the absurdity of the words all, or every, or earth referring only to a local region. Noah was commanded by God to leave the ark, God said "Go out of the ark…bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you…" (v8:16-17). Noah didn’t bring out just those animals that were located on the first deck, or some local region within the ark. He removed the whole of them, without exception.

If all and every in this context is limited in scope, what are the implications for passages like Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fallen short…", or was that just some of us? Or was Jesus only given partial authority when he said "all authority has been given unto me…" (Matt. 28:18)? To say that all or every in this context has a limited sense, because other passages throughout scripture may have a limited sense, is poor exegesis. New Testament scholar, Dr. Don Carson notes this is type of exegesis is an…

unwarranted expansion of an already-expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with the word’s entire semantic range.12

In other words, taking the meaning of a word from one part of scripture and applying it to other areas is bad practice.

Noah’s Ark & Flood Depth

Noah’s ark is another striking piece of evidence that the flood was global. Not only did Noah spend 120 years building it for the purpose of saving his family and creatures of every kind,13 he also lived on it for over a year. Some local flood advocates have proposed that it was built for the purpose of evangelism, a platform from which to preach;

When God pours out judgment, He gives ample warning ahead of time. He sends a spokesperson, a prophet, and gives that prophet a kind of platform from which to be heard. For the antediluvians, Noah was that prophet and the scaffolding around the ark was his platform.14

I can find no other place in scripture where any prophet has required or been given or asked to build a platform from which to preach. There is no precedent set to draw such a conclusion. It goes beyond reason to think that Noah labored to build a ship for 120 years only to use it for preaching. The ark itself though was massive, Genesis 6:14-16 lists the following characteristics: It was made of Gopher wood, with rooms, pitch inside and out, lower, middle, and upper decks with a roof and the following dimensions: 437ft x 44ft x 73 ft. This is roughly the size of an Aegis class destroyer. This was large enough to hold an estimated 8000 pairs15 of created kinds with plenty of room and storage for supplies for the year-long journey. Dr. Whitcomb agrees:

The very size of the Ark should effectively eliminate the local flood view from serious consideration among those who take the Book of Genesis at face value.16

The detailed description of the ark only adds to the notion that the flood was global, otherwise why make something so large in order to house every kind of animal including flying things? If it was a local flood couldn’t the birds and animals just have migrated to an unaffected area? For what other purpose would the ark contain every kind of creature?

In addition, the fact that a detailed timeline of events is given in Genesis is a strong indication that the purpose of the ark was to save a righteous remnant of mankind and allow earth to be repopulated by every kind of animal that God made from the beginning.17 If the flood was local, why remain on it for so long?

Below is a detailed timeline of events:

Day	Event	Verse
1	Noah enters the ark	Gen. 7:6
40	Waters reach maximum height	Gen. 7:17
150	Waters being receding	Gen. 7:24
224	Tops of mountain are seen	Gen. 8:5
264	Noah sent out raven	Gen. 8:6
271	Noah sent out dove	Gen. 8:10
285	Dove sent, does not return	Gen. 8:12
314	Noah removes covering	Gen. 8:13
371	Noah leaves the ark	Gen. 8:14

One event worth mentioning is found in Genesis 8:10; "But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth"18 The word dove, yonah19, represents a pigeon of the Columbidae bird family. Some pigeons like the homing pigeon have ranges of over 1000 miles.20 The Mesopotamian region, the area that lies between the Tigris and Euphrates extends approximately 5000 miles long and 450 miles wide.21 Thus it’s conceivable that if the flood was local, the pigeon could have found a place to perch besides the ark. But according to Scripture, the avian did not find a place to land; yet again providing strong evidence as to the global extent of the flood.

Another evidence, that is arguably one of the strongest, comes in Genesis 7:19-20, it says:

"The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." [emphasis mine]

All the mountains everywhere were covered over 22 feet with water! Because of the nature of water, and how it seeks its own level, the only way all the tops of the mountains were covered is if the flood was global. Dr. Whitcomb, theologian and co-author of the Genesis Flood stated the following in regards to this passage:

nearly all commentators agree that the phrase "fifteen cubits" in 7:20 must refer to how deep the Ark sank into the water when it was fully laden. Such information adds further support for a universal Flood, because it tells us that the Flood "prevailed" over the tops of the highest mountains to a depth of at least 15 cubits. If the Flood had not covered the mountains by at least such a depth, the Ark could not have floated over them during the five months in which the waters "prevailed" upon the earth.22

This again should be clear cut evidence as to the global nature of the flood, especially for those with a propensity towards science.

The Noahic Covenant

If the evidences thus far are unconvincing as to the nature and extent of the flood, nothing comes quite as revealing as the Noahic covenant. In order to twist this covenant to mean something other than having a global extent, one must be forced to spiritualize it. The Noahic covenant is an unconditional covenant, one in which mankind has to do nothing in order for it to be fulfilled.

In Genesis 9:8-17 God makes a covenant with Noah, with all his descendants, which would include us (v. 9), and with all the creatures of the earth that came off the ark (v.10). The covenant was this; "that never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." (v. 11). It was also "everlasting" (v.18). To further emphasize the promise made, God made a sign for Himself, the rainbow. It was not for mankind to remember God’s promise, but for God to remember His promise. Verse 18 says "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth". Keywords here are "and I will remember my covenant" (v.18) and "when I look upon it" (v. 15).

The rainbow was designated as a reminder towards God of His own everlasting promise to every creature upon the face of the whole earth and mankind, not just some in a local region.

These details are important because if we are to assume the flood was local, what was this everlasting promise all about? Did God promise to never again send a local flood, or was it just the fact that God will never destroy all the creatures of the earth again? In either case, both would be false because we see that local floods occur routinely and 2 Peter 3:10 makes it clear that the earth will be burned up. The Noahic covenant can only logically said to be global in scope, as any other interpretation would have serious logical, theological, and interpretive hurdles.

Flood Legends

One area that is often neglected is extra-Biblical evidence among various people groups that have had no affiliation with the scriptures, or intermingling outside of themselves. The only commonality among them would be the fact that they all originated from Noah and his family, and were dispersed after the tower of Babel event described in Genesis 11. In fact the table of nations in Genesis 10 shows us that we were once of one people group. While the Hebrews, through the line of Shem, carried the true events and nature of the flood, other nations carried on legends, mostly through oral tradition that have many similarities to the Bible.

Not everything in these legends is accurate, but there are too many attributes that are consistent with Scripture that provide strong evidence of the global nature of the flood. There are in fact over 270 legends from around the world; from the Toltec’s to the Chinese, Indians to Polynesians. One such legend is from Hawaii:

Long after the death of Kuniuhonna, the first man, the world became a wicked terrible place to live. There was one good man left; his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. The waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people. Only Nu-u and his family were saved.23

Notice the emphasis on world and the fact that only one man was left, Nu-u, which sounds similar to Noah. All the people were wicked and died and only Nu-u and his family were saved. The similarity is striking and lends credibility to the accuracy of the scriptures. The Chinese also have a legend and they record that:

Fuhi, his wife, three sons and three daughters escaped a great flood. He and his family were the only people alive on earth. After the great flood they repopulated the world.24

The Miao tribe of southwest China had a legend prior to meeting Christian missionaries:

...god destroyed the whole world by the flood because of wickedness of man, Nuah, the righteous man and his wife Matriarch, their three sons, Lo Han, Lo Shen, and Jah-hu survived by building a very broad ship and embarked on it with pairs of animals. …The Patriarch Jahphu got the center of nations. The son he begot was the Patriarch Go-men.25

Again, these accounts are strikingly similar to scripture. The following list shows a comparison of attributes of the flood legends:

1.	Is there a favored family	88%
2.	Were they forewarned	66%
3.	Is the flood due to wickedness of man	66%
4.	Is catastrophe only a flood	95%
5.	Was the flood global	95%
6.	Is the survival due to a boat	70%
7.	Were animals also saved	67%
8.	Did animals play any part	73%
9.	Did survivors land on a mountain	57%
10.	Was the geography local	82%
11.	Were birds sent out	35%
12.	Was the rainbow mentioned	7%
13.	Did survivors offer a sacrifice	13%
14.	Were specifically 8 people saved	9%

Notice in the comparisons that 95% of all the legends state that the flood was global. It is highly unlikely that this would still be the case if the flood was local. It’s clear then that Genesis 6-9 is consistent with extra-Biblical evidences due to the details and commonality.

Peter and Jesus

One need look no further than the very words of Christ and the apostle Peter as they both recognized the global nature of the flood when making comparisons about the events that are and that are to come. Jesus, when giving an answer to his disciples as to when He would return to setup his kingdom (not the rapture) likened his coming to the events that occurred during the days of Noah, Matthew 24:37-40 says:

"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left...

Jesus was making a comparison of judgment. Just as the flood swept all the people away, so to his coming will sweep all the unbelievers away as well. In the days of Noah, the people taken were the ungodly, the people left were the Godly. Prior to the kingdom being setup, the same thing will occur; the ungodly will be removed, and the Godly will be left to enter into the kingdom. So again, we have a contrast between all saved and all lost. If the flood was local, people not living in that region would not have been affected, what then is the implication of Christ’s second coming? Is He going to only remove the ungodly from a local region? Christ’s comparison of the flood and His return wouldn’t make sense if it was local, thus the flood had to have been global. Peter, in 2 Peter 3:3-7 made a very prophetic statement, one that if it had not come true, would have made this discussion irrelevant. With respect to Christ’s return and what to watch for, he said that:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. [emphasis mine]

Several things to briefly mention; Peter says that mockers will come, he doesn’t make a distinction between believers and unbelievers, only that people on both sides will ridicule two things; the creation and the flood. Note too that he prophesied uniformitarianism when he said that these mockers will say "all continues just as it was from the beginning". Peter underscores the importance of the issue as well as the global nature of the flood just as Jesus did when He prophesied His return.

Summary and Conclusions

Scripture is perspicuous on this issue, it is only because outside influences of secular science and naturalistic presuppositions that one would even think to interpret Genesis 6-9 as describing a local event. If we were to assume that the events described were speaking of a local event, one would have to wonder how God could have explained a Global event; what words and descriptions would He choose to use? Conversely if God wanted to teach a local flood, aren’t there many other ways He could have done this like specifying that the flood took place between two regions or that it took place in the land of Shinar?

While many claim that a belief in a global or local flood doesn’t matter, this discussion highlights the importance of starting points and theological consistency. When starting from outside of scripture and using naturalistic secular scientific theories to drive your interpretation, a local flood view will be required. I argue that we cannot afford as believers to sweep this under the proverbial rug, or dismiss it as secondary in nature claiming that it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe in Jesus. If we cannot trust God’s word to say what it means, then the very words and miracles of Christ come into question; because on what basis can we trust scripture when it says that a man was raised from the dead after being crucified and buried for three days? Proverbs 3:5 says we are to trust in the Lord, and lean not on our own understanding.

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise. (Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004) 246.
2. Sarfati, 247.
3. Robert Bradshaw, Noah’s Flood and the Tower of Babel. http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter6.htm last accessed Feb. 20, 2011.
4. Ibid.
5. John Calvin, Commentaries on The First Book of Moses Called Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979.) 258-259.
6. One example is his opining of the sons of God, he notes that "The ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with so men, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious." (Calvin, 238.)
7. Makes one wonder what the Hebrews thought of Genesis 1:1.
8. He says he doesn’t believe a local flood but a universal one, this is just a game of semantics.
9. Hugh Ross, Exploring the Extent of Noah’s Flood, http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/noahs-flood/exploring-extent-flood-part-one accessed Feb. 25, 2011.
10. I hold the view that the sons of God were from the lineage of Seth, not that they were angelhumans.
11. Sarfati, 251.
12. D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd Ed (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996). 60.
13. Genesis 8:1
14. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001) 164-165.Arthur Custance holds to a similar view and said that the purpose was to merely warn unbelievers not to save believers. (See the Genesis Flood, Whitcomb, 11-12 for more information.)
15. Woodmorappe, John. Noah’s Ark A Feasibility Study. (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 2003) 47.
16. Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, August 1998).26
17. This includes giant lizards, a.k.a. dinosaurs.
18. Genesis 8:9
19. Robert Thomas. New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc. 1998, 1981). 3123. Incidentally this is the same Hebrew word for the messenger Jonah.
20. Charles Walcott, PIGEON HOMING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS AND CONFUSIONS http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/199/1/21.pdf accessed Feb. 22, 2010.
21. As measured on an ancient map of the Fertile Crescent.
22. The Genesis Flood, 2.
23. Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1992) 74.
24. Ibid.
25. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/a-comparison-from-secular-historical-records/, accessed Dec. 8, 2021.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Answers In Genesis. Nozomi Osanai, https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/a-comparison-from-secular-historical-records/ (accessed Dec 8, 2021)
• Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1996.
• Calvin, John. Commentaries on The First Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979.
• Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1992.
• Mortenson, Dr. Terry. The Great Turning Point, The Church’s Catastrophic Mistake on Geology – Before Darwin. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004.
• Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001.
• Sarfati, Dr. Jonathan. Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AK: Master Books, 2004.
• Thomas, Robert L. New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981.
• Walcott, Charles, PIGEON HOMING: OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIMENTS AND CONFUSIONS http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/199/1/21.pdf (accessed Feb. 22, 2010).
• Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, August 1998.
• Woodmorappe, John. Noah’s Ark A Feasibility Study. Santee, California: Institute for Creation
• Research, 2003.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=5 Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

Keeping the gospel message free from works and to espouse it with clarity and simplicity is of the utmost importance. Even the Apostle Paul asked for prayer from the church in Colossae that he would make the gospel clear in the way he spoke (Col. 4:4). Recently however, some have overreached, and have gone so far as to say that belief in Christ as God, in addition to his death burial and resurrection are adding more to the message of the gospel than is required in order to receive eternal life. In their view, it's not that those things aren't important, they are, but they're not necessary for one to be convinced of as true in order to be saved.

According to this view, all that is required for salvation is to believe in the name Jesus and in that name for eternal life. Those who "add" things that we must believe, like Christ's death, resurrection, and being, are accused of being "doctrinal legalists."1 One has even stated that we should "never confuse what our Savior had to be and to do to provide salvation with what we must do to obtain it."2 This seemingly innocuous statement has profound effects on theology, particularly Christology and Soteriology, because it necessarily seeks to dissociate the person of Christ from His work.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly defend the idea that Christ's death and resurrection are inseparably linked with who Jesus Christ is, the Son of God. The person that is Christ and His work defines His uniqueness and provides the necessary components for the proper object of our faith; anything less, particularly in the mission field, will result in an improper object and an impotent savior. We believe in Christ because of what He did for us, and He could only do for us what He did because He is fully God and fully man. Christ's person and work are two sides of the same coin;3 they're inextricably linked.

I have divided this paper into three basic sections. I will begin by focusing on the person of Christ by defining the terms Jesus and Messiah; and focus on His deity. The next section will deal with His death and resurrection and the criticality with which that has upon salvation and all of theology, and the last section will deal with the relationship between the two.

The Person of Christ

The purpose of this section is to illustrate the fact that to misunderstand, at the most basic level, Jesus' God-Man quality is to fail to recognize a specific individual. The importance of His person lies in the fact that Jesus cannot be confused with any other since He claimed to be God.4 I'm not saying that one needs to understand the hypostatic union in order to be saved. Fortunately that is not spelled out as a requirement in scripture, only the fact that one must understand that He is at least the Son of God.5 Dale Ellenburg notes the importance in Christ's person;

"The absolute fundamental to the Christian faith is Jesus Christ. The person Buddha is not essential to the teaching of Buddhism nor is the person Mohammed essential to the Islamic faith. Yet everything about Christianity rises or falls in the person of Jesus Christ."6

Dr. Bing notes the importance of the person of Christ as well when he stated the following:

"We are saved by Someone, the Lord Jesus Christ. Not just any Jesus, but the One sent from God who is the Son of God. There are many things implied by the designation Lord Jesus Christ such as deity, humanity, and messianic mission. While someone may not comprehend a full-blown Christology, there must be some understanding of Jesus' uniqueness and divine authority."7

One might ask the question, "What about all the other attributes, like his virgin birth?" It is true the list of things Christ is, is endless. Jesus Christ is the God-Man; who is our Creator, our Savior, our redeemer, our sustainer, our intercessory, our deliverer, our hope, our substitute, our rescuer, who is firstborn of all creation, who is before all things and who is the invisible God.8 These certainly set Christ apart, but nowhere in scripture, not a single verse or pericope,9 are most of those attributes ever stipulated as requirements for salvation. They add a depth to his person and fulfill prophecy. It begs the question though "which one or ones are critical to salvation then?"

John answers this for us throughout his Gospel which was specifically written so that we may know how to have eternal life. In it he emphasizes the deity of Christ more than any other book!10

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)11 [emphasis mine]

John then emphasizes in one passage Jesus as Messiah, Jesus as the Son of God (His Deity); He sets apart clearly who he's referring to. John begins his book by defining who Jesus is for his readers. The emphasis is certainly undeniable.

In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [Jesus]. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3) [emphasis mine]

Jakob Jocz makes an interesting observation regarding this pericope, he states;

"and the Word became flesh" (John 1:14). With this utterance we find ourselves in the heart of the fourth Gospel; all that follows is a description of how truly the Word became flesh. This means that for St. John the Gospel is not only what Jesus said or did, but also what He was—the incarnate Word of God. The words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth derive their importance from the fact that He is the Son of God.12

John then, makes it explicitly clear as to who he is referring to and for what purpose. So John's emphasis is on the object of our faith as well as what we must do to obtain Christ's offer of eternal life. This emphasis is logical because the purpose of John's Gospel is primarily evangelistic. Zane Hodges agrees stating that "A fundamental premise is that the purpose of the Gospel of John is evangelistic."13 If that is John's purpose, and I believe it is, then we should certainly take note of the importance of Christ's deity as he does. John is making sure we have the proper object of our faith. While a full blown Christological study is not the point of this paper, one thing that is critical is the fact that He is God and He is Man. Walvoord notes the importance of His deity as well as His humanity.

Though the doctrine of the deity of Christ is generally recognized as the indispensable fundamental of Christology, the doctrine of His true humanity is equally important. On the fact of His humanity depends the reality of His death on the cross, His claim to be Israel's Messiah, His fulfillment of the promise to David of a descendent to sit on his throne, and His offices of prophet and priest. Those who deny the true humanity of Christ such as modern Christian Science are just as effective at destroying the true Christian faith as those who deny the deity of Christ.14

While I'm not accusing anyone of denying Christ's deity or humanity, to leave that aspect out of an evangelistic message not only sells Christ short, but can lead people to an improper object. According to Walvoord Christ's deity and humanity are indispensable.

According to John's Gospel, in order to have eternal life we are to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."15 [emphasis mine] We are not believing in a name, we are believing in the person represented by the name Jesus, who is the Christ, the Son of God. John emphasizes this fact throughout his book.

For example, in John 4, in Jesus' discussion with the Samaritan woman, Jesus described himself as the one who gives "living water."16 He then goes on to say that He offers eternal life (v14). The Samaritan woman recognized this by saying, "I know a Messiah is coming (He who is called the Christ)."17 She didn't know a name, but she recognized that a Messiah was to come, a savior of the World (see John 4:42). Because of her testimony many believed (see John 4:39). Many Samaritans were convinced that Christ was the savior based on His words.18 Jesus didn't say to the woman, "I'm Jesus and if you believe in my ‘name' you will never thirst again." Christ's emphasis was on His person, as was John's account of the encounter.

Even Peter was asked by Jesus himself, "who do you say that I am?" Peter replied, "you are the Messiah" (Mark 8:29). Although they may have viewed Him at the time in the traditional sense of the term Messiah, which was associated with "a title of glorious personage both nationalistic and victorious in battle,"19 Jesus certainly didn't portray himself in that sense.

Point being, neither Peter nor the Samaritan believed in a name, but a person. This is no different today. However, through progress of revelation, just as the Samaritan woman found out and Peter knew firsthand, we know the Messiah goes by the name Jesus or Yeshua.20

The term Messiah is a transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning "anointed one" that was translated into Greek as Christos.21 "Christ" and "Messiah" are therefore synonymous terms. Jesus or Yeshua was the name given by God, it means "Yahweh saves" or "salvation is from Yahweh" (Matt. 1:21). So the terms Christ, Messiah, and the name Jesus represent His person, not just a semantic name which can be confused with any other. Stegall notes that "The "name" stands for the attributes and actions of a person which make that individual unique and identifiable."22 Walvoord concurs stating that: "In the title Christ as attributed to the Lord Jesus is embodied the hope of Israel for a Messiah to deliver them from their sins."23

As a side note in this discussion, if we're to believe in the name Jesus only it begs questions like; which Jesus? And what about Old Testament believers like Abraham or Moses? Had they even heard the name of Jesus? I contend they had not, otherwise Moses would have written about his name specifically! Why would he leave out such pertinent information? They only knew that God was going to provide someone who would make atonement for their sins. Salvation has always been by grace through faith, faith in the messiah who was to come, and faith in the messiah who came.

The name of Christ points to His deity as well as His work. As we've seen in John chapter one, he asserts that Christ is God, "John's intricate Greek declares Jesus to be equal in nature with God the Father but distinct in person!"24 John, along with much of the New Testament, emphasizes Jesus as Messiah and Jesus as the Son of God, which provides the necessary foundation for the proper person we're to place our faith in. But can this be separated from his work? Can we believe in Jesus only with the understanding that he is God and offers eternal life without understanding his work? First we must understand His work and then determine if we can separate it from the person, who is Christ.

The Death and Resurrection of Christ

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:11 said "So we preach and so you believed." This begs the question of what was preached and what was believed. This is answered earlier in verse 1-5, "I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received…by which also you are saved." Thus, Paul preached to the Corinthians the good news which they believed, and were saved from damnation in hell to eternal life. The gospel was "delivered as of first importance…that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"25 He goes on to illustrate the fact that Christ is alive and was seen. There are several things to take note of in this passage.

First, here in this single passage, we have the person of Christ and His work defined for us and when we believe it, it brings salvation. It should be noted that Paul uses the word Christos not Ioesus to refer to the person who is Jesus the Christ. I contend that this seeks to emphasize the point made earlier, that the emphasis in the object of our faith is in a person. This is not to diminish the name of Christ, but to characterize his person so-as to provide the proper object of faith. Secondly, Paul clearly says that what he preached was that Christ died and rose again; it was of "utmost importance." It was a message they believed and were saved by.

The death of Christ on the cross cannot be understated as it represents His sole purpose for coming into being in the incarnate form. It was His mission as defined by God. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."26 The Father's will was to reconcile man back to Himself using His Son Jesus Christ.27 This was done out of love as Romans 5:8 states so that he might bear the sins of mankind.28 Man was lost and in need of a redeemer for "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins."29 So important is Christ's death that without it no payment would have been made. John the Baptist recognized the importance when he stated "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World"30 If a person does not understand this simple fact, the only logical conclusion is that they must rely upon themselves in order to receive eternal life. Again, a deep doctrinal understanding of the cross is not required; in fact it's so simple that a child can understand the concept of substitutionary atonement at a basic level.

Walvoord states that "So important is his death that without it, we would still be in our sins because no payment would have been made." And that "Its proper understanding is the heart of gospel preaching as well as systematic theology, and without it other doctrines of Christology have no relevance either to human needs or to a vital hope. Everything that is essential to salvation depends upon the suffering and death of Christ."31 [emphasis mine].

The death of Christ is critical to the Gospel message but so too is His resurrection. Dr. Bing rightly notes that we are "saved from something and to something."32 This is only achievable because Christ arose from the grave; proving not only His deity as the Son of God, but also that God was satisfied with the payment made. 1 John 2:2a says that "He Himself is the propitiation [satisfactory payment] for our sins;" So important to ALL of theology is the risen Christ that without it Paul says our faith is useless and we should be pitied most of all.

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:17-19)

The point I stress here is that to deny the resurrection is to deny who Christ is; because if He is unable to conquer death, how can He promise eternal life? Christ would not have a leg to stand on and would be making a promise He Himself could not keep! That is what Paul is saying. It would be akin to me promising to pay off a million dollar debt. If it's not in my bank account, why would you trust me to do so?

Jesus Himself even notes the importance of this fact regarding salvation. After His resurrection He appeared to His disciples, sans Thomas. Thomas was being told by them that "yes, Christ is alive", Thomas doubted and said "Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails,…I will not believe." Jesus appeared to him and Thomas believed, Jesus responded by saying "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29). Believe what? It can be construed as nothing other than Christ resurrected. What Christ did is equivalent to who He is. But why are those who believe blessed? Because this is proof positive that Christ is the Son of God and that by believing these facts they will receive eternal life. This is made clear in verse 31.

So the work of Christ is extremely important to believe, otherwise why would we place our faith in Him? What would he have to offer us without believing that He died in our place as a substitute and conquered death? We would have no legitimate reason to do so. In other words, if we don't believe in Christ's work, logically speaking we have no basis for our faith in Christ to provide salvation. We would be placing our faith in an improper object and thus not be saved.

The Inseparability of the Person and Work

Now we've seen that "Jesus" means more than just a name, it encompasses His Person, Provision, and Promise.33 Paul and John have emphasized Christ as the Son of God, as well as His death and resurrection which embodies the good news of salvation; and by believing this we have eternal life. All aspects are tied together in order to provide the proper object as well as the sufficiency of His person in order to fulfill the promises of eternal life.

Hixon expresses the inseparability when he states that "Paul inseparably links man's salvation with the person and work of Jesus Christ in Romans 5:8, "…"34 "It is not belief in an undefined, ambiguous name. It is belief in the person behind the name."35 "To omit the death and resurrection of Christ from the gospel is to have improperly ‘bifurcated the person and work of Christ.'"36

As we've seen, John emphasized Christ's deity, His death and resurrection as well as what was required of us. In John 20:28, John uses the phrase "Son of God" to make a point; Bock notes that "For John, "Son of God" has for its full sense the one sent by God from heaven with a unique heavenly mission to deliver those brought into salvation."37 So important is the fact that Christ is the Son of God, John in his epistle of 1 John states that believing that Christ is the Son of God, is a requirement to salvation. "Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5). The overcomer38 is the one who believes, John's point then is that the person of Christ is critical to our understanding that we have the proper object. Dr. Constable concurs stating that:

However, no one can overcome the world unless he or she believes that Jesus is the Son of God. It is in this sense that John refers to overcomers here; every Christian overcomes essentially because we believe in Jesus Christ.39

Not only that, but John emphasized the death and resurrection in two chapters.40 Even John's evangelistic gospel does not leave this quintessential fact out. John stressed the importance of who Christ is and what He has done, which also counteracts the idea of works for salvation, while at the same time defining for us the proper object of our faith. Taken as a whole, the book of John basically says "Here's who He is, here's what He's done, and this is what you have to do." According to John then, the person and work of Christ are necessary to believe for salvation.

Likewise, Paul preached the same message and focused on these aspects as well; in fact, he stressed several times the importance of Christ's death and resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 1 he said;

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ...but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness (1 Cor. 1:17-18,23) [emphasis mine]

Two things are worth noting regarding this passage; one is that Paul de-emphasized his method of preaching and words, and emphasized the message of the Cross, which is the gospel. But he also drew a critical relationship between Christ and the cross; the person and work must be linked. This is emphasized in verse 23 when he said that he preaches Christ crucified. Paul tied both the person and work of Christ together. When Paul preached Christ crucified, it was a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks. It is a stumbling block because it is offensive to them; Jocz notes that that

The paradox which is implied in the Gospel message is an offence to the Jew and the Greek. … The offence of the Cross it that it is the man Jesus who died for the sins of the world and that this man is the Son of God.41

Paul then, if he was preaching a Jesus only message would not offend; however, because he was preaching Christ crucified, which entails his deity and humanity, he certainly did offend. To the Greeks it's foolishness because who has ever been raised from the dead? Thus, Paul's requirements for salvation are no different than John's. Paul does not separate the person from the work of Christ.

Conclusions and Applications

If one relegates Christ's work as unnecessary for belief, for salvation; the logical conclusion is that His work is inconsequential, it could even be denied.42 While those who espouse the former view do not necessarily believe the latter, it's a slippery slope. Walvoord states the importance stating that "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was a proof of His deity and Lordship, so also was His resurrection an indispensable evidence of the efficacious value of His death on the cross. … [it] demonstrates that He is indeed all He claims to be."43

Application 1: Don't divide the person from the work of Christ because that's how cults get started; by obfuscating the person and/or the work of Christ. To dissociate the Person of Christ from His work diminishes both aspects. Without believing Christ's death for salvation (Romans 3:24), it is essentially no different in practice than those who affirm that Christ died but did not literally rise from the dead, and those who claim that He never died but was revived. If Christ's work is not necessary to define the proper object, then it begs the question as to whether or not these are just grey areas in Theology.

Application 2: Be clear and include in the gospel message what Paul and John included. We should always strive to keep the gospel message clear and simple, free of works, while at the same time providing the lost the proper object of faith. For anyone to believe anything less is to run the risk of having people place their faith in an improper object, one that cannot fulfill promises made.

The proper object is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the one who died and rose again and by believing in Him, because of His provision and promise, we have eternal life. So never be confused about who our Savior is, what He did, and what we must do to obtain His offer of eternal life. "but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:57)

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Wilkin, Bob. Essential Truths about Our Savior. Grace in Focus, November-December (Grace Evangelical Society, 2008), 1.
2. Ibid.
3. Not to be confused with faith and works which are polar opposites in terms of initial justification. (Rom. 11:6)
4. John 8:58
5. The term Son of God encompasses deity.
6. Dale Ellenburg, Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 899.
7. Dr. Charlie Bing, GraceNotes no. 40 - The Content of the Gospel of Salvation, (Burleson: Gracelife, 2009), 1.
8. Colossians 1:13-23
9. The accusation is often made that no single verse has Christ's deity, death and resurrection in one single verse. This is fallacious due to the simple fact that the Bible technically has no paragraphs, nor does it have verses, these weren't created until the mid-1500's by Robert Estienne (Stephanus). Context is key and one cannot simply proof-text.
10. See also 1:14, 18; 5:17-21; 6:69; 7:38; 8:19, 58; 10:30; 20:28.
11. The Lockman Foundation, New American Standard Bible (Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).
12. Jakob Jocz, The Messiahship of Jesus: What Jews and Jewish Christian's say. Compiled by Arthur Kac (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 187-188.
13. Zane Hodges, Introducing Johh's Gospel: In the Upper Room with Jesus Christ. (Dallas: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 2008). 29.
14. John F. Walvoord http://bible.org/seriespage/person-and-work-christ-%E2%80%94-part-ii-person-incarnate-christ, last accessed May 2011.
15. John 20:31
16. John 4:10
17. John 4:25
18. John 4:42
19. Holman Bible Dictionary, 1115.
20. This begs a question, shouldn't we believe in Jesus' Hebrew name as given by God?
21. Holman Bible Dictionary, 1111.
22. Thomas Stegall, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel Pt. 5. (Duluth Bible: Grace Family Journal, 2008), 15.
23. John F. Walvoord. The Death Christ Died. (Chicago:Moody Press, 1969), 208.
24. Holman Bible Dictionary, 901.
25. 1 Cor. 15:3-4
26. Luke 22:42, see also John 4:34.
27. Romans 5:10
28. Hebrews 9:28
29. Hebrews 9:22
30. John 1:29
31. John F. Walvoord, http://bible.org/seriespage/person-and-work-christ-%E2%80%94-part-viii-christ-his-suffering-and-death, last accessed May 2011.
32. Bing
33. Dr. Bing. Person – Son of God, Provision – Satisfactory Payment, Promise – Eternal Life.
34. Dr. J.B. Hixon, Getting the Gospel Wrong, The Evangelical Crisis No One is Talking About. (USA: Xulon Press, 2008), 85.
35. ibid
36. ibid.
37. Darrel Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 549.
38. Be a nike Christian. (Wilkin).
39. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on 1 John (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004), 57.
40. John 19-20
41. Jocz, 193.
42. This is just one of many problems and questions raised. One theological implication worth noting, especially in regards to dispensationalism, is that if one separates the person and work of Christ in the Gospel message progress of revelation becomes nullified. Through the dispensations the person of Christ has been more and more clearly defined. From seed of woman, to seed of Abraham and Isaac etc.. Progress of revelation indicates some objective content that has been revealed. The means for salvation has always been by faith in God's promises; the object has always been God's provision through the Messiah. While the object of saving faith has not changed, nor the means, the content of saving faith has grown. Dr. Anderson notes that "The Content of our Faith from age to age – Varies." (Anderson, 70) To say that Christ's deity and his person and work are not required is to render progress of revelation purposeless.
43. Walvoord, http://bible.org/seriespage/person-and-work-christ-%E2%80%94-part-xvi-christ-his-resurrection last accessed May, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Anderson, Dr. David R.. Free Grace Soteriology. USA: Xulon Press, 2010.
• Bing, Dr. Charles C.. GraceNotes No. 40 – The Content of the Gospel of Salvation. Burleson: Gracelife, 2010. Available online at https://gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/?id=39
• Bock, Darrell L.. Jesus According to Scripture, restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on 1 John. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• Hixon, Dr. J.B.. Getting the Gospel Wrong, The Evangelical Crisis No One is Talking About. USA: Xulon Press, 2008.
• Hodges, Zane. Introducing Johh's Gospel: In the Upper Room with Jesus Christ. Dallas: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 2008. Available online at http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2008i/Hodges.pdf
• Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated bible Dictionary, Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
• Kac, Arthur W. The Messiahship of Jesus: What Jews and Jewish Christians Say. Chicago:Moody Press, 1980.
• Stegall, Thomas, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel Pt. 5. Duluth Bible: Grace Family Journal, 2008. Available online at http://duluthbible.org/331965.ihtml
• The Lockman Foundation, ed. New American Standard Bible Reference Edition. Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998.
• Walvoord, John F.. The Person and Work of Christ. http://bible.org/series/person-and-work-christ, last accessed May 2011. Published with permission from the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1960-63.
• Walvoord, John F.. The Death Christ Died. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
• Wilkin, Dr. Bob. Essential Truths about Our Savior. Grace in Focus, November-December. Dallas:Grace Evangelical Society, 2008.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=4 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. I will evaluate the nature of each; specifically how each can be likened to the ancient near eastern (ANE) Royal Grant and Suzerain Vassal treaties. I will provide stipulations of each covenant, the time aspect, and the promised rewards and/or consequences of disobedience of each. Before beginning though it will be helpful to define what a covenant is and then more specifically what a Royal Grant and Suzerain Vassal treaty is; and then compare and contrast this with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. I will conclude with the importance of each and how each of the covenants relates to the modern believer.

Covenants: Royal Grant and Suzerainty

A covenant at its core is, "a binding agreement between two parties."1 It involves an oath or commitment between the two; this as opposed to a mutual agreement or contract, both of which share characteristics of a covenant. The term for covenant in Hebrew, transliterated, is berit and comes from the root word bara, which means "to bind."2 Thus a covenant is a binding pledge.

In Israel and in the ancient Near East3 there existed two basic types4 of covenants, often referred together as Suzerain (Master) Vassal (Servant) treaties. While each type of suzerain-vassal overlapped in some respects, they were distinct by nature. In some cases the covenant was predicated upon "meeting certain conditions by the party to whom the promise was made;"5 this is what is referred to as an obligatory covenant or a Suzerainty treaty. While at other times "the promise is made unilaterally and unconditionally,"6 this is a promissory or Royal Grant covenant.

More simply put, in each case, the parties involved are of unequal social status and the treaty is initiated by the Suzerain. The obligatory covenant (which I will refer to as Suzerainty) binds the servant to the master; the servant is responsible to meet any obligations placed upon him in order to receive blessing or, if they fail to do so, receive cursing. On the other hand, the promissory (which I will refer to as a Grant) binds the master to the servant; while the promissory may have stipulations that the vassal would have to meet, there is no time component associated with it. The question then is not one of "if this will be fulfilled", but "when." Point being, the promise made by the master will be fulfilled regardless of the actions to whom the promise was made and in the Suzerain’s own timing.

In the ANE, covenants exhibited similar characteristics. Lopez notes six basic attributes, or characteristics of a covenant that the Hittites7 used; they are a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, the document, the witness of the gods, and curses and blessings. This would be similar to various companies putting together a statement of work which would have a background, objectives, requirements, deliverables, and a timeline. Each of the companies might have similarities in form but are not identical; this brings up an important point.

Often times, theologians and layman press into the scriptures the secular forms and attempt to interpret the scriptures with that presupposition in mind. While it is true the Israelites may have patterned their treaties after the ANE covenants, they are not identical in form or even substance in some cases. Lopez agrees stating "when speaking of historical treaties, it is best to refer to them as having similar elements, not identical forms."8 J.C. Hutchinson in his ThD dissertation notes that;

"In identifying biblical covenants according to form, one must always recognize: (1) biblical writers were selective in recording narrative descriptions of biblical covenants; and (2) the contexts which show renewal and reaffirmation of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants do not always reflect a complete duplication of content, form or ceremony."9

That said, parallels between scripture and documents of the day provide us deeper insight into the culture and help us relate further to the people being written to; thereby deepening our understanding of God’s word. Having given a description of each of the treaties and cautions regarding the usage of such, we can move onto the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as outlined in scripture.

Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic covenant can be found in Genesis 12:1-3 and further detail is provided in Genesis 15:18-21. Genesis 12:1-3 states:

1 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2 And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; 3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

This covenant between God, the Suzerain, and Abraham, the Vassal was wholly a Royal Grant covenant and was promissory in nature. This is seen based on the events that occurred during the covenant ceremony described in Gen. 15:17; God made the covenant with Himself; Abraham had no part, he was asleep! Some aspects of the covenant were temporal (e.g. promise of Isaac) while others were eternal (e.g. land, Jesus).

The covenant encompassed three things. The first was land, as described in verses 1 and 7. The beneficiary is Israel, although has not yet been fulfilled due to the fact that only part of the land has been given. The second promise was descendants, or seed. Verse 2 says that God will make a great nation from Abraham, this has been fulfilled. Likewise, the beneficiary is Israel. The third promise differs from the other two, in that the beneficiary is both Israel and the Gentiles. This has been fulfilled in Christ.10

All three promises by God required no stipulations on Abraham’s part sans the obvious fact that Abraham had to leave his country. Pentecost notes this one conditional aspect as well, and states the following:

It is important, therefore, to observe the relationship of obedience to this covenant program. Whether or not God would institute a covenant program with Abram depended on Abram’s act of obedience in leaving the land. Once this act was accomplished, however, and Abram did obey God, God instituted an irrevocable, unconditional program."11

As stated earlier, the irony regarding this covenant was that Abraham wasn’t faithful to do any of the things God required; at least not initially. This is yet another indication of the promissory nature of the covenant. It wasn’t until after Abraham left his father in Haran that God reiterated the land covenant "to your descendants I will give this land."

For further clarification I have broken the single conditional aspect into subsets and listed God’s promises to Abraham, and noted whether or not the promises have been fulfilled and who the beneficiary was. God required four things of Abraham to be faithful to do in order to inherit the blessings, He required Abraham to…

1. …Leave his country, which he eventually did.
2. …Leave his relatives, which again he eventually did. His nephew Lot travelled with him for some time. Leave your father (didn’t until he died)
3. …Go to Land I promised, which Abraham did but then passed through it.

Verses 2-3 have seven promises that God will…

1. …make a great nation from Abraham. This has partially been fulfilled as they have been great and will be again (Jews).
2. …bless Abraham. This has been fulfilled as God provided him with a beautiful wife, land, sheep, and a son (Abraham).
3. …make Abraham’s name great. This too has been fulfilled as Abraham’s name is revered by people the world over (God/Abraham).
4. …make Abraham a blessing. This was fulfilled (Jews).
5. … bless those who bless Abraham’s descendants. This is perpetually fulfilled and is seen throughout history (Jews/Gentiles).
6. …curse those who curse his descendants. This is perpetually fulfilled and first seen with the curse upon Pharaoh during the time of the exodus (Jews/Gentiles).
7. ….make all the families of the earth blessed through Abraham. This was fulfilled in Christ (Jews/Gentiles).

For the covenant to be enacted it only required Abraham to have faith in God’s promise. Paul in Romans 4 equates the gift of eternal salvation with Abraham believing God and God crediting to his account righteousness; thus justification comes simply by faith. Abraham didn’t have to work to get the covenant; he just had to believe God to enact the covenant. After that, in order to get the blessing described he and/or his seed would have to be faithful to God in order to inherit the blessings described. Dr. Anderson rightly notes:

"This principle of a "faithful generation" required for the fulfillment of the future aspects of the royal grants is a crucial link in connecting Jesus with the fulfillment of both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. The rewards of the grants would not be realized by an unfaithful generation, or by an unfaithful ruler."12

nature of our salvation. Dr. Anderson summarized this relationship well noting

"Thus it can be said that for the nation and the individuals within the nation of Israel, relationship preceded fellowship, and faith preceded repentance. …faith is for relationship, while repentance is for fellowship"

It should be understood then that the inheritance of the blessing that God promised is different than initiation of the covenant. In order to be blessed one must first have a covenant in place, this is a key aspect to a Royal Grant; it requires faithfulness to the Suzerain in order for the blessing to be appropriated. This in no way affects the covenant itself because it is the Suzerain who initiated the covenant. Likewise, we are guaranteed to go to heaven simply by faith in Christ (justification), but we are also guaranteed blessing temporally and eternally by being faithful to God (sanctification/rewards).

Mosaic Covenant

As noted earlier, a Suzerainty treaty was obligatory in nature, and required the servant to be obedient to the master in order for the master’s promises to be effectuated. Likewise, if the servant was disobedient the vassal would receive cursing or punishment. The Mosaic covenant is an excellent example of this type of covenant. Dr. Pentecost refers to the Mosaic covenant as a conditional covenant, and defines it as such:

A proposal of God, wherein he promises, in a conditional or mutual compact with man, by the contingent formula "IF YE WILL," to grant special blessings to man provided he fulfills perfectly certain conditions, and to execute definite punishment in case of his failure.13

The Mosaic covenant can be seen in Exodus 19-24 and it is reiterated in Deuteronomy and Joshua 24. At the outset God, the Suzerain, in Exodus 19:5-6 makes clear what this covenant will involve;

Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." [emphasis mine]

Two things to note from this are that 1) The covenant was between the Israelites and God and 2) it involved Israel’s obedience in order for the promises to be fulfilled. Many people today believe the 10 commandments are perpetual; that is to say that they are still in effect today. I will discuss this later and show how it was a temporal covenant that was fulfilled in Christ.

The Laws were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai shortly after the Israelites were freed by God from slavery under the Egyptians. Ten of the Laws were written by the finger of God (Ex. 32:16) and the other 603 dictated by Moses on Mt. Sinai.14 The Law had three aspects to it; There was the moral law, which were the commandments. Then the ceremonial law which covered the tabernacle, feasts, priesthood, etc. and then the civil law which was about crops, sanitation etc.. The point I want to make here is that they were not given to the gentiles but to the Israelites; an important fact that is often overlooked today.

The Bible gives us several reasons for the purpose of the Law, but I only want to briefly touch on one of the following three aspects in order to show its temporal nature. The purpose of the Law was three fold:

1. It was to provide a means of rule for the Israelites and to keep them distinct.
2. It was to show us God's Holiness and reveal sin.
3. It was to lead us to faith in Christ.

In the Old Testament, one main purpose was to provide a means of rule for the Israelites and to keep them distinct. The Jews were to be set apart from the rest of the world (Deut. 5:1,32-33). This in a sense, is similar to how Christians today are to set ourselves apart and not be conformed to the things of this world (Rom. 12:2). The laws were very unique, some were benign and others not so. For example, pork was not to be eaten (Lev. 11:7), but bugs like locusts, crickets and grasshoppers you could eat (Lev. 11:22). There were other commands like "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18), which is reiterated in the New Testament. In Lev. 18:3 it says "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt.", there was many a good reason for that as Egyptians used to mix fly dung with milk to "help" colicky babies, and they used to spread donkey dung on splinter wounds. Canaanites used to sacrifice babies to their god Molech. This detestable practice was not to be done (Lev. 18:21).

So the law was a means of rule for the Israelites not a means of salvation. God never intended the Law as a means of salvation; that would be works based salvation. Quite the contrary, salvation couldn't have been by the Law because of the fact that Abraham was saved by faith (Gen. 15:16), and lived about 500 years before Moses and the Law.15

The point being is that the Law was for the Jews and was temporal. It has been rendered inoperative by Christ when he died on the cross. Galatians 3:19 says "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made." Paul is saying that The Law was in effect until the seed, Christ, would come. It was in effect until he came as a mediator of a new covenant. In other words, the law was temporary.

Paul also says in Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Dr. Constable notes:

The Greek word telos and its English equivalent "end" can refer either to termination (as in "the end of the matter") or to purpose (as in "to the end that"). Paul believed that Jesus Christ was the end of the Mosaic Law in both respects. He spoke of the Law as having a function to fulfill in history after which Jesus Christ terminated it (7:6; Gal. 3:19, 23; cf. Mark 7:18-19; Luke 16:16; John 1:17; Acts 10:12; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 8:8; 2 Cor. 3:6-11; Gal. 4:9-11; 5:1; Col. 2:17; Heb. 7:12; 9:10). Furthermore he described the purpose of the Law as bringing people to Christ (7:7-13;Gal. 3:24; cf. Matt. 5:17). … God has terminated the whole Mosaic Law. It is one unified code (cf. 7:6). God wants Christians to observe nine of the Ten Commandments because they are part of the Law of Christ. This is the regulatory code that God has given the church, namely, the teachings of Christ and the apostles (Gal. 6:2).16

It becomes clear then that the Mosaic Covenant was obligatory because it typifies the idea of blessing and cursing based on the actions of the vassal. Scripture says over and over "you shall do this" or "you shall not do this," with the appropriate blessing and cursing. One promise that stands out is in Exodus 19:6 – Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. This was true so long as Israel obeyed God, when they failed to obey, this promise became ineffectual, and as history and the Bible shows, this became the case when the kingdom was divided by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

Conclusions

As we have seen, the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants show many attributes of the suzerain-vassal treaties of the ancient Near East. The Abrahamic covenant represents a Royal Grant that is promissory in nature and contains both temporal and eternal aspects; while the Mosaic Covenant is a Suzerainty Treaty which is obligatory in nature and was temporal.

The application to the modern day believer of both of the covenants becomes easily seen. The Abrahamic Covenant represents our initial justification by faith in Christ which initiates God’s eternal promises of forgiveness of sin (Matt. 26:28, Col. 1:14), eternal life (John 6:47, 3:16), and eternal security (John 10:28, Rom. 8:30). The Mosaic Law represents the discipleship process for the believer;17 the relationship has been established through faith, but now faith and reliance upon Christ enable the promises of blessing (1 Cor. 3:14) and cursing (Heb. 12:6).

---

FOOTNOTES

1. Rene Lopez, Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants. (CTS Journal, Spring 2004), 72.
2. Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 355.
3. This included the Babylonians, Syro-Palestinian, Neo-Assyrians, Hittites, etc...
4. E.g. parity treaties which are covenants between two parties of equal status.
5. Holman Bible Dictionary, 355.
6. Ibid.
7. The Hittites weren’t the only ones to have these characteristics.
8. Lopez, 92.
9. John Charles Hutchinson, "The Relationship of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Palestinian Covenants in Deuteronomy 29-30." (Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981), 132-133.
10. Luke 22:17-20
11. J. Dwight Pentecost, Pentecost, Prophecy for Today. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1961.), 60.
12. David R. Anderson, The National Repentance of Israel, (Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Volume 11:21, Autumn 1998).
13. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958). 98.
14. As a side note, whenever scripture refers to the Mosaic Law, it always refers to it as a single unit. The word "Torah" itself means "Law" and when used in reference to the Law of Moses is always singular. Point being, there’s no scriptural justification to separate the 10 commandments from the other 603. We may separate them into parts for personal study to understand the types of commandments but scripture never does this. So when I refer to "The Law" I’m talking about all 613 commands.
15. Eternal Life Salvation has always been by faith in Christ and will always be by faith in Christ. For Old Testament believers (all the way back to Adam and Eve Gen. 3:15), eternal life was by faith that God would send a messiah. For New Testament believers, eternal life comes by placing our Faith in the one whom God has sent. In both cases it's the object of our faith (Christ) that saves. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12).
16. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Romans (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004), 111-112.
17. I should note that it is a guide today for the unbeliever, one that points them towards Christ. In Galatians 3:8-9 Paul says "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers." And in Galatians 3:24 he says "For all Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Anderson, David R.. The National Repentance of Israel. Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Volume 11:21, Autumn 1998.
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on Romans. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated bible Dictionary, Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
• Hutchinson, John Charles. The Relationship of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Palestinian Covenants in Deuteronomy 29-30. Doctoral Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.
• Lopez, Rene. Israelite Covenants in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Covenants. CTS Journal, Spring 2004.
• Pentecost, J. Dwight. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.
• ___. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=3 Tue, 01 Oct 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

The "I am" statements of Jesus

The purpose of this paper is to briefly show the significance of the "I AM" statements Jesus makes in the book of John. The beginning will focus on the background of the phrase "I AM" in its origination and significance in the Old Testament, and how the Israelites view the nature of the statement. This will be followed by a special emphasis in both content and purpose of the seven "I am" statements and conclude with the significance of some unique "I am" phrases.

The significance of the "I Am" statements made by Jesus cannot be understated, and they are unique in the Gospel of John. Some phrases clearly identify Christ with God, while others, like the seven "I am" statements, are used in conjunction with a metaphor. When Jesus uses the phrase "I am" in this sense, He is not just equating Himself with God, but equating Himself with the attributes of God such as sustainer, redeemer, protector, and guide. "In most instances, Jesus is presented as ‘exegeting’ his own significance in light of Old Testament images."1 It will be helpful then to understand the significance of the phrase "I AM" in the Old Testament and then take a look at each of the statements in the New Testament.

I AM - אֶהְיֶהֶ

In Exodus 3 God gave Himself the title "I AM" (hayah); a phrase which literally "means the eternally self-existent being."2 God uses the title several more times in Deut. 32:39, Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4, and 48:12. The name however, is not merely a title; it is a declaration by God of who He is, His divine nature and eternality. Moses was the first recorded individual to encounter the name. In Exodus 3 Moses was on Mount Sinai where God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush. God had requested that Moses should be the one to lead the Israelites out of the land of Egypt and promised that He would be with Moses and His people.

Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt. But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?" And He said, "Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.– Exodus 3:10-12

Moses agreed to do as instructed and then questioned God asking, what should I say to the Israelites as to who sent me?

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God, furthermore, said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ' The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you ' This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations. – Exodus 3:13-16

Two things stand out; God declared to Moses and the Israelites who He is, as well as what He would do for them. According to most scholars, there is not consensus as to what exactly the meaning of "I AM WHO I AM" is.3 According to Dr. J.H. Hertz, the meaning of the term is not easily put into words because, as he states, "no words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more manifest themselves in the guidance of Israel."4 In short, God’s statement assures the Israelites that they will be delivered. As will be seen, Jesus makes a direct correlation between Himself and God the Father both in action, status, and likeness; and between His listeners and God’s chosen people.

"I am the bread of life" – John 6:35

This is the first of the seven "I am" statement by Jesus. Jesus was in Galilee and had fed the 5000. Jesus left early the next morning and the crowd that was still gathered searched for Him only to discover that He had crossed over into Capernaum with His disciples. The crowd asked Him how He had gotten to the other side. He stated to them that they had searched for Him only to fulfill their physical needs as He had done the day before. He instructed them to "not work for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life."5

The crowds then asked Jesus what they must do to get this food and He said that they should believe in Him. Ironically, the crowds asked for a sign, the same crowd who had been miraculously fed just the day before. It is at this point that the crowd recalled the feeding of the Israelites with manna. However, they had a different outlook, which was to assume the manna was provided by Moses. Jesus directly rebutted this idea saying "it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."6 Jesus had effectively related the experience of the Israelites in Moses’ time as a symbol of Himself being the source of sustenance, and it is at this point Jesus utters "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."7

Just as God provided for the Israelites, Jesus would provide spiritually. The purpose then is to show how to have eternal life, and that we are held secure. Eternal life is in a person, not in an action. "I am the bread of life." The first of the "I AM" statements then is centered on salvation. The offer is eternal life that comes by faith in Christ.8 The second aspect is security; just as God promised Moses He would be with him and sustain him, so to Christ offers life and security of it. "and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."9 Jesus is the "satisfier and sustainer of life."10

"I am the light of the world." – John 8:12

This is the second of the seven "I am" statements. Jesus was speaking in the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles11 to a group of Jewish people and religious leaders. Jesus spoke and said "I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."12 The Jews would have been very familiar with Light being a metaphor for any number of attributes of God; particularly His presence,13 righteousness, salvation, and guidance.

His presence is illustrated in Psalm 44:3, His righteousness is expressed in Isaiah 59:9 and His guidance is shown in Exodus 13:21 when the Israelites were led through the desert via a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. In addition, God Himself is the source of light; "O LORD my God, You are very great; You are clothed with splendor and majesty, Covering Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain."14

The Jews would also be familiar with God as the Shechinah glory that illuminated the tabernacle as seen in Exodus 40:34-3515. "Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle."16 Light plays a significant role during the feast as Dr. Fruchtenbaum notes:

The second key ceremony was the kindling of the lights. There were huge, golden lampstands set up in the Temple Compound. Each lampstand had four golden cups, which were lit toward sundown. Because there were so many lamps and the light was so great, the rabbis said that there was not a house in Jerusalem which was not lit by the light coming from those huge lampstands. In Judaism, this was a symbol of the Shechinah Glory light.17

The significance of Jesus’ claim as "the Light" becomes even more significant, as His claim occurs at the temple during the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus, the purpose of Jesus’ statement is that He is equating Himself as the Light of God who shuns the darkness.18 However, I believe His statement has further significance in regards to the Feast of Tabernacles, which has a very unique aspect, unlike any other festivals the Jews celebrate. Dr. Fruchtenbaum notes:

All together, a total of seventy bulls are offered during this period. According to

Judaism, these seventy bulls represent the seventy Gentile nations of Genesis 10. What is significant about this is that Judaism has connected this feast with the Gentiles, something that is not true with the other festivals.19

All this adds to the significance of Christ’s claim to be the "Light of the World" and not just a light unto the Jews. Jesus has come to shed sin’s darkness for all those who follow Him.20

"I am the door." – John 10:7, 9 and "I am the good shepherd." – John 10:11, 14

These are the third and fourth of the seven "I am" statements that follow a parable in John 10:1-6 about a shepherd and his sheepfold. The parable Jesus uses illustrates and develops metaphors for His two "I am" statements which are directly related to the lesson.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber. "But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep. "To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. "When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. "A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers. – John 10:1-6

The people present with Jesus do not understand what He means, so He must explain further; "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."21 Followed by "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep."22

The first illustration Jesus uses is that He is the door. In other words, anyone who enters through Him will be saved and find satisfaction in Him. This is emphasized a few verses later when He says "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."23 In verse 8 He contrasted Himself with thieves and robbers, which represented the Jewish leaders of His day. Jesus is the way unto salvation whereas, the Jewish leaders were misguiding the sheep.

Jesus, in saying He is the shepherd, is making an illustration of the way God dealt with the Israelites; how God provided a way unto salvation from Egypt and protected and provided for them. God is a shepherd as well, Isaiah 40:11 says; "Like a shepherd He will tend His flock, In His arm He will gather the lambs and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes."24 These are clear illustrations of Christ as the only way unto salvation, and our security and safety as His sheep.25 It is also a clear parallel between Jesus and God.

This "I am" culminates in verse 28, "and I will give them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. … and no one will snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the father are one."26 Jesus is again claiming to be God in that He is our "entrance into security and fellowship."27

"I am the resurrection and the life." – John 11:25

This passage is particularly significant because of its setting. Jesus was speaking to Martha, the sister of Lazarus, who was grieving her brother’s death of four days prior. Jesus says to her, "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die, Do you believe this?"28 Jesus’ claim then is that He has the power to raise people from the dead, the power of life both physically and spiritually. It is a clear claim of Christ’s power and authority given to Him by God, and shows His purpose here on earth.

This "I am" purpose then, is to convince the reader that Christ is the Messiah, the One who was promised by God since the time of Adam, and to show what one must believe in order to obtain the promise. The key is that life, both physically and spiritually, is in a person, not in a doctrine. The question Jesus posed is confirmation of this fact. Jesus did not ask her to believe in anything other than Himself; not by any act or by any effort of her own, only that her faith was placed in the correct object. Simply put, Jesus asked Martha if she was convinced that He was the Messiah who could give her life. Without placing her faith in the proper object she would never receive eternal life or be raised up in the last day as Jesus promised.

Jesus also affirmed that anyone who believed as Martha did would receive eternal life and never lose it. Dr. Dillow notes: "He says we have eternal life now and as a result (1) we will rise from the dead in resurrection, and (2) we will never die. For Jesus, at least, the gift of eternal life meant far more than sharing the life of God now. It was a virtual guarantee of endless existence with Him. We will never die!"29

This "I AM" by Christ is the highlight of all the "I AM" statements because it summarizes the purpose statement of the gospel of John. ""But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."30

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." – John 14:6

Contrary to popular belief, there are not many paths to heaven. This "I am" statement by Christ could not make it any more clear.31 Jesus did not say that He was "a way" as if there were possible options. His emphasis, as seen previously, was in Himself and that no one other than He could deliver on His promise.

The context of this "I AM" was when Jesus was with His disciples in the upper room before His death. Jesus was comforting them saying "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me."32 Jesus continued and assured them of a place of residence with Him, and told them that they knew the way where He was going. Thomas responded, "we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me."

This "I AM" illustrates the fact that there is only one way unto truth and life, and it is through the person and work of Christ. Dr. Constable summarizes the statement;

Jesus is the way to God because He is the truth from God and the life from God. He is the truth because He embodies God's supreme revelation (1:18; 5:19; 8:29). He is the life because He contains and imparts divine life (1:4; 5:26; 11:25; cf. 1 John 5:20). Jesus was summarizing and connecting many of the revelations about Himself that He had previously given the Eleven.

"I am the true vine." – John 15:1

This is the last of the seven "I AM" statements recorded in John and occurs in the same context as the previous "I AM." Jesus is speaking to His disciples and encouraging them to abide in Him. The word "abide" in this section is used ten times in six verses as a clear indication that Christ is speaking of fellowship with Him, not salvation through Him.33 Jesus says, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away, and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit."

Jesus now draws a relationship between Himself and God the Father, and sets up a dichotomy between Himself and Israel. The Old Testament spoke often of Israel as the vine; "Israel is a luxuriant vine; He produces fruit for himself. The more his fruit, The more altars he made; The richer his land, The better he made the sacred pillars."34 In all cases, when the vine is compared to Israel in the Old Testament, it’s useless and bears no fruit. This is why Christ said, "I am the true vine." Christ is the one that will produce fruit because He is being cultivated by His Father in Heaven. This is the thought that Christ carries over to His disciples; that if they remain in fellowship with Him, they will produce fruit just as Christ has done.

"Before Abraham was born, I am." – John 8:58

There are other uses in the Gospel of John regarding the "I am" statements that are not used with metaphors as used in the seven "I am" statements. Some "I am" statements are more or less affirmations of who He is,35 but some strongly suggest that Jesus is God. In John 8, Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees clearly shows He claims to be God when He says "before Abraham was born, I am."36 The claim was so clear that the Pharisees attempted to stone Him. In John 8:24 and 28 the phrase "I am He" is used, although this could be a simple affirmation. In light of John 8:58 however, it seems to be more than that. Jesus said, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins….When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He."37 Jesus had just been discussing how He was not of this world and if they did not believe His claims they would perish. Roy Zuck notes that "At stake in this context is the urgent necessity of believing in Jesus for salvation and the need for forgiveness of sins."38

In 13:19 Jesus uses the phrase "I am He" again. "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He."39 In the context, Jesus is with His disciples and refers to his impending death on the cross, so that when His death does occur, they will know for sure that He is the Christ, the son of the Living God.

Conclusion

The "I am" statements made by Jesus overarches the past, present, and the future history of the children of Israel, as well as all believers; and suggests "that what God is in the present, he was in the past, and will be in the future to this people."40 Some phrases clearly identify Christ with God, while others provide insight into who Christ is and what He has done as Son, Savior, and Redeemer, thereby showing us who God is. When Jesus uses the phrase "I am", He is not just equating Himself with God, but equating Himself with the attributes of God such as sustainer, redeemer, protector, and guide.

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. – Titus 3:4-7

---

FOOTNOTES

1. 1 David DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament. Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 424.
2. Dr. Thomas L. Constable, Notes on John (Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004), 140.
3. Merrill C. Tenney, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, vol. 3, H-L (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), 238.
4. Dr. J.H. Hertz, Pentateuch & Haftorahs. 2nd ed. (London: Soncino Press, 1976), 215.
5. John 6:27.
6. John 6:32b-33.
7. John 6:35.
8. John 6:40.
9. John 6:36.
10. Dr. Constable, 109.
11. John 7:14.
12. John 8:12.
13. Dr. Constable, 136. See Also Gen. 1:3, 14-19; Ezek. 1:4, 13, 26-28; Hab. 3:3-4.
14. Psalm 104:2.
15. Also seen in Exodus 24:15-18, when Moses was given instructions from the Lord on Mount Sinai.
16. Exodus 40:34-35.
17. Dr. Fruchtenbaum, The Feasts of Israel. (San Antonio: Ariel Ministries), 27.
18. Note that in the immediate context in John 8, Jesus is dealing with honesty or truthfulness, v. 13.
19. Dr. Fruchtenbaum, 26.
20. This is clearly a discipleship passage in context, not a salvation passage.
21. John 10:9.
22. John 10:11.
23. John 8:10b.
24. See also Jeremiah 23:3 and Ezekiel 34:11-16.
25. Note also that we are sheep who rebel, Isaiah 53:6.
26. John 10:28-30.
27. Dr. Constable, 109.
28. John 11:25-26.
29. Joseph Dillow, The Reign of The Servant Kings. (Haysville, NC: Schoettle Pub. Co.), 2006, 509-510.
30. John 20:31.
31. With the exception of Acts 4:12.
32. John 14:1.
33. John uses the word "believe" 98 times in the Gospel of John for what one must "do" in order to obtain eternal life. John uses the term "abide" when speaking in regards to fellowship as seen in 1 John.
34. Hosea 10:1-2. See also Ps. 89:9-16; Isa. 5:1-7; 27:2; Jer. 2:21; 12:10; Ezek. 15:1-8; 19:10-14.
35. John 8:22, 14,15, 16, et. al..
36. John 8:58.
37. John 8:24, 28.
38. Roy Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 181.
39. John 13:19.
40. Pictorial Encyclopedia, H-L, 237.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bock, Darrell L. Jesus according to Scripture. Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on John. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• DeSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament. Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
• Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of The Servant Kings. Haysville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Company, 2006.
• Dillow, Joseph C. "Abiding Is Remaining in Fellowship: Another Look at John 15:1-6," Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990): 44-53.
• Fruchtenbaum, Dr. Arnold G. The Feasts of Israel. San Antonio: Ariel Ministries.
• Hertz, Dr. J.H. Pentateuch & Haftorahs. 2nd ed., London: Soncino Press, 1976.
• Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated bible Dictionary, Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
• InterVarsity Press, e d. New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
• Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 2, D-G, by Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.
• Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 3, H-L, by Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.
• Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=2 Wed, 01 May 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Overview

This easy to read chart makes a great reference and provides a chronological timeline of the Kingdom of Israel, from Abraham through Saul, David, and Solomon; then to the division between the Northern and Southern Kingdom through the exile. It provides dates, key events, people, and ties them together to the Old Testament prophets.

Knowing how all of these events tie together in history provides a deeper understanding of the circumstances surrounding the events described in the Bible.

Prophets include: Jonah, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah, and Ezra. Kingdoms include: Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, Judah, and Israel

An example graphic is shown below, download the pdf to zoom into the details.

]]> https://www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/?id=1 Mon, 01 Apr 2019 13:00:00 MDT div, section, p, li, td {text-align: justify;} a {word-wrap: break-word;}

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss the significance and extent of the atoning work of Christ; and to answer the question of for whom did Christ pay a penalty? There are three prevailing views in answer to the aforementioned question; none, everyone, or some. The first is an unorthodox view and holds to the idea that Christ did not die for anyone's sins.1 The latter two ideas are orthodox and fall into two categories. One view asserts that Christ paid a penalty for all mankind, including those who are condemned; while the latter, the Calvinistic view, asserts that Christ exclusively paid the price for those who were chosen by God since the foundation of the world. I will focus on the Calvinistic viewpoint and contrast that with scripture, and provide my viewpoint to each.

The beginning of the paper will focus on the definition of atonement and its meaning in the Old Testament, as well as its meaning and usage, or absence in the New Testament; followed by key doctrines and passages along with a discussion of each. I will summarize and conclude by making application of the truths discovered in scripture.

The definition and nature of the atonement.

The definition of atonement is important, but equally important according to Calvinist's and others is its purpose, as it helps us determine to whom the atonement was applied. The Calvinist, Lorraine Boettner, correctly asserts that "the nature of the atonement settles its extent."2 Similarly, Robert Lightner states "The biblical extent of the atonement is settled by answering the question of the Father's purpose in the death of His Son."3 Thus, if we can settle the nature and purpose of the atonement it will help in our interpretation and understanding of various passages and who it applies to, the elect only or both elect and non-elect.

The term atonement is first and foremost an Old Testament concept. Many will find it surprising that atonement is not found in the New Testament.4 The word atonement, or kaphar in Hebrew, literally means to cover over by legal rights.5 This concept of a covering or atonement goes back to Genesis prior to the Law of Moses. After Adam and Eve sinned and realized their nakedness they made a feeble attempt at coving themselves to hide their shame.6 God performed the first sacrifice in order to provide a more adequate covering for them7 which, in a symbolic sense, was a temporary covering for their sin and a foreshadowing of the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. Thus the sacrificial system was started and required by God for the purpose of covering over sin; as it is stated in Hebrews 9:22 that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sins."

During the dispensation of Law, Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement. This annual event was most holy to the Jews, and it was the day the high priest could enter the holy of holies and make a sacrifice to atone, or cover over, the sins for himself and his family, and for the nation of Israel. There was no payment; it was only a temporary covering as it was repeated annually.8 This is a significant point that the writer of Hebrews contrasts between the sacrifices and Christ; as it says Christ was the one sacrifice for all time. "but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God"9

Leviticus describes how the high priest would sacrifice a bull and two goats. Lots were cast for the goats and one was chosen for the LORD and the other chosen as the scapegoat. The goat sacrificed was a covering for the sins of the people whereas, the scapegoat was released into the wilderness as a symbol to represent the removal of sin. This was a foreshadowing of the death and resurrection of Christ.

It becomes clear then that atonement does not mean payment, nor does it mean removal of sin, and this is evidenced in Hebrews 10:4; "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." The sacrifices were never meant to satisfy the debt we owed God, they couldn't; all they could provide were 'promissory notes' which would later be paid by Christ. With the Old Testament concept in mind it should come as no surprise then that the term is not found in the New Testament, it's simply because Christ did not cover over our sins, He paid for them.10 Often times it's not what scripture says, but what it doesn't say that's important.

However, the term atonement, theologically speaking, is unfortunately used to represent all that Christ did on the cross. There's no good reason for this, especially considering what atonement means in light of the Old Testament. Lewis Chaffer agrees:

And from the fact that the term in question does not belong in the New Testament vocabulary and from the fact that it is employed in the Old Testament to represent one idea wholly foreign to and superseded in the New Testament, no word related to Christ's death is more inapt as a reference to that which He really wrought for men of the present age.11

It's a wonder then why the term is used at all or how it came to represent, in a theological sense, all that Christ did on the cross.

Nevertheless, it is the term used to mean "that God has reconciled sinners to Himself through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ."12 This includes concepts like propitiation, sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation, and expiation. If these concepts and the scripture from which they are derived are provisional, that is to say, if they provide a way for mankind to be reconciled back to God, then salvation is available to all mankind, hence the term 'unlimited atonement.' However, if they are salvific, that is to say, if they are what saves a person, then they could only apply to the elect a.k.a. 'limited atonement'.13 As Charles Ryrie notes;

Did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made? Because some reject does not invalidate the provision or mean that the provision was not made for them.14

A full explanation of each concept goes beyond the scope of this paper, nevertheless, a brief look at them will help us understand what Christ did on the cross and shed light on to whom it extends.

Propitiation – 1 John 2:2

"and He Himself is the propitiation [satisfactory payment] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)15 Propitiation means to appease or conciliate, in other words, it's a 'satisfactory payment' and deals with the satisfaction of God towards Christ's sacrifice. This presupposes that God did not approve of sin and required a payment. God was satisfied with the payment Christ made. Had Christ not arisen from the dead we would still be in our sins,16 whether one believes or not. This satisfaction makes available to all the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ. Because God is satisfied with the payment, He no longer requires anything from us, nor would anything suffice, other than faith in His Son. 1 John 2:2 makes no reference to propitiation resulting in salvation. It only makes the way for salvation possible; otherwise we would still owe God something when we believe. A Calvinist on the other hand, would agree with the above stated, but they would deny that the provision was made for everyone. Arthur Pink says:

When John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins" he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers. When John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world" he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the Gentile believers too, for , as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel.17

Most Calvinists would agree with Pink and agree that payment was made, but they restrict its usefulness to the elect only, thereby failing to make a distinction between the provision made and the acceptance of that provision. As for the world being the Gentile elect, I will address this later in the paper.

Sacrifice – Hebrews 10:10-12

"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God" (Hebrews 10:10-12) As mentioned earlier, the sacrificial system was started by God prior to the Law, from Adam's sacrifice to Noah and to Abraham; therefore, its usage wasn't just relegated to the Jewish nation. The reason we no longer have to sacrifice animals in the dispensation of grace is because Christ was the final sacrifice. His work was completed as He is now seated; and atonement, in the biblical sense, is no longer required because of God's satisfaction with the sacrifice. This is not something we could have done on our own as our sacrifice wouldn't have been without blemish.18 So, in order to make a way available to all Christ had to be the sacrifice.

The "we" in verse 10 is narrow in scope, referring to the Jews, but the "all" is broad in scope. The Calvinist would view this passage as applicable only to the elect, ignoring that distinction. But, had Christ not made a sacrifice for everyone, the debt of sin could not have been paid, and had it not been paid, the offer of forgiveness could not be made to everyone.

Redemption – Romans 3:23-24

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" (Romans 3:23-24) To redeem means to purchase by paying a price. In the Roman culture, slaves were bought and sold and only a free man could purchase or redeem a slave. Christ is the one who is the free man and sets us free from the slave market of sin. The price He paid was through His blood.19

Christ bought us, paid for us, but is waiting for us to cash the check freely given. As before, when we place our faith in Christ, it is at that point the check is cashed. This is incredible news for the believer and unbeliever alike, but it can only be appropriated on the grounds of faith. However, if we assume that redemption is only applicable to the elect, then the offer could never be made to the condemned. In a tone that I found condescending, Calvinist Edwin Palmer notes on redemption that because Christ did not redeem Judas he was not saved. Although, in the next breath he correctly asserts that because he didn't believe, he's in hell. "Because Judas would not believe on Christ, he is in hell under the curse of the law. Christ did not die for him."20 So which is it? Is he in hell because Christ didn't die for him or because he didn't believe? It becomes clear that unless one makes that distinction between provision and appropriation, interpretive methodology becomes inconsistent at least and at worst is disregarded.

In addition, are we to assume that "all" in verse 23 is the elect, and narrow in focus? This would seem consistent with the Calvinist interpretive method; but isn't everyone a sinner, even the condemned? Almost all Calvinist's would view "all" as everyone here, but what of other passages where they interpret "all" as only the elect? e.g. Romans 6:10 – "For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God." The deciding factor seems to be, at least for the Calvinist, whether atonement or depravity is in view, not necessarily the context, as they allow their theological construct to determine their interpretation.

Reconciliation – 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) Reconciliation means to bring back together, "it's a change in relationship from hostility to harmony between two parties"21 It is through Christ that harmony occurs and it is God that did the reconciling; it is God who was satisfied and able to not count their trespasses against them. Prior to that, enmity existed between God and man (see Eph. 2:15-16). A Calvinist wouldn't disagree with this however, they would limit its scope, Palmer notes:

"Did Christ truly, actually, really reconcile Esau to the Father by His death (Rom. 5:10), or didn't he? ...If Christ did reconcile Esau, if He did become a curse for Judas, if He actually endured the torments of hell for all men – in other words, if He died for all – then no one is lost. All are reconciled and redeemed. But to say that all men are redeemed is contradictory to the Bible."22

In light of 2 Corinthians then, it begs the questions; why are we ambassadors who are given the ministry of reconciliation, and why did Christ reconcile the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them? This is in fact, consistent with the Bible that God did not count "their trespasses against them", simply because of Christ's propitiation for sins. Propitiation is the cause for reconciliation. Palmer fails to note the distinction between provision and appropriation. I would agree with him that all men aren't redeemed until they place their faith in Christ; however the provision of redemption was made on their behalf already.

Expiation – John 1:29

"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'" (John 1:29) Expiation means substitute and is closely related to propitiation. It is the payment of a penalty or the suffering of punishment for another: a.k.a. substitution. It's someone taking the place of another. The Holman Bible dictionary defines it as "the process by which sins are nullified or covered."23 As noted previously, Christ did not cover sins, he nullified them by paying the debt we owed. Christ became the substitute of the world, on their behalf.24 But, was Christ the substitute for the non-elect? Palmer laments; "Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved."25 Of course, we would agree that the latter is absurd, but that's the straw-man argument often put in place. Again, Christ did make a substitutionary sacrifice, He died on our behalf, but the benefits of Christ's work on the cross can only be applied through faith.

Conclusions

As we've seen in all cases it comes down to how one views the nature of the parts. I contend that all of these concepts, as they relate to the doctrine of atonement are provisional in nature and yet appropriated upon faith in Christ; nowhere in any of scripture does it say that the doctrines of atonement saved mankind. But, one has to understand the provisional aspect in order to not draw that conclusion. What saves mankind is faith in Christ.26 Lightener correctly states that "Salvation is impossible without the Cross and so is it impossible without faith."27 The Calvinist on the other hand equates the theological view of atonement with salvation applied to the elect. It is also the reason they typically argue that a non-Calvinist believes in universal salvation. But taking into account the Old Testament concept of atonement it should be clear that the covering was for all because the sacrifice offered to God that covered the sins of the nation was applicable to the believing Jews as well as the non-believing Jews. This sets the precedent that the sacrifice was for all.

But these doctrines don't provide the full picture, as the terms "all," "everyone," and "world" are critical. Context determines the meaning, yet the Calvinists routinely redefine "world" to be limited in scope and only applicable to the elect. For example, Hoeksema claims that the word "world" in John 3:16 denotes "the sum total of the elect as an organic whole, the body of Christ, the church."28 But this isn't based on the context; it's based on their well organized and intertwined theological construct that is T.U.L.I.P..

I don't know any theologian who doesn't realize that the terms above are used in different senses, that's not the point of contention. What is being disputed is whether or not the nouns and pronouns are synonymous with the elect. A brief look at 22 passages shows that thirteen are broad in scope; that is, those nouns and pronouns used indicate in their natural sense, the entire world, elect and non-elect. Five passages actually make a clear distinction between those who are in view contextually and the whole world; and four could be said to have a narrow focus, although in each of those the abiding truth is easily applicable to all based on the other twenty-one passages.

Verse	Noun/Pronoun	Broad/Narrow	Distinction made between elect and non-elect
Isaiah 53:6	we/us/all	B	no
Isaiah 53:5	our/we	B	no
Matt. 20:28	many	B	no
Luke 19:10	lost	B	no
John 1:29	world	B	no
John 3:16	world	B	no
John 3:17	world	B	no
John 4:42	world	B	no
Rom. 5:6	ungodly	B	no
Rom. 5:11	we	B	no
1 Tim. 2:5	men	B	no
1 Tim. 2:6	all	B	no
Heb. 2:9	everyone	B	no
1 Peter 3:18	all/unjust	B/N	yes
2 Cor. 5:19	world/their/them/our/we	B/N	yes
1 Tim. 1:15	sinners/I/all	B/N	yes
1 Tim. 4:10	all men	B/N	yes
1 John 2:2	world	B/N	yes
Rom. 5:8	us/we	N	no
Gal. 3:13	us	N	no
Gal. 4:4	those/we	N	no
1 John 4:10	we/us	N	no

The fact that a distinction is made in five of the verses clearly indicates that Christ's work on the cross is provisional to all. In addition the word "world", kosmos, always refers to mankind, everyone; never does it refer to the elect. Even Herman Hoeksema admits that "when our Lord announces Himself as the light of the world it is evident that He speaks of the world of men, of the entire human race."29 The term is used in John eighty times, in all of Paul's epistles sixty-nine times, John's epistles twenty-three times. Anytime it's used, the word "world" is almost always viewed negatively by God. "Do not love the world nor the things of the world." (1 John 2:15) "Satan is the prince of this world" (John 12:31), "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) etc. The reason this is important is that everyone can fall into this category, not just the elect. And thus, it sets the precedent for world in John 3:16 to be everyone. Unfortunately, the Calvinist interprets the passages that have a broad usage of the term in light of the narrow ones; while I see the narrow passages as a subset of the broad.

To summarize, Christ's work on the cross according to scripture was a payment for the debt owed, whereby God was reconciling man back to Himself. This does not mean man was eternally saved; it simply means mankind's debt has been paid. Atonement, neither in its technical sense or its theological sense, ever saved mankind. The former was a temporary covering that did not save. The latter does not save either, because one needs more than just a payment, but forgiveness of sin in order to be saved;30 and that only comes by faith in Christ. Dr. Walvoord notes:

The fact that Christ died does not save men, but it provides a sufficient ground upon which God in full harmony with His holiness is free to save even the chief of sinners. ...The fact that all this is already finished constitutes a message which the sinner is asked to believe as the testimony of God."31

With that understanding then, for the sinner to be saved, he or she must recognize that a satisfactory payment has been made on their behalf. That is to believe on Christ.32 If Christ only paid for the sins of mankind and faith is the means by which we obtain salvation then Christ's work on the cross can extend to everyone, elect and non-elect. If however, one says that atonement is salvation, that Christ's work on the cross saved mankind, it can only save the elect.

Application

But why does it matter, isn't this a grey area? We are to take the gospel to the "lost." This is not a mystery if one holds to payment for all and it is a legitimate statement to say that "Christ died for your sins." If one holds to limited atonement, it is illegitimate to say that "Christ died for your sins," because maybe He did, maybe He didn't. For why would God die only for the "elect" and tell us to preach the gospel to the world? John Piper and others recognize this and say that it's to glorify God.33 I don't disagree, but that's not it's only purpose nor is it a mystery. The mystery is really the tension between God's sovereignty and man's free will.

An aspect to the good news of Christ is that He did die for everyone; it's the purest expression of love, grace, and mercy that I can think of. This is nonsense to the Calvinist and they view it as heresy. We are told to watch for hollow and deceptive philosophies;34 limited atonement , I would argue, certainly falls in that category and the results of which are not unlike what Adam did when responding to God in the garden, "it's your fault you gave me this woman," he passed the buck. Limited atonement inherently places the onus on God for people going to hell and removes all personal accountability.

Many pastors and theologians place the concept of limited or unlimited atonement as a "grey" area, something we shouldn't argue about. I contend that Christ's substitutionary payment on the cross is of utmost importance and limited atonement is another attack on the gospel and the person and work of Christ, and importantly, on Christ's love for all mankind.

"This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

---

FOOTNOTES

1. These include the Ransom, Recapitulation, Commercial, Moral influence, Example, Accident, Governmental, and Mystical theories all have the same problem; Christ didn't die for anyone. (See The Other Side of Calvinism. p. 414-415)
2. Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961), 152.
3. Robert Lightner, Sin the Savior, and Salvation. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1991), 124.
4. Sans Romans 5:11, an unfortunate translation.
5. Strong's concordance 3722
6. See Genesis 3:7
7. See Genesis 3:21
8. See Hebrews 10:1-3
9. Hebrews 10:12 – Incidentally, sitting down was something the priests could never do because their work was never finished.
10. 1 John 2:2; 4:10 etc.
11. Lewis Sperry Chaffer, Systematic Theology, Vols. 7 & 8, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications) 26.
12. Holman Illustrated bible Dictionary, (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003) 139.
13. Calvinist's obfuscate the issue by using the terms Particular or Definite Redemption to 'soften the blow' as some Calvinist's assert. Although it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still limited to the elect.
14. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, (Chicago; Moody Press, 1999) 367.
15. See also 1 John 4:10
16. 1 Corinthians 15:17
17. Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949) 257.
18. 1 Peter 1:19
19. See 1 Peter 3:18-20, Revelation 5:9
20. Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) 47.
21. Ryrie, 336.
22. Palmer, 47.
23. Ibid.
24. See also Romans 5:8, 1 Peter 3:18, and 2 Cor. 5:21
25. Palmer, 47.
26. John 6:47, 3:14-18, Acts 16:31
27. Lightner, 125.
28. Vance, 434.
29. Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism. (Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 2007) 435.
30. "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." (Acts 10:43)
31. Lewis Sperry Chaffer & John Walvoord, Major Bible Themes, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979) 185.
32. John 6:47, John 3:14-18, Acts 16:31
33. See John Piper's book, Desiring God.
34. Colossians 2:8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Boettner, Lorraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961.
• Chafer, Lewis Sperry and John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Themes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979.
• Constable, Dr. Thomas L.. Notes on John. Dallas, Texas: Sonic Light, 2004. http://www.soniclight.com.
• Fruchtenbaum, Dr. Arnold G. The Feasts of Israel. San Antonio: Ariel Ministries.
• Holman Bible Publishers, e d. Holman Illustrated bible Dictionary, Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
• InterVarsity Press, e d. New Bible Dictionary, Third Edition. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.
• Lightner, Robert P. Sin, the Savior, and Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1991.
• Palmer, Edwin H. The Five Points of Calvinism. 4 th ed.. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
• Pink, Arthur. The Sovereignty of God, 4 th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.
• Piper, John. Desiring God, Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2003.
• Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
• Vance, Laurence M. The Other Side of Calvinism. Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 2007.
• Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

]]>