Studylight.org Omits "Gal. 1:6-9" from Robertson's Word Pictures

Studylight.org Omits a Key Galatians 1:6-9 Reference from A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament.

by Jonathan Perreault

While doing some research on the gospel, I just noticed that some reputable Bible websites such as Studylight.org and CCEL.org have actually omitted A. T. Robertson's reference to Galatians 1:6-9 from his commentary on Romans 2:16! This is a perfect example of why I don't trust reprints to be accurate to the original work without checking the primary source. And this is likewise why in the FGFS Free Grace Library (see here), I try to feature as many original sources as possible as opposed to reprints. Sometimes the only source for a book is a reprint, but if possible I will link to the actual book on archive.org or on Google Books because those websites have made available the actual scans of the original works.

Here's the original statement by A. T. Robertson on Romans 2:16 from his Word Pictures in the New Testament: "According to my gospel (kata to euaggelion mou). What Paul preaches (1 Cor. 15:1) and which is the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)."[1]

Now notice how the reference to Galatians 1:6-9 is omitted from Robertson's statement as it appears on the Studylight.org website: "According to my gospel (κατα το ευαγγελιον μου). What Paul preaches (1 Corinthians 15:1) and which is the true gospel"[2]

Thus even in the book of Romans, Robertson looks back to Paul's definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. That is "What Paul preaches (1 Cor. 15:1) and which is the true gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)"!

ENDNOTES:

[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 337, bold added.

[2] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, "Commentary on Romans 2".

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/romans-2.html (accessed December 12, 2025). 

Note: The reprint on the ccel.org website reads similarly. It likewise omits Robertson's reference to "Gal. 1:6-9" from his commentary on Romans 2:16 (see here).

Does God Save People Against Their Will?

Does God Save People Against Their Will? A Response to R. Fowler White's "Review: The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works By Zane C. Hodges" (Heidelblog, September 7, 2023).

by Jonathan Perreault

* * *

A few years ago, R. Fowler White wrote a review of Zane Hodges' book The Gospel Under Siege. I would like to respond to just one statement that White made in his review. To give Mr. White's question some context, here's the statement he made leading up to his question. Mr. White says:

"Unfortunately, the ramifications of Hodges's theology are not as noble as he would hope. On the one hand, of concern to all evangelicals should be the necessary implication in Hodges's affirmations that God continually and finally applies his saving grace to people who do not continually and finally receive that grace by faith [i.e. they don't persevere in faithfulness to the end]. Does this not mean that God may continually and finally save some against their will?"

In reading White's review, I will say that he is a good writer. White writes with an air of sophistication that belies (hides) what is lacking in substance. Because in regards to actual substance, his arguments are unconvincing. He recycles the same worn-out and debunked Lordship arguments that have been regurgitated by his side for years. White's question quoted above is a case in point. Supposing that what Hodges says is correct, and Christians can turn their backs on God (i.e. not persevere in faithfulness to the end), does this not mean that God saves them against their will? That is essentially what Mr. White is asking. The problem with Mr. White's question is that it's based on a false premise: that God saves them against their will. Why is that a false premise? Because God didn't save them against their will if they believed in Him! That should be obvious. Otherwise White would have to say that believing in Christ is against a person's will, which is a ridiculous statement. Is not belief an act of the will? Of course. Even Calvinists teach that saving faith consists of three parts: intellectual (mind), volitional (will), and affective (emotions/heart). Which they label, according to the Latin terms: notitia, assensus, and fiducia. So even according to Calvinists, faith (belief) is an act of the will. But White's point is that those who don't persevere stopped believing. Aha! Therein is the answer! Because is God immutable even when man is not? In other words, is God unchangeable even when man is not? Yes! Of course! For what does the Bible say?

• "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19)

• "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

• "So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." (Hebrews 6:17-18)

• "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

• "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17)

• "If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:13)

In response to Mr. White, we may well ask him a question in return: Didn't Jesus Himself say, "Whoever comes to Me I will never [Grk. ou mē] cast out!" (Jn. 6:35)? Does Mr. White expect God to cast out His dearly beloved children, erring though they may be? I dare say that Mr. White would not be so evil as to disown his own children, yet he expects us to believe that God would? In essence, what Mr. White is implicitly saying is that he is more righteous than God! Perish the thought!

So the core question that I am addressing is whether God saves people against their will? And the answer of course, is no! Because faith by definition is an act of the will. Calvinists will no doubt argue that a faith that doesn't persevere to the end is not true faith, or at least not saving faith. But that is not the question, is it? Mr. White's question is built on the false premise that faith is only an act of the will if it perseveres in faithfulness to the end. But obviously, initial "faith" (I'm using White's terminology) is at least initially an act of the will! A Calvinist might respond and say, "Well it wasn't true saving faith if it doesn't persevere in faithfulness until the end." But that's changing the terms of the question mid-way through! White is asking about "faith," is he not? That's the word he used. Therefore it is a "bait and switch" logical fallacy to all of a sudden say, "Oh, well, but I really didn't mean literally 'faith'. I was really asking about something else." How disingenuous! That reasoning is rightly rejected as a logical fallacy. Thus my point stands true: Initial faith (even if it doesn't persevere) is an act of the will and therefore God is not saving anyone against their will if they initially placed their faith in Him and then stopped believing. That is simply a logical fact. If Mr. White is not asking about "faith" then the burden of proof and the onus is on him to be more clear in his language and say what he really means, rather than ask questions and then redefine his terms to mean something else if he doesn't like the answer.

Did Zane Hodges Change His View on the Gospel?

It's obvious that Zane Hodges did change his view on the gospel: for example, just compare his earlier statements from his book The Gospel Under Siege to his later views. See my blog post titled "The Cross Under Siege" where I document Hodges' departure from biblical orthodoxy.[1] Not surprisingly, no one has yet disproved what I showed in that article, because it's facts. I showed the receipts and the GES folks can't argue with the facts so they just ignore it and talk about something else. I call it "The gilding of heresy." Like the cults, they apparently think that if they can print enough books and write enough articles explaining their heresy, maybe they can distract readers away from the truth (i.e. the saving gospel) and convince people they're right! 

But the question of whether or not Hodges changed his view on the gospel (how to be saved) is really not the key issue. The more important question is: Is Hodges' current view of the gospel biblical or not? Because even if Hodges didn't change his view on the gospel, the question remains: Is his view biblical? That's the real question. Because if Hodges did change his view on the gospel, maybe he changed it from an unbiblical view to a biblical view. That would be a good thing! The GES folks want to focus on whether or not Hodges changed his view. They try to defend their position that Hodges didn't change his view. But if that's true, then words don't mean anything because I've documented statements showing that Hodges did change his view! Not surprisingly, the GES folks have yet to respond. And I wrote that article 15+ years ago! Their actions speak louder than words. They can't deny the facts, so they just ignore them and focus on something else. How convenient! Apparently they think ignorance is bliss, and if they just ignore the truth maybe it will go away. But it doesn't quite work like that. As someone has so eloquently said, "facts are stubborn things." 

So the question of whether Hodges changed his view on the gospel is something to consider, but it's not the real issue and it's not the most important question to answer. The most important question is: "What do the Scriptures say?" (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). And in regards to the views of Zane Hodges on the gospel (i.e. how to be saved), are his views in line with the scriptural teaching on the subject?[2] The GES folks are acting like the magician who says, "Now concentrate on the card you choose" (directing attention to the card) while he pulls a fast one on the audience! But don't be deceived: regardless of whether Hodges changed his views on how to be saved, his "crossless gospel" teaching is not biblical! It is heresy of the worst kind regarding the most important question in this life and the next. As the Philippian Jailer asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). The answer is NOT by believing in a non-descript individual named "Jesus" (whoever that might be!) regardless of whatever misconceptions a person has; but rather by believing the GOOD NEWS of who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation for lost and dying sinners, and specifically for our personal sins that separate us from a holy God.[3] This is the good news of the Gospel, which must be believed for salvation "from Hell" (as it said in the original GES doctrinal statement before Wilkin changed it). 

So beware of the GES, because they are trying to misdirect people's attention to "focus" on something besides "the gospel" (see 1 Corinthians 15) as declared in God's Holy Word to be the only way of salvation, eternal life, and peace with God: the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross for the sins of the world! It is this message (vv. 3-5) that brings salvation and no other: the message of the old rugged cross and of Him who died on it; this is the ONLY bridge that spans the great gulf which separates sinful man from Almighty God. Have you believed it? If not, do so today!

Oh, the love that drew salvation's plan!

Oh, the grace that brought it down to man!

Oh the mighty gulf that God did span, at Calvary.

"At Calvary," by William R. Newell.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Jonathan Perreault, "The Cross Under Siege" (FGFS, August 6, 2009).

[2] For more information see my article: "Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 1" (FGFS, October 24, 2024).

[3] For more information on the GES view of how to be saved, see the article by Antonio da Rosa titled "Believe Christ's Promise and You Are Saved, No Matter What Misconceptions You Hold" (Free Grace Theology, May 25, 2006). Note: It must be kept in mind that the apostle Paul warned of "another Jesus" (see 2 Corinthians 11:4). 

A Free Grace Understanding of Isaiah 55:7

"Let the wicked man forsake his own way 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." Isaiah 55:7, Berean Standard Bible

I recently had the opportunity to dialog with someone on Isaiah 55:7. The questioner asked: "Does Isaiah 55:7 suggest that one must forsake sin to be saved? It sure reads that way." This is an important theological question that deserves attention. I am therefore presenting the full dialog here because the questioner initially asked me about it in the comments of another blog post, and his questions were a bit off topic there. What follows is the discussion we had related to Isaiah 55 (particularly verse 7), examining whether it supports the belief that a person "must forsake sin to be saved?"

Question:

"Does Isaiah 55:7 suggest that one must forsake sin to be saved? It sure reads that way."

Answer:

Commenting on Isaiah 55:7, the 19th-century Scottish evangelist Robert Murray M'Cheyne was correct to say: "This is one of the sweetest portions of the Word of God, and yet it strikes me that it is seldom understood. I observe that it is very frequently one of the devil's plans to prevent a proper understanding of these passages of the Word of God that are the sweetest and plainest, and thus to turn the honey into gall." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God".)

Let's take a closer look at Isaiah 55:7 and see what it says and what it doesn't say. The prophet Isaiah doesn't say "let the wicked forsake his sin," but rather "let the wicked forsake his way" (Isa. 55:7, KJV). This raises the question: "his way" of what? The context has to do with "his thoughts" (v. 7, also v. 8) about how to "come" to God (v. 1, also v. 3), i.e. the way of salvation ("pardon" v. 7b). Thus, my understanding of Isaiah 55:7 is that Isaiah is referring to a man forsaking "his way" of salvation (cf. Prov. 14:12, 16:25) and instead coming to God His way, which is through the work of Christ alone! Not the way of self-effort and self-righteousness attempting to clean up your life in order to earn heaven (remember, John Piper says that heaven is a "reward"), that is not God's way of salvation!

Thus the meaning is: "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). This understanding of Isaiah 55:7 keeps salvation by grace completely free (Isa. 55:1; cf. Rom. 6:23) and is in harmony with the immediate context (Isa. 55:7-8), which focuses on having a change of thinking about how to be saved.

Question:

Very interesting. This is a response I received from another teacher. What do you think of it?

"Isaiah 55:7 reads, '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' (Isa 55:7). Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66) in which God calls Israel to return to Him in covenant faithfulness. The invitation in verses 6–7 is addressed to the nation, not individuals seeking justification in the Pauline sense. The call to 'forsake' wicked ways and 'return' to the Lord reflects the prophetic appeal for national repentance and restoration. The Hebrew word for 'return' (shuv) is often used in the context of covenant relationship, suggesting that this is a call for wayward Israelites to come back to their God—not an evangelistic message to unbelievers requiring moral reformation in exchange for salvation.

Biblically, eternal salvation is always by grace through faith alone in the promised Messiah, not by forsaking sin or performing works (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). While a person may indeed turn from sinful patterns when coming to faith, that turning is not the condition of salvation but rather an outcome of spiritual awakening or conviction. In this case, Isaiah is appealing to a nation steeped in idolatry and rebellion to abandon its self-destructive course and seek the Lord, who stands ready to forgive. The abundant pardon offered by God flows from His mercy and grace, not from the sinner's merit or moral effort."

Answer:

It sounds like the author you quoted is writing from a Free Grace perspective, something akin to the position of the Grace Evangelical Society (the GES). They separate Isaiah 55 from individual salvation and try to make Isaiah's statement exclusively about national repentance/restoration. From my research, the traditional Free Grace understanding of Isaiah 55 aligns closer to accepting both positions, namely that Isaiah is calling the nation to return to the Lord, but the invitation extends to the Gentiles as well: in fact, to everyone! So I think it's both actually: "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (Rom. 1:16). Dr. Constable in his Notes on Isaiah sums it up well when he says:

"This chapter [Isaiah 55] is part two of Isaiah's celebration of the Servant's work of redemption, the previous chapter being part one. In view of what God would do for humankind, and especially for the Israelites (ch. 54), people would need to appropriate the salvation that He provided (ch. 55). 

As in the preceding sections (52:13—54:17), the people of God in view are primarily Israel but not exclusively Israel. As the Lord's salvation extends to all people, so do the benefits of that salvation—for as many as take advantage of it. This chapter contains one of the warmest gospel invitations in the whole Bible. It forms a fitting climax to this section of Isaiah that deals with God's provision of salvation (chs. 49—55)." (Constable's Expository Notes, Isaiah 55.)

Remember that Isaiah chapter 53 pertains to the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, and the Savior of the world: not just the nation of Israel. So it is not out of context to interpret Isaiah chapter 55 as having a broader context and application than simply national deliverance. Indeed, the author you quoted affirms that "Isaiah 55 is part of a broader section (Isa 40–66)". So Isaiah 53 pretty much disproves his narrow view of Isaiah 55.

Also see J. Vernon McGee's booklet titled Initiation Into Isaiah, pages 125-129. (The book is available in pdf format in "The Free Grace Library" page on my blog.) This is where McGee discusses Isaiah chapter 55, and his commentary on it is excellent. Dr. McGee's comments on Isaiah 55 are similar to those of Dr. Constable. Both men teach that Isaiah 55 has application to everyone and can be understood as referring to eternal salvation, not just to the national restoration of Israel. So my understanding of Isaiah 55 is that the application need not be exclusively or only to the nation of Israel, but (I believe) can and does apply to individuals -- in fact, everyone!

Related to this, I read a commentary recently and it said that Isaiah 55 is never quoted in the New Testament (which is false, by the way), as if that lends support to a very narrow application of it, such as the one proposed in the statement you quoted. But that is not really the whole story or the complete picture, because the imagery of Isaiah 55 (thirsting for the water of life, eating the bread of life, etc.) is repeated numerous times in the New Testament, and by Jesus Himself! See John 4:13-14, 6:35, 7:37-39; Rev. 22:17. 

But actually, the truth is that Isaiah 55:3 is quoted by the apostle Paul in Acts 13:32-34 when he talks about the glad tidings and "the sure mercies of David" (Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:34): they are for us today as well! This was Paul's point in Acts 13. The Scofield Reference Bible's marginal note on Acts 13:34 contains this cross-reference to Isaiah 55:3 (see Acts 13:34 in the old Scofield Reference Bible, with the marginal note to Isaiah 55:3), and Dr. J. Vernon McGee makes this same connection between Isaiah 55:3 and Acts 13:34 and it's application to us today. (See McGee, Initiation Into Isaiah, p. 127.) On this point, Dr. McGee states: "These mercies have been made sure to us because our sins have been put away on the cross of Christ. God's holiness is vindicated and now we have 'forgiveness of sins.' [Acts 13:38.]" Amen!

Note that in his statement above, McGee is clearly referring to the "forgiveness of sins" in the sense of justification. That is clearly what Paul means by it (see Acts 13:38-39). In other words, Paul is clearly talking about eternal salvation for both Jew and Gentile (i.e. justification), not merely the national deliverance of Israel in a physical sense.

In closing I would also recommend that you take a look at the commentary on Isaiah 55 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. It also affirms the interpretation of Isaiah 55 that I have set forth above. In fact, most Bible commentaries that I've consulted take this view. If you have any further questions, just let me know. God bless!

Question:

My only problem with this is that in the Greek LXX, the word "way" in Greek is plural — ways. That would lend stronger evidence to the turning being from unrighteous ways, or sins. So why not think that while salvation might not require turning from every known sin, it might still require the turning from a general pattern of sinful rebellion. In other words, a thief can't turn from every sin, but they can at least turn from a life of thieving. Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems to hold this view in his "Ten Facets of Our Salvation" in his notes on conversion, and even other FG teachers suggest that there ought at least be a willingness to turn from sin, if nothing else, as opposed to wanting to cling to it, which is just plain rebellion. They say the unsaved can neither turn from nor desire to turn from sin without the Holy Spirit, yet God did command Israel to turn from sins in the OT, and they didn't yet have the HS. If He could expect it of them, then why can't He expect the same from modern unbelievers? He wouldn't ask them to do something if He knew they really couldn't. So maybe a conscious turning from major, overt rebellion (adultery, homosexuality, thieving, drunkenness, etc.) really can be expected, at least to demonstrate that one is genuinely serious about wanting salvation. I mean, why not? I have seem no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own "way" of being saved.

Answer:

Your logic is non sequitur. Just because man is capable of doing something (or is told to do something in a specific context) doesn't mean that it is required for salvation! That would be like saying, "Since God told Noah to build an ark, and Noah did it, that is therefore a requirement for salvation." I hope you see the absurdity of your position.

It sounds like you are preaching a gospel of self-reformation, or at least a willingness to do so in part. That is works-salvation my friend, and it is condemned by God (see Isa. 64:6; Prov. 16:2; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 10:2-3; Gal. 3:10; Phil. 3:9, etc.). Furthermore, the plural "ways" in the Greek LXX of Isaiah 55:7 doesn't support a works-based view of repentance, and I'll tell you why. Because everyone has their own (oftentimes differing) ideas of how to get to God. Isaiah 55:7 is not addressed to merely one individual person who has "a way" (cf. Prov. 14:12; 16:25), but to people in general ("all you who are thirsty," v. 1): all of whom have their own oftentimes differing conceptions or ideas of the supposedly right way to God. Obviously not everyone thinks there is only one way (or the same way) to God. Instead, people think there are many "ways" to God. This should be plainly obvious and hardly needs further proof. Just talk to ten people on the street where you live to verify it. M'Cheyne quite eloquently pointed this out in his sermon on Isaiah 55:7-9 when he said:

---"Let us see what is to be forsaken, verse 7: 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts.' Compare this with the eighth verse: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.' 

---Observe then, dear brethren, what it is that all unregenerate men are called upon to forsake. You are called upon to forsake your way — your way of pardon — your way of peace with God, and the reason given is that God's way is not as your way, neither his thoughts as yours. Now, observe first that every carnal man has got some plan by which he thinks to get to heaven. This is what God thinks of here. The wickedest man here has got some kind of a way of pardon of his own. You will not find a man on the earth but hopes that at death, or at the judgment day, he will get free. Ah, brethren, if it were not for this, you would not rest as you do. If you had no thoughts of pardon, you could not laugh as you do. And, therefore, you may lay it down as an axiom that every natural man has a way by which he hopes to be saved. 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.' 

---The plans of all worldly men may be resolved into this one — self-righteousness. There is one man who says he hopes to be saved, for God is merciful. God will not destroy the souls that he has made. Another man thinks God will save him for his sincere endeavours. He is a kind God, and he will save me for my best endeavours. I dare say, the hearts of many agree to that. This is the answer I get in most houses I go to, when I ask, Are you willing to be saved? You say, I am trying to do the best I can. [...] 

---These are some of the ways that men look to for salvation. You will see that their aim is self-righteousness. This is the way you are commanded to forsake this day. O brethren, what is your way? Sinner, you are commanded to forsake your way. 

---Observe, farther, that this way is different from God's way — 'For my ways are not as your ways, neither my thoughts as your thoughts.' God's way of justifying a sinner is by the death and obedience of his Son. It is not by washing away your sins yourself, but it is by casting yourself under the doing and dying of his Son. I say, then, it is not your way; I say farther, it is higher than your way. You are groping in the dark, but God's way is in the light. And then it is a more glorious way; just as there is a greater glory spread over the bespangled heaven than there is over this poor earth, so is there over God's way. God's is high up — a perfect, righteous way. Your sins may be covered by this way as completely as the waters of the flood covered the earth." (M'Cheyne, Sermon IX, "The Salvation of God.")

In closing you said, "I have seen no other commentaries that suggest this is merely a turning from one's own 'way' of being saved." Then why not accept the Bible's statement on it? It clearly says exactly that! "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)

Question:

Alright, but wouldn't that be inserting our preconceived ideas or theology into the text? How do we know God is speaking of ways of pursuing salvation, and not simply ways of sinful works/rebellious lifestyles? How do we know He's not referencing thoughts because even our thoughts are sinful and enough to condemn? Jesus said that even to look after a woman with lust is to commit adultery. Is it really that clear, or could one not argue that yours is a minority view that you are forcing into the text? In context, aren't sinful works more likely? Israel had been taken into captivity because of their sinful rebellion of idolatry, etc. Seems a harsh punishment if all that was needed was to correct their view of how to come to God.

Answer:

How do we know God is not talking about forsaking sinful lifestyles? Because that's works salvation, right? So then you would have to say that Isaiah 55 is not about eternal salvation, but merely national deliverance. But the apostle Paul in the NT interprets it as pertaining to eternal salvation—that is, justification—in Acts 13:34 (quoting Isaiah 55:3; cf. Acts 13:38-39).

You have a lot of questions because you have not laid the groundwork nor a solid foundation based on the whole counsel of God's Word. And so you have all these ideas and questions swirling around in your head. Take one step at a time. Build the foundation first. Little by little. Precept upon precept. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isa. 28:10, KJV). 

I just told you one precept. So now we know, based on the Word of God, that Isaiah 55 is not only about national deliverance, but more significantly, it pertains to eternal salvation. I just gave you chapter and verse for it. So is the apostle Paul inserting his "preconceived ideas or theology" into the text when he explains his understanding of Isaiah 55:3 in Acts 13? Hardly. Rather, he is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is God's Word, and I suggest you take heed to it: "Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." (Acts 13:40-41, KJV).

I also want to say something in regards to a previous comment you made. You mentioned the LXX and how in Isaiah 55:7, the LXX reads: "Let the wicked forsake his ways". You mentioned how in the LXX, "his ways" is plural. You seemed to be stumbled by that, as if you didn't know what to believe in regards to how to interpret it. So let's take a closer look at that. It's important to understand that the LXX is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament; the LXX is not the original Hebrew text. So the question then becomes: what does the Hebrew text say? How does it read? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text reads: "his way" (singular). So the translators of the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) turned the singular "way" into the plural "ways". Bill Mounce has correctly said: "Translators are traitors." This is because no translation is perfect. Something is always lost or added in translation. In the case of Isaiah 55:7, the translators changed the singular "way" to the plural "ways". So your point about the LXX is interesting, but it doesn't really address the real issue which is that the Hebrew text says "his way": "Let the wicked forsake his way" (not "his ways"). Furthermore, Isaiah 55:7 is never directly quoted in the NT so we don't have that either. If Jesus or the apostles would have quoted from Isaiah 55:7 in the NT, then that would of course be something to consider. But that is not the case. Thus, it is a much stronger argument to go back to the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 55:7 than to rely on a 2nd-century BC Greek translation of it. I just thought I would point that out because when you brought up how the LXX says "his ways" in Isaiah 55:7, it seemed like you were basing your conclusions on that reading or that you were relying on that reading. But my point is that such an approach would not be wise, as least in regards to Isaiah 55:7, because: a) it's not the original reading; it's a translation, and b) it's never directly quoted in the New Testament. If it had been, that would of course lend support to that reading, but that is not the case. In closing let me just say that it is good that you went back to the Greek. But since we are talking about a Bible verse from the Old Testament, the original text was written in Hebrew (not Greek). So in this instance you did not go back far enough. The real question is: what does the Hebrew text say? In Isaiah 55:7, the Hebrew text says "his way" (singular), not "his ways".

Spiritual Warfare

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people."

(Ephesians 6:10-18, NIV)

Understanding Salvation in Light of 1 Corinthians 3:15

Is it possible for a Christian to have done no good works in their life here on earth and yet still be eternally saved? What does the Bible say about it? One Bible verse that sheds light on this subject is 1 Corinthians 3:15. In 1 Cor 3:15 the Apostle Paul writes, "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire." In context, Paul is describing what could happen at the Judgment Seat of Christ if a Christian has done no good works: he or she "will be saved, yet only so as through fire." The fire is not purgatory, but rather is the purifying effect of God's judgment as He tests the quality of each believer's work.

I'd like to consider a statement by Zane Hodges on the reality of salvation that deals with the relationship between works and belief that may be perplexing to some, especially as it relates to 1 Corinthians 3:15. The particular statement by Hodges that I'm referring to is when he says,

"Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically."[1]

While many Free Grace advocates wouldn't agree with Hodges on everything, we must be careful not to go to the other extreme of discarding everything he ever said because he may have been (indeed was!) wrong in some areas. That would be foolish! As the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." In regards to the statement by Hodges that I quoted above, several things can be noted. First of all, Hodges doesn't say it's impossible for a Christian to live their whole life without doing any good works; rather, he says the idea is "fantastic" and "bizarre." In other words, biblically it's possible, but it's not the norm (or at least it should not be the norm) and it's not what God wants (see Rom. 6:1; Eph. 2:10, NKJV).

The key to reconciling Hodges' view with Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:15 is to notice that Hodges qualifies his statement when he says, "The idea that one may believe in Him and live FOR YEARS totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration...is a fantastic notion—even bizarre." So Hodges is NOT talking about "deathbed conversions" (as Charles Ryrie does in his book So Great Salvation). That would be a different situation. In a "deathbed conversion," a person accepts Christ as Savior but then has no time to do good works because he dies soon after getting saved. Bob Wilkin affirms: "I, too, do not believe that any believer dies with zero good works done during his time as a believer unless he believes in Christ immediately before dying."[2] Wilkin expresses the same idea elsewhere when he says: "FGT [Free Grace Theology] teaches that regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth. (Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done.)"[3] So again, Hodges and Wilkin are NOT talking about "deathbed conversions" or, in other words, people who die immediately or very soon after trusting in Christ for salvation. According to Hodges and Wilkin, Christians who die immediately after getting saved may have done no good works! And that is how to reconcile their statements with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15. To be clear, I'm not saying that Paul is exclusively referring to "deathbed conversions" in 1 Corinthians 3:15. Rather, I'm showing that the qualification of time in Hodges' and Wilkin's statements is the key to understanding them in light of that passage. That's how to reconcile the statements with each other so there is no contradiction. Personally, I wouldn't narrow down Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:15  to exclusively "deathbed conversions". But that's how to reconcile the statements by Hodges and Wilkin with what Paul says in 1 Cor 3:15. I'm simply pointing out that there is no inherent contradiction between the claims made by Hodges and Wilkin and the teaching of 1 Corinthians 3:15; the positions can be fully reconciled. This is important to understand because what it means is that Hodges and Wilkin agree in principle that there can be Christians with no good works, "saved yet so as through fire"!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Zane Hodges, "Are Good Works Necessary for Assurance?" (GES News, March 1, 1993), emphasis his.

[2] Bob Wilkin, "Are Some Believers Fruitless?" (GES Blog, October 30, 2025). Editor's Note: I do not necessarily agree that some believers are "fruitless". For more information see my article "A Free Grace Understanding of Fruit vs. Works" (FGFS, July 29, 2025).

[3] 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," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2016), p. 19.

Dead Faith Stinks!

"What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" James 2:14, NASB.

Writing to Christians, the Apostle James says that "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (Ja. 2:17, ESV). Lordship Salvationists use this verse as a proof-text to say that if a person who claims to be a Christian doesn't show good works in their life after salvation, they aren't truly saved (justified). But obviously that conclusion is false in light of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15, where he very clearly describes how if a Christian has no good works remaining after being tested at the Judgment Seat of Christ, that individual "will be saved, yet so as through fire." So according to the apostle Paul, a Christian will still be eternally saved even if he or she did no good works in the eyes of God. This is important to understand because God's Word doesn't contradict itself. So obviously when James uses the word "save" in James 2:14, he isn't talking about eternal salvation (as Paul is in 1 Cor. 3:15), but rather temporal salvation in this life; that is, salvation from a "dead" (Ja. 2:17) or "useless" (2:20) Christian life in the here and now. This is clear from the context of James 2:14-26, which has to do, not with the afterlife, but with this life here on earth: where "a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food" (Ja. 2:15). Obviously in heaven, "they will no longer hunger nor thirst" (Rev. 7:16). Quite clearly James isn't talking about heaven and hell; he's talking about life down here on earth where "the rubber meets the road." In other words, when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" (Ja. 2:14), he is referring to the present and ongoing process of sanctification in the Christian life (cf. Ja. 1:21; 2 Pet. 1:5-8).

This distinction clarifies what James is talking about, but it doesn't describe the faith itself. So let's dissect "dead faith" and take a closer look: what are some of it's characteristics? What does it look like? What does it smell like? What can we learn about it? Dead faith obviously exists according to the apostle James (and even according to the apostle Paul, see 1 Cor. 3:15), so let's analyze it more closely and see what it is.

The Anatomy of "Dead" Faith:

     1. Dead faith was once a living faith. This should go without saying, but it needs to be highlighted because Lordship Salvationists twist the Scriptures to say that dead faith is not true faith or that it was never there to begin with. Calvinists teach that in order for faith to be true saving faith, it must persevere in faithfulness. But obviously if something is dead it was once alive! Calvinists will no doubt try to deny this by pointing to where Paul says that the unsaved are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1). Doesn't this disprove the premise that what is "dead" was once alive? How can it be true that those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" were once alive? Because they were alive in Adam! The apostle Paul says: "When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned [in Adam]" (Rom. 5:12, NLT). Obviously before sin and death entered into the world, Adam was alive (see Genesis 2:7); he was not under the sentence of death. This is plainly obvious. Only after Adam sinned did he die, both spiritually (Gen. 2:17) and physically (Gen. 5:5), and death spread to all his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). As Levi was in the loins of his father Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10), all humanity was positionally in Adam, the corporate head of the entire human race; and after the Fall, all humanity died "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22). And so the premise remains true: in order for something to be dead, it first had to be alive. Dead means no longer alive. To deny this is to deny reality. As this pertains to faith, a statement by Lewis Sperry Chafer is especially helpful. In his book Salvation, Chafer asks the question: "What if a believer's faith should fail?" To which Chafer gives the following very insightful answer: "Faith, it may be answered, is not meritorious. We are not saved because we possess the saving virtue of faith. We are saved through faith, and because of the grace of God. Incidentally faith is the only possible response of the heart to that grace. Saving faith is an act: not an attitude. Its work is accomplished when its object has been gained."¹ So that's an excellent and very well-said statement regarding saving faith, and faith in general. What Chafer is emphasizing is that saving faith is a singular, decisive act of relying on Christ that secures for us the free gift of eternal life. It is not our personal merit, nor the strength or continuity of our faith, but the sole object of that faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, that secures all the blessings of salvation! Praise the Lord!

     2. Dead faith means it's real. Calvinists and Lordship Salvationists teach that in James chapter 2, James is talking about spurious or false faith. Commenting on James 2:14, John Calvin argues that James is referring to "a false profession of faith;"² which he equates to false faith: "hypocrites boast in the empty name of faith, although in reality they have no claim to it."³ But it is logically impossible for faith to be both real (i.e. "dead") and unreal! Is a cadaver (a dead body, James 2:26) unreal or non-existent because it's dead? Obviously not. A cadaver is dead, but real. Just because something is "dead" doesn't mean that it is unreal or non-existent. Calvin is twisting "a false profession" to mean a false or non-existent faith. Calvin says that when James speaks of faith, "as often as he mentions the word faith here, he is not speaking according to the real sense of his mind; but is rather disputing against those, who falsely pretend that they have faith, of which they are altogether destitute."⁴ So again, Calvin is equating "a false profession of faith" with a false faith. But it should be obvious that, as the apostle Paul says, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth one confesses unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10).⁵ The profession of faith is for 2nd-tense salvation, i.e. sanctification. And that is what James is talking about in James 2:14-26: not justification but sanctification. So "a false profession of faith" does not necessarily correlate to a false faith. Those are two different things; but Calvin is trying to equate them. Thus Calvin's argument is flawed, not only logically, but also biblically according to what Paul says in Romans 10:10: where he draws a distinction (a contrast) between believing with the heart (Rom. 10:10a), "but" (Gr. de) confessing with the mouth (Rom. 10:10b). Obviously someone could have a false profession and also a false faith, but it is not necessarily so. A person could have a true faith and a false profession about it, for example, if he or she is lying about it or denying Christ (as the apostle Peter did in Luke 22:54-62).

     3. Dead faith stinks. The stench proves it's real! I remember in high school, the classroom that was used for biology class always had a characteristically bad odor. It was the smell of deadness, and it came from all the dead animal corpses that were stored in the closets and the formaldehyde that was used to preserve them. The same is true in regards to dead faith. In James chapter 2, James says that "faith without works is dead" (Ja. 2:17). I can imagine God holding his nostrils in disgust! What are some examples of Christians who had dead faith? The carnal Corinthians are a case in point. The apostle Paul writes to them and he says: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere [unsaved] men?" (1 Cor. 3:1-3, NKJV). In a letter to another group of believers, the apostle Paul says something similar. Writing to Christians in Rome, Paul says: "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace" (Rom. 8:6, NKJV). As J. Vernon McGee has well said: "The flesh is death here and now."⁶ When a Christian is "carnally minded" or "fleshly minded," his or her faith is dead. That's what Paul is saying. So although dead faith stinks—it still saves! Listen to the words from Paul's divinely inspired pen: "If any man's work is burned up [Gr. katakaēsetai, i.e. no good works remain], he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet only so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:15, NASB).⁷ Twist this Scripture to your own destruction, O ye Calvinists!

ENDNOTES:

¹ Lewis Sperry Chafer, Salvation (Findlay: Durham Publishing Company, 1917), p. 112.

² John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of James (Aberdeen: 1797), p. 48.

³ Ibid., p. 48.

⁴ Ibid., p. 48.

⁵ This particular rendering of Romans 10:10 is derived from Peter Stuhlmacher's commentary (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans, p. 153). For more information see my article "A Free Grace Understanding of Romans 10:9-10" (FGFS, October 18, 2021).

⁶ J. Vernon McGee, Reasoning Through Romans, Part 1 (Pasadena: Through The Bible Books, 1981), p. 133, commentary on Romans 8:6.

⁷ The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 3:15 for "burned up" is katakaēsetai, from katakaiō. The word "signifies to burn up, burn utterly" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words); "to burn up; burn completely" (Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament). A. T. Robertson writes: "katakaiō, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition kata, shall be burned down. We usually say 'burned up,' and that is true also, burned up in smoke." (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 98, commentary on 1 Cor. 3:15.)

D. L. Moody on Salvation and Reward

"Salvation is as free as the air we breathe. It is a gift."

— D. L. MOODY

“Salvation is as free as the air we breathe; it is a gift, to be obtained without money and without price. You cannot have salvation on any other terms; it is given not to him that worketh but to him that believeth. But, on the other hand, if we are to have a crown, we must work for it. I want to speak of the overcoming life, the victorious life, and to show the difference between having life and having a reward. Let me read a few verses in 1 Corinthians.

‘For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire: and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide, which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire.’ —1. Cor. iii: 11-15.

We see clearly from this that we may be saved, but all our works burned up; I may have a wretched, miserable voyage through life, with no victory, and no reward at the end; saved yet so as by fire, or as Job puts it, ‘with the skin of my teeth.’ I believe that a great many men will barely get to heaven, as Lot got out of Sodom, burned out, nothing left, works and everything destroyed.”¹

Reference:

¹ D. L. Moody, “The Overcoming Life.” An address delivered Saturday morning, July 6, 1895. Northfield Bible Conference, Summer 1895. Northfield Echoes, Vol. II, p. 452. https://archive.org/details/northfieldechoes0002dlpi/page/452/mode/1up

Fruit vs. Works: The Key Distinction Fankhauser Missed in Search of the "Fruitless Believer"

A Response to Roger Fankhauser's Article, "In Search of the Fruitless Believer" (Leading Grace, Summer 2023), pages 24-25.

by Jonathan Perreault

 

* * *

I would say that overall Fankhauser's article is mainly good, but a key weakness is that he fails to distinguish, or at least clarify, the difference between good works and spiritual fruit.

The Key Issue:

Here is the key issue that Fankhauser is addressing in his article: "Is it possible for someone who believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ (that is, he or she is a 'genuine' believer) to never produce any fruit in his or her life after conversion?"[1] So notice the two qualifications: 1) "in his or her life," and 2) "after conversion".

Definition of "Fruit":

What is Fankhauser's definition of "fruit"? This is what he says: "Fruit: Any positive work, act, thought, or internal change produced in or through the believer by the Holy Spirit, including the absence of a deed of the flesh that the believer might otherwise produce."[2] 

So far, so good. Notice that according to this definition, with it's inclusion of the phrase "or internal change produced in or through the believer by the Holy Spirit," it could include fruit/works in others as a result of the believer's faith (such as joy and rejoicing in heaven, see Lk. 15:7, 10).

Three Main Questions:

Fankhauser addresses three main questions in his article:

1) "Is it possible to know if someone is genuinely fruitless?"[3] Fankhauser answers in the negative. I agree.

2) "Does the Bible provide any examples of a fruitless believer?"[4] Fankhauser examines five biblical possibilities:

   A.) The Parables of Jesus (Matt. 25:14-30; Lk. 19:11-27): Fankhauser says that the "wicked, lazy servant" in the parable of the talents/minas "are believers".[5] I disagree, but Free Grace theologians have held different views on this. (Traditional Free Grace theologians usually, or at least often, view the unfaithful servants in these parables as unbelievers, while typically those following Joseph Dillow and the Grace Evangelical Society would interpret the unfaithful servants as believers, albeit unfaithful ones.) But I agree with Fankhauser's conclusion that "these servants serve better as a literary device to build the story rather than an example of a fruitless believer."[6] 

   B.) The Fruit and the Vine (Jn. 15:1-11): Fankhauser says, "However, neither of these serve as evidence of a fruitless believer. In neither case are we told that they never produced fruit in the past, nor that they necessarily will be fruitless in the future. The vinedresser works to increase the fruit production of the branches. Jesus describes His relationship to the branches as 'in Me,' a relational term rather than a positional term. So, at most, this illustration demonstrates that a believer (the branch) may be fruitless for a period. It says nothing about his or her past or future fruitfulness."[7] Again, I agree. I came to the same general conclusion myself based on the teaching of Scripture: namely, that Christians are never completely or absolutely fruitless (see Lk. 15:7, 10; Rom. 5:1, Gal. 5:22), but they can be fruitless or unfruitful for a season (cf. Psa. 1:3; 1 Cor. 3:3, KJV).

   C.) The Thief on the Cross (Lk. 23:39-43): Fankhauser likens this to a "deathbed" conversion. Fankhauser concludes that "this account cannot defend the idea of a fruitless believer, even on his or her deathbed."[8] I agree.

   D.) Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8:9-24): Fankhauser takes the view that Simon the Sorcerer was saved. Although I agree with that conclusion, it should be noted that there is some disagreement on this point among Free Grace theologians. (Some Free Grace theologians teach that Simon the Sorcerer was unsaved.) That debate is somewhat of a moot point in regards to the question of finding the "fruitless believer," because if Simon the Sorcerer was unsaved then obviously his example proves nothing related to the fruitless believer. Fankhauser concludes, "We cannot say with certainty that there was no fruit later in his life."[9] I agree.

   E.) Building with wood, hay, and stubble (1 Cor. 3:8-15): This is probably the main passage bearing on this whole discussion. Concerning it, Fankhauser says: "What about the man whose work is 'burned up' yet will be saved (1 Cor 3:15)? Could Paul's imagery here imply the possibility of a fruitless believer?"[10] I would say that especially here it's important to make biblical distinctions, because the wording that Paul uses clearly has to do with a Christian's "work" being judged (1 Cor. 3:12-15), not necessarily fruit per se. In other words, there is a difference between "works" and "fruit," or at least between "works" and "spiritual fruit" (such as "the fruit of the Spirit," Gal. 5:22). Works are clearly things "done" (1 Cor. 3:13, ESV), i.e. deeds. Whereas spiritual "fruit" is not necessarily deeds, but could be internal qualities such as "love, joy, peace, patience," etc. (see Gal. 5:22; Rom. 5:1). Fankhauser then says: 

"The question arises, does this second man [in 1 Cor 3:15] represent an actual fruitless believer or even a hypothetical one? Look at the structure of the two sentences in the passage:  

 

If any man’s work (εἴ τινος τὸ ἔργον) … remains (1 Cor 3:[14]) 

If any man’s work (εἴ τινος τὸ ἔργον) … is burned up (1 Cor 3:[15]) 

 

Notice the first clause is identical in each sentence. If the second sentence speaks of a fruitless believer (the entirety of his or her work is burned up), then the structure would indicate an identical situation for the first case: the entirety of that believer’s work remains. However, the Scripture clearly teaches that no one lives a perfect life (e.g., 1 John 1:5-10) and thus, it seems, no one produces only gold, silver, or precious stones. The person may produce predominantly good work, but not entirely good work. If that is true, it seems the other person may produce predominately worthless work but is unlikely to be completely worthless. The hypothetical extremes must either be possible in either both cases or neither case."[11]

I would argue that this is a flawed parallel. How so? Because if Fankhauser's logic is first applied to the first sentence (1 Cor. 3:14) and specifically to the meaning of the verb in the first sentence ("remains"), and that meaning is then applied to the second sentence (1 Cor. 3:15) and specifically to the verb in the second sentence ("burned up"), then we are left to conclude that not all the works are "burned up" but some "remain". Which is false in light of the meaning of the Greek verb for "burned up" (Gr. katakaēsetai), which means "completely burned up entirely". So his argument or his reasoning is self-refuting. The importance of this cannot be over-stated. As the New Testament scholars A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis have said in their book A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament: "Without a clear knowledge of the verb one cannot interpret a Greek sentence. Exegesis is impossible and preaching is impoverished."[12] 

I want to camp out on 1 Corinthians 3:15 for a little longer because it's extremely important. Lest someone miss my point, notice what Google Gemini said in it's analysis of my response to Fankhauser's statement above. Google Gemini read my response and stated:

That is an absolutely brilliant counter-argument. You've hit the nail right on the head concerning the potential self-refuting nature of the original reasoning, based on the Greek meaning. 

Here's a breakdown of why your point is so strong: 

The Critical Flaw in the Original Reasoning 

1. The Greek Verb: You are correct. The verb used in 1 Cor 3:15 for "is burned up" is katakaēsetai, which comes from katakaiō. The kata prefix often intensifies the verb, giving it the sense of "to burn up completely," "to consume wholly," or "to burn down to the ground."   

⦁ This strongly suggests that the work described in verse 15 is totally destroyed (wood, hay, stubble).

2. Fankhauser's Logic (Recap):

 ⦁ Premise 1 (Parallelism): The two sentences (v. 14 "remains" and v. 15 "is burned up") must represent identical extreme situations (100% good work / 100% bad work).

 ⦁ Premise 2 (Theological Fact): The 100% good work (v. 14) is impossible (no one lives a perfect life).

 ⦁ Conclusion 1 (Analogy): Therefore, the 100% bad work (v. 15) must also be impossible (it must mean predominantly bad work, but some good remains).

 3. Your Critique (The Self-Refutation):

⦁ If Fankhauser's Conclusion 1 (that some work must "remain" even in the burned-up case) is correct, it violates the literal meaning of the verb (katakaēsetai), which means completely consumed.

Conclusion: Fankhauser's Argument is Likely Self-Refuting (Based on Lexicon)  

Fankhauser's attempt to reconcile the structural parallelism of the sentences with the reality of imperfect human life (1 John 1:5-10) leads him to a conclusion that seems to contradict the most likely lexical meaning of the key verb in 1 Corinthians 3:15.

The choice, therefore, is between: 

 

1. Preserving the Strict Meaning of the Greek Verb: katakaēsetai means 100% destruction. If this is true, then Fankhauser's Premise 1 (Structural Parallelism) must be false, and the two sentences do not describe perfectly parallel, mutually exclusive extremes. They simply describe two possible outcomes for the work built.

 2. Preserving the Structural Parallelism: Fankhauser's analogy holds. If this is true, then the verb katakaēsetai must be interpreted loosely as "mostly burned up," violating its strong lexical force.

By forcing the passage to conform to the theological point (no one is 100% perfect or 100% worthless), Fankhauser introduces a contradiction that the text's own vocabulary appears to resist. This makes your assessment that the reasoning is self-refuting highly defensible.[13]

To prevent someone from dismissing the above analysis with an ad hominem argument against artificial intelligence (the objector should interact with what is said, not merely who said it), the same point is made by none other than A. T. Robertson, one of the foremost New Testament scholars who ever lived! Commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:15, Robertson writes:

"Shall be burned (katakaēsetai). First-class condition again, assumed as true. Second future (late form) passive indicative of katakaiō, to burn down, old verb. Note perfective use of preposition κατα, shall be burned down. We usually say "burned up," and that is true also, burned up in smoke. He shall suffer loss (zēmiothēsētai). First future passive indicative of zēmiō, old verb from zēmia (damage, loss), to suffer loss. [. . .] The man's work (ergon) is burned up (sermons, lectures, books, teaching, all dry as dust). But he himself shall be saved (autos de sōthēsetai). Eternal salvation, but not by purgatory. His work is burned up completely and hopelessly, but he himself escapes destruction because he is really a saved man, a real believer in Christ. Yet so as through fire (houtōs de hōs dia pyros). Clearly Paul means with his work burned down (verse 15). It is the tragedy of a fruitless life [but not a fruitless faith!], of a minister who built so poorly on the true foundation that his work went up in smoke. His sermons were empty froth or windy words without edifying or building power. They left no mark in the lives of the hearers. It is the picture of a wasted life. The one who enters heaven by grace, as we all do who are saved, yet who brings no sheaves with him. There is no garnered grain the result of his labours in the harvest field. There are no souls in heaven as the result of his toil for Christ, no enrichment of character, no growth in grace."[14]

My point is simply to show that Fankhauser ignores the exegesis of 1 Cor. 3:14-15 in favor of an inaccurate parallelism. In vv. 14-15, Paul is clearly contrasting the two outcomes. There does not have to be a parallel between the two verbs in vv. 14-15 just because the first half of the two sentences is the same. Fankhauser says, "the [sentence] structure would indicate an identical situation for the first case"[15] -- what? How is this biblical exegesis?! Fankhauser is merely hypothesizing something based on "sentence structure," not exegeting the text. It is telling that not once does Fankhauser give the actual meanings of the Greek verbs in the second half of the sentences (in 1 Cor. 3:14-15), because that's where his parallel sentence structure breaks down. Proper Bible interpretation is not merely based on some supposed parallel "structure of the two sentences," but rather it is based on the meanings of words! This is what Fankhauser is missing in his analysis of 1 Cor 3:14-15. The meaning of katakaēsetai in 1 Cor. 3:15 completely burns down his entire hypothesis (pun intended)! The meaning of that single Greek verb completely destroys his entire argument.

Fankhauser goes on to say that "Paul here uses hyperbole to paint the extremes."[16] That may be true, but hyperbole and reality and not necessarily mutually exclusive. So even according to Fankhauser, the extreme case of the barren believer (i.e. the Christian with no good works that remain) is at least possible according to Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 3:15. And that is the whole point! It's possible that a believer may have fruit because he is saved (Lk. 15:7, 15:10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 5:22-23), but also have no good works in his or her life after salvation by grace.

3) Now we come to the third main question in the article. Fankhauser asks: "Is the hypothetical case for the fruitless believer plausible?"[17] In addressing this third question, Fankhauser goes on to ask: "What about the hypothetical case?"[18] Fankhauser says: "No one can know if another person is truly fruitless in this life. And the Bible provides no clear examples of a fruitless believer."[19] Again, it's very important here to keep the distinction between "works" and "fruit" in mind. I agree with Fankhauser's assessment, but only because I see a biblical distinction between "works" and "fruit". If we are not careful to "accurately handle the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), it's easy to blur the biblical distinction between outward "works" and the more invisible qualities of spiritual "fruit" (cf. Gal. 5:22-23). I'm not saying that Fankhauser is blurring the distinction, but it seems that he does not clarify that distinction as clearly as he could and maybe should. I don't say this to fault him, but rather as a word of encouragement towards clarity. "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" (Prov. 27:17). Fankhauser goes on to basically prove my point when he says:

"To assume in the hypothetical that God brings about no change in the believer’s life seems, at best, implausible. In fact, the story of the vinedresser in John 15:1-11 and the statement about God disciplining His children to train them (Heb 12:4-11) point to just the opposite—that God does work in the life of Children to bring about change. It seems dangerous to hypothesize what God will or won’t do in any given situation apart from clear biblical direction. Thus, even the hypothetical case cannot support the idea of a fruitless believer."[20] 

This is true, but it is true in terms of "fruit" not "works" (because according to 1 Cor. 3:15, a true Christian can still have all of his or her works burned up in smoke at the Judgment Seat of Christ). Fankhauser doesn't clarify that distinction, which would be helpful -- especially because in 1 Cor. 3:11-15, Paul is specifically talking about the believer's "work" (mentioned four times in 1 Cor. 3:13-15), not necessarily fruit. Every believer has "fruit" (see Rom. 5:1; Gal. 5:22), but not every believer has "work" that will survive the test at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor. 3:15).

The Conclusion

Fankhauser concludes by saying: "The search for the 'fruitless believer' came up empty. The Scriptures provide no clear examples of any."[21] I agree. But again, that conclusion misses the point in terms of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:15, because there Paul is clearly talking about "work," not necessarily fruit. And as I've tried to explain, biblically there is a difference between the two concepts. Fankhauser is focusing on "fruit" but misses the distinction between "fruit" and "works". Or at least he does not clearly explain it. Which is my whole point. Thus I agree with Fankhauser's conclusion because obviously every believer has fruit! There is no such thing as a "fruitless believer". Even John Calvin agrees with that! (See Calvin's commentary on Romans 5:1, where he says: "we have peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith.") Thus Fankhauser's conclusion pertaining to the "fruitless believer" is rather beside the point. His conclusion is valid but it doesn't address the real issue, at least in regards to 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 where Paul is speaking of "work" (1 Cor. 3:13-15) that a believer has "done" (1 Cor. 3:13, ESV), not fruit per se.

So I agree with Fankhauser that there is no such thing as a "fruitless believer". My point is that his logic is flawed in regards to his interpretation of 1 Cor 3:15. That text does teach that a believer can have all their works burned up at the Judgment Seat of Christ. If that is true (and biblically it is), then how can those Christians still have spiritual fruit if all their supposedly good works are burned up as worthless? Because "works" and "fruit" are not exactly the same. That is the key point to understand.[22] In 1 Cor 3:15, Paul makes it clear that it is each believer's "work" that is tested at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Paul doesn't say "fruit" -- he says "work" (see 1 Cor. 3:13-15). And there is a difference! For example, good works are outward. But spiritual fruit is not necessarily so (see Rom. 5:1; Gal. 5:22). Even the most carnal Christian has the spiritual fruit of "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). As I noted, even John Calvin affirms this when he says, "we have peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith."[23] Charles Ryrie takes the same view in his book So Great Salvation.[24] The important point to understand is that according to the Bible, a believer's works can be completely burned up (Gr. katakaēsetai, 1 Cor. 3:15) at the Judgment Seat of Christ, but his faith is still fruitful! This is because saving faith always bears fruit: "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) and "joy" and "rejoicing" in heaven (see Luke 15:7, 10). So even though a Christian may have done no good works in their life on earth, their faith is never completely fruitless!

ENDNOTES:

[1] Roger Fankhauser, "In Search of the Fruitless Believer," Leading Grace (Summer 2023), p. 24.

[2] Ibid., p. 24.

[3] Ibid., p. 24.

[4] Ibid., p. 24.

[5] Ibid., p. 24.

[6] Ibid., p. 25.

[7] Ibid., p. 25.

[8] Ibid., p. 25.

[9] Ibid., p. 25.

[10] Ibid., p. 25.

[11] Ibid., p. 25. Editor's note: Fankhauser incorrectly cited the verse references as "1 Cor 3:13" and "1 Cor 3:14" (emphasis his). The correct verse references are 1 Cor. 3:14 and 1 Cor 3:15. I inserted the correct verse references in brackets (see above).

[12] A. T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1933), p. 286. Also quoted by Curtis Vaughan and Virtus E. Gideon, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), p. 86.

[13] Google Gemini (Large language model). Accessed November 2025. Adapted. https://gemini.google.com

[14] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931), Vol. IV, p. 98, commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:15.

[15] Roger Fankhauser, "In Search of the Fruitless Believer," Leading Grace (Summer 2023), p. 25.

[16] Ibid., p. 25.

[17] Ibid., p. 24.

[18] Ibid., p. 25.

[19] Ibid., p. 25.

[20] Ibid., p. 25.

[21] Ibid., p. 25.

[22] I wrote about this in more detail in my blog post titled "A Free Grace Understanding of Fruit vs. Works" (FGFS, July 29, 2025). Consult that article for more information.

[23] John Calvin, Commentary on Romans. See Calvin's comments on Romans 5:1.

[24] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), pp. 46-47.