tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18359450936779200772024-03-18T19:40:39.236-04:00FREE GRACE FREE SPEECH<b>A Free Grace research blog
<i>"testifying to the gospel of God's grace"</i>
(Acts 20:24, NIV)</b><br>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger329125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-91208379100303755662024-02-24T14:32:00.027-05:002024-02-27T04:52:32.075-05:00Where Is Christ's Blood in the Gospel?<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Bokor; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Bokor; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiD3XjSbMVaUOJ-50UHjzyGrro4R_bfnklI5GTwTNRFdyDENFaCK8N2hCSWmxE1bUCejLrpRStK5r981PhphBqSduYFyIRHy8yJre4cE-K6V-APmTDB1Y9JoVYqODn711UeAEHgn_3J4GmCy26FZMpkcJNaZjghqaTxnw8_zB5wFsq3gN4iExK3aAadw/s450/christ-died-blood-2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="450" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpiD3XjSbMVaUOJ-50UHjzyGrro4R_bfnklI5GTwTNRFdyDENFaCK8N2hCSWmxE1bUCejLrpRStK5r981PhphBqSduYFyIRHy8yJre4cE-K6V-APmTDB1Y9JoVYqODn711UeAEHgn_3J4GmCy26FZMpkcJNaZjghqaTxnw8_zB5wFsq3gN4iExK3aAadw/w200-h200/christ-died-blood-2.jpg" width="200" /></a> <br /></span></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The other day I received from a reader an interesting question about Christ’s blood, which I will paraphrase as follows: </p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;"><i>Does a person have to hear that Jesus shed His blood for our sins along with
hearing that He died for our sins, or is it enough to hear that He died for
our sins?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">That is a good question. The Bible verse that immediately comes to mind is Romans 3:25. My understanding is that Christ’s blood is another way of saying His death (cf. Rom. 5:9-10); in other words, those two things cannot be separated. For example, after Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible says that God made garments of animal skin, and clothed them (Gen. 3:21). This would require the death of an animal—perhaps a lamb. Yet the text does not specifically mention <i>blood</i>, per se. But of course this would be involved in the slaying of the animal, for the Bible says that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11), “and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness [of sin]” (Heb. 9:22). Pertaining to this, Charles Ryrie states that “it is not the life of Christ which redeems but His death (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14—blood stands for death, cf. Rom. 5:9-10).”[1] Ryrie goes on to say: “The death of Christ took away sin. The blood stands for violent death; therefore, to speak of the blood of Christ taking away sins means the death of Christ takes away sin, […] The blood, that is His death, is the basis for eternal life (John 6:53-56)”.[2] And under the heading “<i>The appropriation of salvation</i>”[3], Ryrie elaborates by saying: </p><p style="margin-left: 40px; text-align: justify;">“The very first statement in the Gospel [of John] concerning the new birth makes it dependent upon faith (John 1:12). The verse also mentions the object of faith, Christ. Thus it is throughout the Gospel—the Son as the bearer of salvation must be the object of faith (3:15-16, 18, 36; 4:29, 39; 8:24; 20:29, 31; I John 3:23; 5:1, 12). Faith involves the most thorough kind of appropriation of the person and work of Christ as the basis for the believer’s confident persuasion for salvation. The figure of eating His flesh and drinking His blood attests to that thoroughness (6:53-56). Faith in His person involves belief in His deity (John 3:13; 8:24; 9:22; 12:42; I John 2:23; 4:15), and faith in His work involves belief in the efficacy of His death to effect deliverance from sin (John 1:29; 3:14-17; 13:19). In John’s thought faith that saves is joined directly to the person and work of Jesus Christ.”[4] <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Commenting on Romans 3:25, Dr. Constable affirms: “The translation ‘through faith in His blood’ (NIV) correctly represents the word order in the Greek text. Paul elsewhere urged faith in the person of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22; Romans 3:26). Probably Paul mentioned His blood as representing His life poured out as a sacrifice of atonement instead of the person of Christ here to draw attention to what made His sacrifice atoning (cf. Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:20). This then is a metonymy [a figure of speech that Paul is using], in which the name of one thing [i.e. ‘His blood’] appears in the place of another [i.e. His atoning sacrifice, or in other words, His death on the cross for our sins, cf. 1 Cor. 15:3] associated with it.”[5] <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I actually agree with Tom Stegall’s interpretation of Romans 3:25, which I think he explains quite well in the following words. Stegall writes: “Practically speaking, this means that to have <i>‘faith in His blood’</i> as stated in Romans 3:25 is another way of expressing faith in Christ’s vicarious death. If a man placed his faith in Christ’s all-sufficient death for his sins but for some strange reason never heard that Christ shed His blood while dying, such a man would still have saving faith. The Lord has seen fit to use a multiplicity of metaphors, images, and diverse terminology to depict the one truth of the Savior’s death for our sins. These terms include ‘cross,’ ‘tree,’ ‘blood,’ ‘gave,’ ‘offered,’ ‘sacrificed,’ ‘redeemed,’ ‘suffered,’ ‘slain,’ etc. Yet, despite such rich diversity of expression, there is still a unity of content, as each of these terms point to the same substitutionary, atoning death of the Savior.”[6] </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the book <i>Simple Studies in Romans</i>, William L. Pettingill quotes Dr. Scofield as affirming: “The sinner’s faith in Christ includes ‘faith in His blood’ (Rom. 3:25); that is, faith in Christ as ‘the Lamb of God’ voluntarily offering Himself on the sinner’s behalf in vindication of God’s holy law.”[7]<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] Charles Ryrie, <i>Biblical Theology of the New Testament</i> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), p. 185.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[2] Ibid., p. 338.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[3] Ibid., p. 340.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[4] Ibid., p. 340. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[5] Thomas L. Constable,<i> Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes</i>, 2012 Edition, StudyLight.org website (www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/dcc/romans-3.html). Commenting on the same text, D. Stuart Briscoe affirms: “When the Bible uses expressions related to ‘the blood’ it is employing readily understandable figures of speech for ‘a life being laid down.’ The price of human redemption is nothing less than the voluntary surrender by Christ [not myself] of His life on the Cross.” (Briscoe, <i>The Communicator’s Commentary: Romans</i>, p. 93.)<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[6] Thomas L. Stegall, <i>The Gospel of the Christ</i> (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 312, emphasis his.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[7] William L. Pettingill, <i>Simple Studies in Romans </i>(Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1915), p. 40. Commenting on Romans 3:25, Frederic Godet furthermore explains: “We therefore find the notion of propitiation [i.e. "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," Jn. 1:29; cf. Rev. 13:8b] qualified by two parallel and mutually completing clauses: the first, <i>by faith</i>, indicating the subjective condition; and the second, <i>by His blood</i>, setting forth the historical and objective condition of the efficacy of the means. Propitiation does not take place except through faith on the part of the saved, and through blood on the part of the Saviour. […] The apostolic utterance may consequently be paraphrased thus: ‘Jesus Christ, whom God settled beforehand as the means of propitiation on the condition of faith, through the shedding of His blood.’” (Godet, <i>Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans</i> [New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1883], p. 153, italics his, brackets added.)<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-25312525958217765042024-02-17T11:00:00.053-05:002024-03-02T07:35:01.518-05:00Debunking Calvinism: Death Means Separation, Not Inability<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIZJGEScHkJeksfaunbizaHLiFm3ilmlnCSfgLXpTudgKWWICL1BqvgqoPm9HKb2YhFl_FWHx1COiYmWrv1dIzlzVYeuRna-OYOIhL3ePeO2kRUebbh_6y1DeE58L3Mwk6DicfkXevFrctyVGKGo937QrKOO36JXMINoBaNNgvcyivttWzLRKedUC9CSQ/s642/total-inability-pic-1-rip.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="642" data-original-width="349" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIZJGEScHkJeksfaunbizaHLiFm3ilmlnCSfgLXpTudgKWWICL1BqvgqoPm9HKb2YhFl_FWHx1COiYmWrv1dIzlzVYeuRna-OYOIhL3ePeO2kRUebbh_6y1DeE58L3Mwk6DicfkXevFrctyVGKGo937QrKOO36JXMINoBaNNgvcyivttWzLRKedUC9CSQ/s320/total-inability-pic-1-rip.png" width="174" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Permanent Marker; font-size: small;">CALVINIST VIEW</span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>What is the meaning of spiritual “death” in the Bible? Does it mean the inability of man to believe the Gospel as Calvinists teach? Commenting on the judgment of Adam and Eve after the Fall, Dr. J. Vernon McGee explains the biblical meaning of death in the following words: “Death now comes to man. What is death? Physical death is a separation of the person, the spirit, the soul, from the body. Ecclesiastes says: ‘Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it’ (Eccl. 12:7). Man ultimately must answer to God. Whether he is saved or lost, he is going to have to answer to God. But Adam did not die physically the day that he ate [from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Gen. 2:17]. He did not die until more than nine hundred years later. The whole point is simply this: he died <i>spiritually</i> the moment he disobeyed; he was separated from God. Death is separation. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians that they were ‘dead in trespasses and sins,’ he did not mean that they were dead physically but that they were dead spiritually, separated from God. In that wonderful parable of the prodigal son, our Lord told about this boy who ran away from his father. When he returned, the father said to the elder son, ‘For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. . .’ (Luke 15:24). Dead? Yes, he was dead, not physically, but he was separated from the father. To be separated from the Father means simply that—it means death. The Lord Jesus said to Martha, ‘. . . I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live’ (John 11:25). [<i>Editor's note:</i> Also see John 5:24, 5:40, 6:40, 6:57-58.] Again, ‘dead’ means death spiritually, that is, separation from God. Man died spiritually the moment he ate [from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil]. That is the reason he ran away from God.”[1]</div><p style="text-align: justify;">The Christian apologist Dr. Norman Geisler similarly understands spiritual death as separation, not the inability to believe God’s truth. In a sermon titled “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist,” Geisler explains what the Bible means when it says that the unsaved are “dead”. Geisler says: “Let’s begin with a Scripture in Ephesians chapter 2 and verse 1. And [with] this we will be talking about the ‘T’ [in the acronym TULIP] or ‘Total Depravity’ [aka ‘Total Inability’]. What is meant by ‘Total Depravity’ by a five-point Calvinist? Ephesians chapter 2, they appeal to this verse in support of their belief that man is so totally depraved, so totally sinful, so totally apart from God, that he cannot even understand the Gospel, or receive the Gospel: he is ‘dead’. Ephesians 2:1 [and following] says, ‘And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and in sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.’ And then he goes on to say in verse 3, who ‘were by nature the children of wrath.’ And these God made alive, verse 5, He ‘made us alive’. So there we were, dead in sin—[Calvinists say it’s] like a dead corpse floating on the water: that could not hear, could not see, could not understand, and could not believe. But God in His grace, according to a five-point Calvinist, reached down and gave life to that corpse. Now that giving life is called regeneration: giving life to the soul, imparting to a dead person life. And according to five-point Calvinism, we are so dead in our sins that we can’t even understand the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 2:14, ‘The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.’ So Ephesians 2:1, 1 Corinthians 2:14, become part of the basis for this belief that we’re so totally depraved that the only way we could possibly get saved is if God made us alive first, and then after we are made alive, then we are capable of believing. And [five-point Calvinists also say] that faith follows salvation; faith is not the condition by which we get salvation, salvation is the means by which we get faith. Now having thus explained what the five-point Calvinist means by the ‘T’ in TULIP, I would like to tell you why I do not believe in the ‘T’ of TULIP, as defined by the extreme Calvinist. I do not believe it, because if you look at the context of this verse in Ephesians 2, you will notice in verse 8 that it says that this [salvation] is received through faith: ‘For by grace you have been saved through faith’. Now if you’re saved through faith, then what comes first logically? The salvation or the faith? If you’re saved by faith [cf. Rom. 5:1], faith comes before the salvation right? Whereas the five-point Calvinist believes that salvation (regeneration) comes before faith. Romans 5:1 says, we are ‘justified by faith’. So faith is the means by which we get justification. Justification is not the means by which we get faith. One of the things I teach is philosophy, and one of the main modern philosophers was called René Descartes [pronounced “Day-cart”], and he said, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ Well actually, he got ‘de cart’ before ‘de horse’ because you have to exist before you can think: I exist, therefore I can think. I don’t exist because I can think, I think because I exist. So I think the five-point Calvinist has the cart before the horse. You have to believe in order to be saved. [The Bible says,] ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’ [Acts 16:31.] He [The Apostle Paul] didn’t say, ‘wait to get zapped by God,’ you’re just dead—a corpse, ‘wait to get zapped by God, and once you’re saved then you will be able to believe.’ I find that nowhere in the New Testament. Everywhere I find the opposite: that we believe in order to receive salvation. We do not receive salvation in order to believe. You say, ‘Well how do you explain the fact that they’re dead? The Bible says [in Ephesians 2:1] that we’re dead in trespasses and sins.’ Dead can be understood two ways: annihilation or separation. Now we know in the Bible, death is not understood as annihilation: that you are totally taken right out of existence, as it were. Death in the Bible means separation. The prophet [Isaiah] said, ‘Your sins have separated you from your God.’ [Isaiah 59:2.] Death brings a wall of separation. When we die, what happens? The soul separates from the body: [The apostle Paul says,] ‘absent from the body, present with the Lord,’ 2 Corinthians 5. [And] ‘It’s far better to depart and be with Christ,’ Philippians 1:23. Or in the book of Genesis [35:18] it says, ‘her soul was in the process of departing’ before she died. So death is understood in the Bible as separation, not annihilation. But for all practical purposes, the five-point Calvinist understands it as spiritual annihilation: that we are not spiritually there in any sense of the term; we can’t even understand the message or receive the message. And so, God has to give life where we were totally, as it were, departed from Him [in the sense of being so spiritually ‘dead’ that we were unable to even believe]. No, the Bible says that death is separation from God, and that we are separated as being still in His image and likeness. In Genesis 9:6 it says, that even unsaved people are still in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says God created man in His own image. Yes, man fell. Yes, he sinned. Yes, he’s separated from God. But [although] he’s separated from God, he still has God’s image. Because after the flood, Noah was told, ‘Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made He him.’ [Genesis 9:6.] In other words, don’t kill an unsaved person because they’re still in the image of God. James 3:9 says it’s wrong to curse another human being because they’re made in the image of God. So the image of God is effaced in fallen man, but it’s not erased. For all practical purposes, the five-point Calvinist says the image of God is erased. It’s not there. You’re so dead that there’s no capacity left there to understand or receive the message of God’s grace. To get the illustration even more clearly, let’s look at Genesis chapter 3. In Genesis chapter 3 in the Old Testament, Adam and Eve sinned. And, according to the Bible, therefore they became ‘dead in trespasses and sins’. [It] seems to me that the best way to understand the Bible is by the Bible. Now if the moment Adam took the forbidden fruit—someone said it wasn’t the apple on the tree, it was the pair on the ground that got us in trouble! Well the pair on the ground, Adam and Eve, both partook of the forbidden fruit. In chapter 2 [of Genesis] it said, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat thereof, for in day you eat thereof you shall surely <i>die</i>.’ Now when Adam took the forbidden fruit, and Eve took it, they <i>died</i>. They were spiritually dead. Now here’s what a spiritually dead person can do: Genesis chapter 3, verse 9. They had already taken it [i.e. the forbidden fruit], and “the Lord God called Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ So he said, ‘I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked. And I hid myself.’” Notice several important things about that: even though Adam was spiritually dead, he could still hear God! Notice he could still understand; he understood what God was saying. So even in our fallen state, the image of God is still in us; our ability to hear God is still there, our ability to respond to God is still there: both positively and negatively (respond in rejecting it or respond in accepting it). In fact, in Romans chapter 1, verse 19, it tells us that unsaved people can understand and perceive the truth of God. Take a look at that in Romans chapter 1, beginning with verse 18, ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth,’ they know it but they’re holding it down. Now notice verse 19, ‘because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them, since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are—,’ what are the next two words? ‘clearly seen’! Unsaved people who are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ can ‘clearly see’ the truth of God revealed in general revelation. So clear is it that they are, quote ‘without excuse,’ verse 20, ‘without excuse’. So whatever the Bible means by ‘dead in sin,’ it does not mean that they do not perceive the truth. It does not mean that they can’t understand what God is saying to them. Adam understood it, even though he was dead [i.e. spiritually dead]. Death doesn’t mean <i>annihilation</i>, it means <i>separation</i>. Death doesn’t mean that the image of God is <i>erased</i>, it means the image of God is <i>effaced</i>. Death doesn’t mean—and this is a very important distinction—that they cannot <i>perceive</i> the truth, it means they are unwilling to <i>receive</i> the truth. 1 Corinthians 2:14 [says] ‘The natural man does not receive’: it’s the Greek word <i>dechomai</i>, which means [to receive, accept, or] welcome. Of course there is no welcome in an unsaved heart for the truth of God, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t perceive it; he perceives it very clearly. And he is eternally condemned for rejecting it. What he needs to do is to <i>receive</i> it. While he understands it in his mind, he is not willing to believe it in his heart. So that’s the first reason why I am not a five-point Calvinist, because: 1) they get the cart before the horse: you don’t get saved in order to believe, you believe in order to get saved. And 2) we’re not so dead that we can’t <i>perceive</i> the truth, we’re just so separated from God that we’re unwilling to <i>receive</i> the truth.”[2] </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In a <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> article titled “The Gift of God” (<i>Bib Sac</i>, July 1965), Roy Aldrich likewise expounds on the biblical meaning of death, in contrast to the Calvinist’s view of it. Concerning this, Aldrich states: “Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast’ (Eph 2:8–9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation. For example, Shedd says: ‘The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.’ [Shedd,<i> Dogmatic Theology</i>, Vol. II, p. 472.] This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration. [Shedd, <i>Dogmatic Theology</i>, Vol. II, pp. 512-513.] Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Eph 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of ‘hearing the word,’ ‘giving serious application to divine truth,’ and ‘praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.’ The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe.”[3]<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">In contrast to what Calvinism teaches, the Bible makes it clear that spiritually “dead” people can believe! “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Have you believed? If not, do so <i>today! </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>References: </b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] J. Vernon McGee, <i>Thru the Bible</i> <i>with J. Vernon McGee</i> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1981), Vol. 1, p. 27, commentary on Genesis 3:17-19.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not A Five Point Calvinist,” Richard Kalk YouTube channel (time stamp 7:00 minutes – 19:05 minutes). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">[3] Roy L. Aldrich, “The Gift of God,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra </i>122 (July 1965): p. 248. <br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-64639424455955287952024-02-11T12:26:00.052-05:002024-03-16T10:30:59.662-04:00Pastor Kelly Sensenig's View of Repentance<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfkPyqy3LrWbZkyliGuA-yOaWSKHlgqv8QUHf6VkhrfUmFVZm_cmBkCTNrfezmMpVk-U2vItXw5Hw3wLGQ7o90Hi5_NRpUFVC-ooCe98pAy4agMdsJ_leIi2-H-LKVSGpmfi3_SAJqynZvGA3Vtq8YcM34g-phRKDfv3uO0UAuc1kmBinoaheDwh6wUk/s1024/cartoon-boy-spitting-watermelon-seeds-bw.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="839" data-original-width="1024" height="99" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfkPyqy3LrWbZkyliGuA-yOaWSKHlgqv8QUHf6VkhrfUmFVZm_cmBkCTNrfezmMpVk-U2vItXw5Hw3wLGQ7o90Hi5_NRpUFVC-ooCe98pAy4agMdsJ_leIi2-H-LKVSGpmfi3_SAJqynZvGA3Vtq8YcM34g-phRKDfv3uO0UAuc1kmBinoaheDwh6wUk/w121-h99/cartoon-boy-spitting-watermelon-seeds-bw.jpg" width="121" /></a></div>I just read the Middletown Bible Church article on Repentance that a friend of mine linked me to and had some questions about.[1] Overall, I would say that the article was mostly good, although I can see how it would raise some questions in a person's mind in regards to forsaking sinful living for salvation. The main statement in the article that I thought was unclear was in the quote by Pastor Kelly Sensenig, when he said:<br /><br />
"When you repent you will think differently and possess a different attitude about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, your own life of sin, and need for salvation. You will reconsider your ways of faulty reasoning and sinful living and realize that these things offend God's truth and holiness and must be released from your life and forsaken. Repentance speaks of a reversal of a person's attitudes and convictions. It speaks of an inward turning from what a person used to believe or think about God, Jesus Christ and themselves. To repent is to alter one's way of looking at life; it is to take God's point of view instead of one's own....Repentance is when a person changes their thinking about whatever is keeping them from expressing faith in Christ. [Pastor Kelly Sensenig, <i>Except Ye Repent</i>, p. 3]."<br /><br />Personally, I would not explain repentance the way that Sensenig did, particularly when he said that to "repent" involves realizing that your "sinful living...must be released from your life and forsaken." I would say that depending on the context, that could be part of Christian repentance (e.g. see Revelation chapters 2-3), but not part of the Gospel. In other words, that is part of sanctification, not justification. So that's where I think Sensenig is unclear on biblical saving repentance: he makes it sound like an unsaved person has to agree to "forsake" their "sinful living" up-front for salvation. To me, that's the same thing as "Lordship Salvation"! Or to put it in the form of a question: how is that any different from "Lordship Salvation"? It's not! The confusing part about it is that although Sensenig says that he disagrees with "Lordship Salvation," yet his explanation of repentance is sometimes (as in this instance) the same as the Lordship view of it! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">I would take what Sensenig says about repentance "<a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/take-with-a-grain-of-salt">with a grain of salt</a>" (i.e. to believe only part of something, or to view it with skepticism), or to put it another way: be ready to spit out some seeds! In other words, recognize that, at times, Sensenig is clear on the meaning of repentance, but at other times, not so clear.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] See the article titled "<a href="https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/termsrep.htm">Repentance</a>" in the Terms of Salvation series on the Middletown Bible Church website (www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/termsrep.htm). <br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-34405522519275524982024-01-27T19:16:00.012-05:002024-02-01T10:19:01.025-05:00The Cross Is Now Essential to Believe<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJf11kvJGMzTZtSzODO9SQLWQQHGljWtCTEvdqSIsa4T_EyK12fcZgKRkcmSMPCM6rlXheu4SzAsDgEhYYMBASCcnEotmpUICKLGIlwvcePPzuC7U1T8ay-Fd94fWy2YI1qqt3vcdgUb4_964kSCioJ_PLQLHNWC0DOuXT1GzDnlL44BXuHhjk1O6tObY/s201/Nicodemus2-cropped.gif" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJf11kvJGMzTZtSzODO9SQLWQQHGljWtCTEvdqSIsa4T_EyK12fcZgKRkcmSMPCM6rlXheu4SzAsDgEhYYMBASCcnEotmpUICKLGIlwvcePPzuC7U1T8ay-Fd94fWy2YI1qqt3vcdgUb4_964kSCioJ_PLQLHNWC0DOuXT1GzDnlL44BXuHhjk1O6tObY/s16000/Nicodemus2-cropped.gif" /></a></div>According to Jesus, the content of saving faith now includes the cross! See John chapter 3 (vv. 14-15), when Jesus tells Nicodemus that "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,<i> even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. That whosoever believes in Him</i> [i.e. "the Son of Man...lifted up"] <i>may have eternal life</i>." Jesus is prophesying of His coming crucifixion and saying that AFTER His death on the cross, it will be essential to believe — not merely in Jesus, but specifically in "the Son of man...lifted up [on the cross]" — for eternal life! (See John 3:14-15, cf. Num. 21:6-9.) </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">This dispels the frequent objection made by proponents of the "crossless" gospel, when they ask: "When were the disciples of Jesus saved, before or after the cross?" In light of Jesus' statement in John 3:14-15 that question is beside the point, because Jesus indicates that AFTER the cross is when it will be necessary to believe in <i>what He did for us there on the cross</i> for eternal life. In other words, after the cross is when the lost must believe in "the Son of man...lifted up" (Jn. 3:14) on Calvary's cross, on Golgotha's tree — He hung there and died <i>for me!</i> As the apostle Paul says: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3; cf. Num. 21:6-9; Isa. 53:5-6). Now after the cross, this is the gospel message that we preach. And it is perfectly consistent with what Jesus said in John 3:14-15!<br /><br />
In my blog post titled "The Cross Under Siege" (<i>FGFS</i>, Aug 6, 2009), I actually quoted Zane Hodges as affirming that the cross is now essential to believe for eternal life/eternal salvation, and that false doctrine says otherwise. The statement I'm referring to is when Zane Hodges says: "False doctrine...tell[s] us that it is dangerous—even wrong—to trust completely in what Christ <i>has done for us</i> in dying for all our sins (1 John 2:2; John 1:29)."[2] Another statement to the same effect is when Hodges goes on to say: "Either a man can look to the cross and find peace by believing, or he cannot....There is no escape from this conclusion. If I cannot trust <i>completely</i> in Christ and what <i>He did</i> on the cross, then the cross can give no peace about my eternal destiny."[3] A fitting closing statement is when Hodges says: "[In John 3:14-16] Jesus means to say, He Himself will be lifted up on the cross, and the one who looks to Him in faith <i>will live</i>....So, in John 3, the issue is faith, or confidence, in Christ for eternal life. Will a man look to the Crucified One for eternal life, or will he not? The man who does, <i>lives! </i>By this very simplicity, the Gospel confronts and refutes all its contemporary distortions."[4]<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Jonathan Perreault, "The Cross Under Siege" (<i>FGFS</i>, Aug 6, 2009).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Zane Hodges, <i>The Gospel Under Siege</i> (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1992), p. 147, italics his.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] Ibid., p. 148, italics his.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] Ibid., pp. 18-19, italics his.<br /><br /></div></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-49190667863015797442024-01-20T06:23:00.032-05:002024-03-17T09:09:06.522-04:00Get on the Bible Bus with Dr. J. Vernon McGee<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGX2_AphZ1Y0ZMVLXyEh8M49cWGUgw1IAjn3MgsbxFXZMHyqiCzXCzh0B6VrljKrKQXGPQ1gvnMQLTmd8Y1ECE0jfYg4I0SCKYB5PjHirMnpyULii8dc8B6oZYVjR_6q4R7lPDPmoa2hLzrpLAk2rUKujfFS-jVF55Vh74uE0VvmGUEJUVjkaIvaznkBk/s500/flash-drive.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGX2_AphZ1Y0ZMVLXyEh8M49cWGUgw1IAjn3MgsbxFXZMHyqiCzXCzh0B6VrljKrKQXGPQ1gvnMQLTmd8Y1ECE0jfYg4I0SCKYB5PjHirMnpyULii8dc8B6oZYVjR_6q4R7lPDPmoa2hLzrpLAk2rUKujfFS-jVF55Vh74uE0VvmGUEJUVjkaIvaznkBk/w147-h147/flash-drive.jpg" width="147" /></a></div>I recently ordered the <i>Thru the Bible</i> "featured resource" from the TTB.org website: The Complete 5-Year Series Flash Drive. What follows is my review of it. Overall I would say that I am very pleased with this product (I hesitate to call it a "product," but hopefully you get the idea); this is truly an invaluable resource and well worth the $35 cost. It did take about 10 days to arrive by mail; so if you are accustomed to the Amazon Prime next day delivery, it won't arrive that quickly. However, the shipping cost is included in the $35 price tag, which is really a bargain if you ask me. Personally, I'd probably pay 10 times that amount to get this! [<i>Editor's note:</i> The complete 5-year series is actually available for free download on the TTB.org website!] What I really like about it is that I don't have to wait to hear J. Vernon McGee on the radio; I can listen to him in a continuous loop just by plugging in the flash drive to my car's USB port. Each teaching segment is about 20 minutes in length, and the material is presented is a winsome, down-home style that makes listening both enjoyable and also entertaining. I say "entertaining" because Dr. McGee presents the material in such a delightful fashion that it is not dry or boring at all. On the contrary, the flash drive makes it easy to "binge listen" to Dr. McGee to your heart's content! The one area that I think could be improved to make listening a little more user-friendly is in the organization of the broadcasts. That is to say, some of the episodes do not play in sequence. So for example, you could be listening to one episode from Genesis 4, but the next episode might skip to Genesis 40. This is because the broadcasts are organized alphabetically, not necessarily chronologically. To remedy this, just be mindful of what episode is playing and make sure the next episode that plays is the correct one. If not, go to the list menu of all the broadcasts and manually select the correct broadcast. On the flip side, what's nice is that the 5-year series begins with Dr. McGee's "Guidelines for Understanding the Scriptures," and all of Dr. McGee's Notes and Outlines are also included on the flash drive, along with all his PDF booklets. What's also cool is that the flash drive looks like a school bus! So get on board The Bible Bus and journey with Dr. McGee <i>Thru the Bible</i>. I give this product 4.8 out of 5 stars. <br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-32250388260833421402024-01-15T16:03:00.028-05:002024-03-08T08:26:18.098-05:00Does John's Gospel Present Jesus' Burial as the Fulfillment of Scripture? <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2faoENO011Br2swczfiGF5OAjAcX4jsu0JBBx-7FCdaiI5JFCK15z2NRNQvXItWkgk9XvBkud97QAXeFW809J3IuApnsOUNNxhC4PcYjfvLsBFntvBJ5mgh-nzNOKA4JWOYim2SqnzZpFYJlH9lEElR7Y4cz1GSznm8FocnJIBxVzMK_X8PkUKxxDKc/s897/jn-12-24.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="812" data-original-width="897" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr2faoENO011Br2swczfiGF5OAjAcX4jsu0JBBx-7FCdaiI5JFCK15z2NRNQvXItWkgk9XvBkud97QAXeFW809J3IuApnsOUNNxhC4PcYjfvLsBFntvBJ5mgh-nzNOKA4JWOYim2SqnzZpFYJlH9lEElR7Y4cz1GSznm8FocnJIBxVzMK_X8PkUKxxDKc/w200-h181/jn-12-24.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Tom Stegall is trying hard to find some biblical basis for his removal of Christ's burial from the gospel of salvation. Now he believes he has found it in the Gospel of John, of all places! Regarding this, Stegall says: "John's Gospel does not present Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture".[1] Really? Actually it does! Jesus Himself predicted His burial in John 12:7. And the Gospel of John details the fact of it in John 19:38-42, thus fulfilling Jesus' prediction. Is Stegall prepared to say that the words of Jesus are not "Scripture"?[2] In the very first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus is said to be "the Word" of God (see John 1:14). But according to Stegall's reductionist reasoning, "the Word" of God (i.e. Jesus' prediction in John 12:7) is not "Scripture"! How sad. Furthermore, the Bible says that "all Scripture is God breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16). But if Jesus' words in John's Gospel are not "Scripture", then Stegall has bigger problems than Christ's burial in the gospel, because now he (Stegall) is calling into question the very <i>inspiration</i> of John's Gospel! It seems that Stegall has quite the dilemma on his hands. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Another example of where John's Gospel presents Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture is found in John 5:39, when Jesus says that "the Scriptures...bear witness of Me"! The "Scriptures" that Jesus is referring to, of course, are particularly the Old Testament Scriptures (i.e. the Law and the Prophets). Are we to turn a blind eye to those "Scriptures" which predict His burial (e.g. Deut. 21:23; Psa. 22:15, 40:2, 85:11; Isa. 53:9)? Unfortunately, this is exactly what Stegall is doing. As God says in the Old Testament, none are so blind as those who will not see (Isa. 42:18-20). But the question bears repeating: are we not allowed to appeal to the Old Testament in John's Gospel? Jesus does! (See Jn. 5:39.) Are we to exclude those Scriptures which predict His burial? In regards to the burial of Jesus, we can of course appeal to Isaiah 53:9 as an Old Testament Scripture that can "bear witness" to it: "His grave was assigned with wicked men, but He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in His mouth" (Isa. 53:9; cf. Jn. 8:45-46, 19:18-42). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also John 5:46, where Jesus told the unbelieving Jews that Moses "wrote of Me". Are we to turn a blind eye to those passages in the Pentateuch which predict the burial of Christ? Deuteronomy 21:23 clearly makes reference to the burial of Jesus when it says: "his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance" (Deut. 21:23; cf. Jn. 19:38-42; Gal. 3:13).<i> </i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">There is also the statement in John 12:24, which Stegall has tried to say only refers to Christ's death and resurrection, not His burial.[3] Such an interpretation however, appears to be a case of "special pleading" (i.e. "an argument in which a speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view"), because Jesus clearly says that the grain of wheat "falls <i>into </i>[Gr. <i>eis</i>] the earth" (not "to the earth" but "<i>into</i> the earth"). This is clearly figurative language for burial! The fact that Jesus reverses the chronological order of death and burial when He says that the seed "falls into the ground and dies" does not preclude the burial, because Jesus is obviously describing <i>the normal process</i> <i>of the seed</i> as picturing His own death, burial, and resurrection. Indeed, Dr. C. I. Scofield in his <i>Reference Bible</i> writes the following insightful comment, affirming this very truth. Scofield says: "The wave-sheaf (Lev. 23.10-12) typifies the resurrection of Christ, but a sheaf implies plurality. It was a single 'corn of wheat' that fell into the ground in the crucifixion and entombment of Christ (John 12.24); it was a sheaf which came forth in resurrection."[4] Commenting on this same passage, Warren Wiersbe affirms that "Jesus compared His death and burial to the planting of a seed (John 12:23-24)".[5]<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So let's return to the question at hand, "Does John's Gospel present Jesus' burial as the fulfillment of Scripture"? It certainly does! To say otherwise is to impugn the very nature of Christ as "the Word" of God! Because Jesus Himself predicted His burial in John's Gospel! (See Jn. 12:7.) Furthermore, Christ pointed out that "the Scriptures...bear witness of Me" (Jn. 5:39). In regards to Christ's burial this would include Scriptures such as, for example, Isaiah 53:9 and Jonah 1:17. Christ also said that Moses "wrote of Me" (Jn. 6:46). In regards to Christ's burial this would include quotations from the Pentateuch such as Deuteronomy 21:23: which is a clear Old Testament reference to Christ's death "on the tree" and His ensuing burial, for the text says: "you shall surely bury him" (v. 23). And then there is Jesus' own statement in John 12:24, where He likens Himself to a seed that falls "into the ground" (εἰς τὴν γῆν) but then springs up "out of the ground" (cf. Psa. 85:11, ἐκ τῆς γῆς in the LXX) in order to bear much fruit: clearly picturing His death, burial, and resurrection! Have you believed this Good News? If not, do so <i>today!</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] Thomas L. Stegall, <i>That You May Believe: The Evangelistic Purpose and Message of John's Gospel in Relation to Free Grace Theology</i> (ThD thesis, Grace Biblical Seminary, 2017), p. 232.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[2] The words of Jesus are Scripture! Both the Bible itself and early church
history testifies to this fact. An example
of the words of Jesus being called <i>Scripture</i> is seen by comparing
Luke 10:7 with 1 Timothy 5:18. Notice that in Luke 10:7 Jesus says that "the laborer is worthy of his wages." Gregg F. Swift explains the point
well when he says, "this part of the verse is not found anywhere in the
Old Testament. But in 1 Timothy 5 Paul refers to this part of the verse,
'The laborer is worthy of his wages' as <i>Scripture</i>." (Swift, "Is the New Testament Considered 'Scripture'?" <i>Christian Beliefs 101</i>
website, July 11, 2021.) Commenting on the statement of Jesus in Luke 10:7 that "the laborer is worthy of his wage" (10:7b), theologian Charles Ellicott writes
the following in his commentary on the passage: "The exact reproduction
of the words by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18, as a citation from 'the
Scripture,' is every way interesting. The Apostle could scarcely have
failed to have become acquainted, during his long companionship with St.
Luke, with the materials which the Evangelist was collecting for his
great work. <i>We can hardly doubt, accordingly, that he quotes this as
one of the sayings of the Lord Jesus, as he quotes another in Acts
20:35, and clothes it with the same authority as the older Scripture</i>." (<i>Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers</i>, commentary on Luke 10:7, emphasis added.) Commenting on Luke 10:7, New Testament scholar A. T. Robertson affirms: "For the labourer is worthy of his hire (αξιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου). In Matthew 10:10 we have της τροφης αυτου (his food). 1 Timothy 5:18 has this saying quoted as scripture." (<i>Robertson's Word Pictures</i>, commentary on Luke 10:7.) Furthermore, in <i>The Epistle of Barnabas</i> (a non-canonical Christian letter written sometime between 70 and 132 A.D.), the words of Jesus from Matthew 22:14 are referred to as Scripture. Barnabas 4:14 says: "Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after
so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were
abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture
saith, <i>many are called but few are chosen.</i>" (<i>The Epistle of Barnabas</i>. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. <i>Early Christian Writings</i> website.) There is also an ancient Christian homily known as <i>II Clement</i> (written to the Corinthians <i>circa</i>
150 A.D.), in which the author quotes the words of
Jesus from Luke 5:32 and likewise calls it Scripture: "Again another
scripture saith, <i>I came not to call the righteous.</i>" (<i>Second Clement</i>. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. <i>Early Christian Writings</i> website.) From these pertinent examples from both the Bible and early church history, it's clear that the words of Jesus are indeed to be considered Scripture!<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[3] Thomas L. Stegall, <i>The Gospel of the Christ </i>(Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 586.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[4] C. I. Scofield, <i>The Scofield Reference Bible</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 1042.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[5] Warren Wiersbe, <i>Be Holy</i> (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1994), p. 128.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-15371520388889377732024-01-14T10:50:00.023-05:002024-01-20T08:07:17.772-05:00Bob Wilkin Disproves Zane Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario"<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiWHJTH8xorI4bZru1NOkg7IUSrIvyed6eh__HScSUsjurrMiggUyXTcynrOaYlxUzYBtC4cTLlDDYnutpOye3QzOHHQS9PxDbZVsg1IFDkemy-u5uyES6WjEAGG66q_54rfJ-GBP8bFwGIWwHAY_E39K2rTkKXE5bZrk5Dm6PTRwlrFXVxfKgJ4oLAgg/s300/skull-island.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="300" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiWHJTH8xorI4bZru1NOkg7IUSrIvyed6eh__HScSUsjurrMiggUyXTcynrOaYlxUzYBtC4cTLlDDYnutpOye3QzOHHQS9PxDbZVsg1IFDkemy-u5uyES6WjEAGG66q_54rfJ-GBP8bFwGIWwHAY_E39K2rTkKXE5bZrk5Dm6PTRwlrFXVxfKgJ4oLAgg/w200-h200/skull-island.png" width="200" /></a></div>I just read a very revealing statement by Bob Wilkin that really surprised me. In a blog post last year, Wilkin said: “I talked with Mike Lii [another promoter of the GES gospel] during a ten-mile walk on Saturday, and he made an interesting point. He said that most hypothetical questions are not based on the questioner’s actual experience. For example, ‘If someone believes in a frog named Jesus for everlasting life, is he born again?’ Well, there is no actual example like that. ‘If someone believes that <i>Jesús</i>, his gardener, guarantees his eternal destiny, is he saved?’ Again, there is no such person.”[1]<br /><br />
Wilkin is dismissing the logical conclusions of his false teaching by saying, in effect, “Well, there are no such examples of anyone believing in the wrong Jesus (e.g. Jesus the frog, or <i>Jesús</i> the gardener) for everlasting life, so my promise-only gospel is okay. People are believing in the right Jesus.” Really? Besides being an argument from silence, that’s like me saying that there are no actual examples of someone who “has never heard about Christianity in his life”[2] being shipwrecked on a deserted island and believing in the promise of John 6:47 without any other information about who that person is or what he did to provide it. Yet according to Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, such a person is nonetheless saved! Wilkin doesn’t have a problem with <i>that </i>hypothetical scenario! In fact, he promotes it![3] <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In other words, using Wilkin’s logic of dismissing any hypothetical scenarios for which there are no actual examples of it happening in real life, he would have to admit that the “strange scenario”[4] presented by Zane Hodges is similarly unpersuasive and wrong! But of course Wilkin would never do this because his entire ministry is built on exactly this premise: that someone “who has never heard about Christianity in his life” (so says Zane Hodges) could in fact find a scrap of paper containing parts of John 6:43 and 6:47, and with no other knowledge about who Jesus actuality is, as long as the person believes the promise of John 6:47, they are therefore saved according to Wilkin. But that’s <i>not </i>what the Bible teaches. And the logical conclusions of Wilkin’s false teaching prove it: because using Wilkin’s logic, if he were consistent, he would have to admit that someone could in fact think that “Jesus” is a frog, or <i>Jesús</i> the Mexican gardener, or even “Jesus who is called Justus” (Col. 4:11), and thus believe in the <i>wrong</i> “Jesus” for eternal life![5] And yet still be saved because they “believed the promise”! This is the tragedy of the promise-only gospel.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Bob Wilkin, “<a href="https://faithalone.org/blog/must-assurance-of-salvation-be-based-on-jesus-promise/">Must Assurance of Salvation Be Based on Jesus’ Promise?</a>” (GES blog, June 8, 2023). <i>Note: </i>Although Wilkin is quoting Mike Lii, it's obvious that Wilkin agrees with both the premise of the statement and the statement itself.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Zane Hodges, “<a href="https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hodges_HowTo.pdf">How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message</a>,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> (Autumn 2000): 4.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] Besides the obvious fact that Wilkin promotes virtually everything Hodges taught, see particularly Wilkin’s article titled: “<a href="https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Spring2013_layout.pdf">Another Look at the Deserted Island Illustration</a>,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society </i>(Spring 2013): 3-20. In discussing the “STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE ILLUSTRATION” (p. 6ff), Wilkin says: “While I appreciate the concerns of those who disagree, <i>I do not believe these weaknesses are fatal to Hodges’ point</i>, especially when read in the context of the entirety of the two articles. The four strengths of the illustration are much more significant.” (Ibid., p. 7, emphasis added.) Also note that although Wilkin says: “Hodges...explicitly goes on to deny that there is enough information there for a person to believe in Jesus for everlasting life” (p. 6), this is inaccurate. Wilkin here is either being intellectually dishonest or intentionally misleading (or maybe he’s just confused): because Zane Hodges made it clear that in his view, <i>there was</i> <i>enough information there</i> for a person to get saved! In a follow-up article titled “<a href="https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/hodges-the-spirit-of-the-antichrist-edited.pdf">The Spirit of Antichrist: Decoupling Jesus from the Christ</a>,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> (Autumn 2007), Hodges wrote the following under the heading “BACK TO THE DESERTED ISLAND” (p. 41): “Several years ago I created a deserted island scenario that some of you may remember. The man who is marooned on that island gets a
fragment of the Gospel of John that has washed up on the beach. That fragment contains the opening words of John 6:43, ‘Jesus therefore answered and said to them’ and everything is unreadable until we reach the words of John 6:47, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.’ My question was, ‘Is that enough information for the man to get saved?’ My answer, of course, was ‘yes.’” (Ibid., p. 41.)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] Zane Hodges, “<a href="https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hodges_HowTo.pdf">How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message</a>,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> (Autumn 2000): 4.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[5] Zane Hodges goes so far as to say: “Everyone who believes in that name [i.e. “Jesus”] for eternal salvation is saved,
regardless of the blank spots or the flaws in their theology in other
respects. Another way of saying the same thing is this: No one has ever
trusted that name and been disappointed.” (Hodges, “How To Lead People to Christ, Part 1” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> [Autumn 2000]: 9, brackets added.) Interestingly, the following testimony was given by a man who attended a GES conference back in the early 2000s. This is what the man said: “A few years ago, I attended a confernce [sic] where Bob Wilkin brought Mr. Hodges marooned man [i.e. deserted island] scenario. I asked him, what if this man thinks Jesus is a frog? Is he saved? The answer was ‘yes’. I guess Kermit Saves. Croak!” (See the comment by pykesplace1 from April 30, 2006, under the blog post by John Malone titled "Zane Hodges goes too far.") For the record, Bob Wilkin denies ever having said this. Yet such a statement is consistent with the GES "gospel". </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-37856384038574415052024-01-13T14:19:00.030-05:002024-01-27T10:52:23.538-05:00Is Scofield's view of Revelation 2-3 "thoroughly implausible"?<div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUso6V-l73J22Rjj30tyHuclHMRUTp2ilcpms5BdVmQQ_XRZvFH4p_kkWH_68DssupaBXfohBPUGP9p3VlhExg99iTtVx0n712ZNpQ-ZoNLpu-fsRzOml2sm-m47vNGI5lvWh6pTozGzeC5I5QTvb91Esc2xq4iWzyE_cLY2Ex4-63z4zXfAJdBFqbViU/s867/larkin-seven-churches.gif" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="867" data-original-width="574" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUso6V-l73J22Rjj30tyHuclHMRUTp2ilcpms5BdVmQQ_XRZvFH4p_kkWH_68DssupaBXfohBPUGP9p3VlhExg99iTtVx0n712ZNpQ-ZoNLpu-fsRzOml2sm-m47vNGI5lvWh6pTozGzeC5I5QTvb91Esc2xq4iWzyE_cLY2Ex4-63z4zXfAJdBFqbViU/w133-h200/larkin-seven-churches.gif" width="133" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some years ago Daniel B. Wallace wrote a blog post for the <i>Parchment and Pen</i> blog titled "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," to which someone named John left the following comment: "The Book of Revelation Chapters 2 & 3 deal with the church ages, from the time of Paul, the angel (messenger) to Ephesus (dealing with the Gentile Christian Eras) to our Age (Laodicea)."[1] <br /></div></div><div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's important to point out that John's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 is essentially the view set forth by Dr. C. I. Scofield in his <i>Scofield Reference Bible</i>. But notice how Wallace responds; he quickly brushes John's view aside (as if it had no credibility) by saying: "John, the church age view [i.e. the dispensational view] of Revelation 2-3 is certainly a minority view among [modern-day] exegetes. I am aware of only one professor who actually holds to it. One of the biggest problems with it is simply that no matter how people have tried to construct church history, the seven ages never seem to fit. [<i>Editor's note:</i> They actually fit perfectly for those who "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV)!] They have to procrusteanize ["to stretch or contract according to some rule or standard"] these chapters into church history! Another major problem is that this view would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age. I would have to reject it as thoroughly implausible."[2]</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I responded to Wallace's comment with one of my own, in which I wrote the following: Just a thought on Dr. Wallace's previous comment (from 09-27-10), Dr. Scofield in his <i>Reference Bible</i> (and elsewhere) teaches that Revelation chapters 2-3 does indeed outline church history. Of course, all the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible would agree, no doubt. So right there, we have more than a handful of respected and reputable Bible "professors" who hold to that view (the view that Wallace is critiquing). Wallace may have been referring to the present-day, but if that is true then it might actually highlight a doctrinal shift over the past century away from the truth of God's Word: thus in effect providing a real-life example of the Laodicean church that is spoken about in Revelation chapter 3, and therefore supporting Scofield's church history view of Revelation 2-3! But more than this, it is not accurate to say that a "major problem is that this view [i.e. Scofield's view of Revelation chapters 2-3] would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age." (So says Wallace.) But how would it be meaningless? Does Wallace think that unfulfilled prophecy (which is exactly what most of Revelation chapters 2-3 would be to anyone in the first century) is meaningless until it is fulfilled? That would be like saying that all the (yet unfulfilled) prophetic portions of Revelation are meaningless to us! Which of course is absurd! Who would ever say such a thing? Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to Revelation chapters 2-3, when it comes to Scofield's view of it. But it should be obvious that just because a prophecy is unfulfilled, doesn't mean it's meaningless. That would be like saying the Second Coming of Christ is meaningless, because it hasn't happened yet. But of course as Bible-believing Christians, we don't say that. Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to "the church age view of Revelation 2-3" to those living in the first century. It is actually Wallace's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 that I find "thoroughly implausible"! Furthermore, this leads to the obvious question: is something in the Bible untrue simply because people don't understand
it? By no means! For example, Jesus said:<i> "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" </i>(Matt. 13:11; cf. Lk. 8:10). Another example is when the Bible says of the disciples, that <i>"as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" </i>(Jn. 20:9). Was the resurrection of Christ untrue because it was a prophecy that people did not yet understand? Of course not. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Wallace's view is the typical Calvinistic/Reformed viewpoint, but the church history view of Revelation 2-3 (i.e. the dispensational view) is wonderfully set forth by Dr. J. Vernon McGee in his commentary on the passage. McGee writes the following succinct summary: “These seven letters [in Revelation chapters 2-3] have a threefold interpretation and application: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Contemporary—they had a direct message to the local churches of John’s day. I intend to take you to the location of these seven churches in these next two chapters. I have visited the sites of these churches several times, and I want to visit them again and again, because it is such a thrill and because it brings me closer to the Bible. You can get closer to the bible by visiting these seven churches than you can by walking through the land of Israel. The ruins have an obvious message. John was writing to churches that he knew all about. In <i>The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia</i> Sir William Ramsay said, ‘The man who wrote these seven letters to the seven churches had been there, and he knew the local conditions.’ </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Composite—each one is a composite picture of the church. There is something that is applicable to all churches in all ages in each message to each individual church. In other words, when you read the message to the church in Pergamum, there is a message for your church and a message for you personally. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Chronological—the panoramic history of the church is given in these seven letters, from Pentecost to the <i>Parousia</i>, from the Upper Room to the upper air. There are seven distinct periods of church history. Ephesus represents the apostolic church; Laodicea represents the apostate church. This prophetic picture is largely fulfilled and is now church history, which makes these chapters extremely remarkable.”[3]</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] John, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "<a href="https://credohouse.org/blog/inviting-jesus-into-your-heart/comment-page-1#comments">Inviting Jesus into your Heart</a>," <i>Parchment and Pen</i> blog.<br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[2] Daniel B. Wallace, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "<a href="https://credohouse.org/blog/inviting-jesus-into-your-heart/comment-page-1#comments">Inviting Jesus into your Heart</a>," <i>Parchment and Pen</i> blog.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">[3] J. Vernon McGee, <i>Thru the Bible</i>, vol. 5: 1 Corinthians—Revelation, p. 898. See under the heading: "<a href="https://archive.org/details/thrubiblewithjve0005mcge/page/898/mode/1up">INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS 2 AND 3</a>".<br /></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-24918931887329187532024-01-09T12:58:00.048-05:002024-01-13T17:02:30.853-05:00Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 6<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3vw2E5PVnY/TDngGvdIsRI/AAAAAAAAAtk/ATqH1McJhxs/s320/were_right.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3vw2E5PVnY/TDngGvdIsRI/AAAAAAAAAtk/ATqH1McJhxs/s320/were_right.jpg" width="172" /></a>In Distinction to Tom Stegall</div><div style="text-align: center;">and the Groundless Gospel </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">* * *</div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;">In this article I would like to specifically respond to Pastor Tom Stegall’s “Proposed Change”[1] that he handed out to his church congregation—Word of Grace Bible Church—in 2007. (Stegall has since left Word of Grace Bible Church and is now Senior Pastor at Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota.) The “Proposed Change” was probably an overreaction to the “crossless gospel” (although actually following in their footsteps!): Stegall felt the need to make “<i>several slight changes</i>” to his church’s doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (i.e. “the gospel”), one of which was to specifically remove the fact that Christ “was buried” (see 1 Cor. 15:4). Interestingly, in reading through Stegall’s “Proposed Change”, it’s very telling that the word “change” is repeated eight times in the short (less than 1 page) document! Yet Stegall attempts to reassure his readers that it is only a “<i>slight change</i>”, as if changing “the gospel” is nothing to be concerned about! Stegall’s entire “Proposed Change” can be read online <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B36y94yKNvYpX2thWEhWMjFTTjYydlB1NlpKVGw5Zw/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-DqjKOI94yziSF72i6AIzaw">here</a>. But the part that I specifically want to comment on is when Stegall says: “The death and resurrection of Christ are the two key events/works repeatedly emphasized throughout Scripture as an inseparable couplet necessary for salvation, not His burial. (Matt. 16:20-21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mark 8:29-31, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34, 24:7, 26, 46; Acts 2:23-24, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30, 10:39-40, 17:3, 25:19, 26:23; Rom. 4:24-25; Gal. 1:1-4; 1 Pt. 1:18-21; 1 Th. 4:14)”[2]<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Stegall’s “Proposed Change” leads to the obvious question: Does the Gospel Need an Update?[3] Let’s take a closer look! What I noticed is that Stegall’s proof-texts are highly selective in order to make it appear that Christ’s burial is unnecessary for salvation, and the only necessary components to believe are His “death and resurrection”. Yet ironically, many of the proof-texts are not specific to Christ’s “death and resurrection”, but actually include other truths of the gospel as well! The following analysis is provided for those “who have eyes to see and ears to hear”:<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
1. Stegall’s statement makes no reference to the necessity of believing that Christ rose from the dead specifically “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4), even though many of the proof-texts he listed clearly set forth this important gospel truth (see Mt. 16:20-21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk. 8:29-31, 9:30-32, 10:32-34; Lk. 18:31-34, 24:7, 46; Acts 10:39-40). In fact, if we are strictly concerned with what is “emphasized throughout Scripture” (according to Stegall’s highly selective list of texts, of course), the proof-texts themselves show that Christ’s resurrection <i>on the third day </i>is clearly emphasized far more than the substitutionary aspect of His death – which is only mentioned three times in all the proof-texts combined! Yet Stegall does not require the reference to “the third day” to be believed as part of the gospel according to him, as he does the substitutionary aspect of Christ’s death.<br /><br />
2. Stegall omits any reference to Matthew 12:39-40 even though this text is a pivotal prophecy of Christ that highlights His death and resurrection on the third day. No doubt Stegall omits this text because although Christ foretells His death and resurrection, there is also a clear emphasis on His burial. Free Grace theologian Roy B. Zuck affirms: “Jonah’s three days and three nights in the fish’s stomach illustrates Christ’s burial.”[4] Even Tom Stegall acknowledges that the sign of Jonah the prophet has reference to the burial of Christ. Stegall says that “God prophetically and typologically ordained that Christ should be in the tomb for <i>‘three days and three nights’</i> (Jonah 1:17; Matt. 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63)”.[5] <br /><br />
3. Stegall omits any reference to the climactic passion narratives of the Gospels, all of which clearly describe Christ’s burial (Mt. 27:57-66; Mk. 15:42-47; Lk. 23:50-56; Jn. 19:31-42). <i>Note:</i> This point deals with <i>four more texts</i> that Stegall selectively omits from his list of Bible verses!<br /><br />
4. Stegall omits any reference to Matthew 28:1-10. Because although the passage mentions the death and resurrection of Christ, the text also draws attention to Christ’s burial (and resurrection appearances). Christ’s burial is clearly described, and thus His resurrection from the dead is more specifically a resurrection from the grave or <i>from the ground!</i> This resurrection to life specifically from the ground is according to the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 1:11-13; Gen. 3:19; Psa. 22:15, Psa. 40:2, Psa. 85:11; Isa. 26:19, Isa. 53:9; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 27:52-53; Jn. 5:28, 12:23-24; 1 Cor. 15:20).<br /><br />
5. Stegall omits any mention of Mark 16:5-7, because although the passage references the death and resurrection of Christ, the text also draws specific attention to His burial (and His resurrection appearance to Peter and the disciples).<br /><br />
6. Stegall omits any reference to Luke 24:26, because although the text highlights Christ’s death and resurrection, the passage also draws attention to the fact of Christ’s burial (vv. 22-24), and that it was prophesied in the Old Testament and is according to the Scriptures (see vv. 19-27)! Interestingly, the passage in Luke 24 also clearly highlights a resurrection appearance of Christ to certain of His disciples on the road to Emmaus (see vv. 13-35), not to mention another resurrection appearance to His more intimate group of disciples in vv. 36-49.<br /><br />
7. Stegall omits any mention of John 2:19-22, because although the passage makes reference to Christ’s death and resurrection on the third day, it also makes reference to Christ’s appearances to His disciples after His resurrection. Since Stegall is trying to make a case against believing in Christ’s burial in the gospel (and by extension also against believing in His resurrection appearances), this passage is omitted from his list of proof-texts.<br /><br />
8. Stegall omits any mention of John 20:19-21:14, because although Jesus points to His death and resurrection, His resurrection is said to be from the “tomb” (Jn. 20:1-9), and the passage also highlights the Savior’s resurrection appearances to His disciples <i>three times</i> (Jn. 20:19, 20:26, 21:1, 14). This is a key passage of Scripture, and it is in this section that we find the purpose for which John wrote his Gospel (see Jn. 20:30-31). It’s very revealing that in Stegall’s highly selective list of proof-texts, there is no mention of John 20:30-31, <i>nor any reference from the Gospel of John!</i> The truth is, these key sections from John’s Gospel do not support Stegall’s groundless gospel. Rather, they argue strongly against it.<br /><br />
9. Stegall omits any reference to Acts 1:1-3, because although the passage highlights Christ’s death and resurrection, the text also plainly emphasizes Christ’s resurrection appearances to His disciples when it says: “to these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering” (v. 3).<br /><br />
10. Stegall cites Acts 2:23-24 but completely omits the remainder of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:25-36! This is no doubt because the apostle proclaims the importance of Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances.<br /><br />
11. Stegall cites Acts 3:15 but omits any mention of Christ’s resurrection appearances spoken of in the same verse! Furthermore, according to the Scriptures, Christ's resurrection from the dead was a resurrection <i>from the ground</i>, as previously explained (see #4).<br /><br />
12. Stegall mentions Acts 5:30 but fails to cite the remainder of Peter’s sermon in Acts 5:31-32, which clearly describes the resurrection appearances of Christ.<br /><br />
13. Stegall cites Acts 10:39-40 but omits any mention of Christ’s resurrection appearances spoken of in the same passage (vv. 40-41).<br /><br />
14. Stegall omits any reference to Acts 13:28-31 (even though Stegall has said elsewhere that this is Paul’s gospel to the Galatians!), because in this passage the apostle Paul not only proclaims Christ’s death and resurrection, but also His burial and resurrection appearances![6] </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
15. Stegall omits any reference to Romans 6:3-4 even though he has stated elsewhere that this text is a picture of the gospel! Concerning this, Stegall says that “water baptism pictures believers’ identification with the <i>person </i>of Christ, [and] it also pictures the spiritual reality of our identification with Christ in His <i>death</i>, <i>burial</i>, and <i>resurrection</i>....It signifies the believer’s spiritual identification with Christ in His <u>person</u> and <u>work</u> [i.e. His death, burial, and resurrection]. It is a picture of the Gospel!”[7] Stegall omits Romans 6:3-4 from his list of proof-texts because this key passage highlights not only Christ’s death and resurrection, but also His burial and walking in newness of life (i.e. His resurrection appearances). Stegall omits this passage even though it pictures “the Gospel” and includes Christ’s death and resurrection! The problem for Stegall, of course, is that the passage also includes Christ’s burial.<br /><br />
16. Stegall omits any reference to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (or more specifically 15:1-5), even though this passage is “of first importance” regarding salvation and even highlights Christ’s death and resurrection. Again, the problem for Stegall is that this passage also includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances and therefore does not support his reductionist reasoning.<br /><br />
17. Stegall omits any reference to Colossians 2:12, because while this verse mentions Christ’s death and resurrection, it also mentions His burial.<br /><br />
18. Stegall never mentions 2 Timothy 2:8, because although Paul reminds his readers of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, he adds that this truth is “according to my gospel”, not in place of it!<br /><br />
19. Stegall also makes no reference to key Old Testament Scriptures that describe Christ’s death and resurrection—such as Isaiah 53, because this passage also clearly includes a reference to Christ’s burial (Isa. 53:9) and resurrection appearance to His disciples: “He shall see His followers” (Isa. 53:10, Berkley Version; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, NASB: “He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve”).<br /><br />
20. Stegall also fails to mention Psalm 22, which in addition to highlighting Christ’s death and resurrection, also clearly includes His burial (22:15) and resurrection appearances (22:22; cf. Jn. 20:17; Heb. 2:9-12).<br /><br />
21. Stegall also omits Psalm 40 from his highly-selective list of proof-texts, because although Psalm 40 is a Messianic Psalm highlighting Christ’s cries from the cross (v. 1) and His resurrection (v. 2), the text also plainly includes a reference to His burial (v. 2) and His appearance after resurrection (v. 3; cf. 1 Cor. 15:5, KJV: “He was seen”).<br /><br />
To summarize: Christ’s death and resurrection <i>are</i> emphasized in the gospel, but it does not follow that Christ’s burial is excluded. If Stegall really wants to “make believing ‘the gospel’ more explicit as a requirement for salvation”[8], it is striking that none of his proof-texts even mention “the gospel”! Corresponding to this, if Stegall really wants to “make believing ‘the gospel’ more explicit”[9], why doesn’t he include 1 Corinthians 15:1ff in his list of proof-texts? (This is the passage where Paul begins in verse 1 by saying, “Brethren, I make known to you ‘the gospel’”!) The obvious answer of course (as I mentioned above), is that in this passage the apostle Paul also clearly <i>includes</i> Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances, truths which Stegall contends are not part of “the gospel”.<br /><br />
It’s clear that Stegall has an agenda to push and has set out to find Scriptures to support his theological perspective. Although at first glance Stegall’s premise may appear to be solidly supported by Scripture, upon further examination his statement is seen to be groundless and a gross distortion of the Scriptural truth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Tom Stegall, “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B36y94yKNvYpX2thWEhWMjFTTjYydlB1NlpKVGw5Zw/view?pli=1&resourcekey=0-DqjKOI94yziSF72i6AIzaw">Proposed Change</a>” to the Word of Grace Bible Church’s doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (2007).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Ibid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] See my article: “<a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2011/05/father-fundamentalism-defends-faith.html">Does the Gospel Need an Update?</a>” (<i>FGFS</i>, May 3, 2011).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] Roy B. Zuck, <i>Basic Bible Interpretation</i>, p. 181. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[5] Thomas L. Stegall, <i>The Gospel of the Christ</i>, p. 727, italics his. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[6] For more information see my article: “<a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2012/03/tom-stegall-is-not-traditional-free.html">Is Tom Stegall’s Gospel the Traditional Free grace Gospel?</a>” (<i>FGFS</i>, March 10, 2012), and also my article titled: “<a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2018/06/skipping-over-christs-burial-is.html">What Gospel Did Paul Preach to the Galatians?</a>” (<i>FGFS</i>, June 29, 2018).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[7] Tom Stegall, “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090204160928/http://duluthbible.org/widgets/download.aspx?file=%2Ffiles%2FResources%2FGrace_Family_Journal%2FGFJ_2007_PDF%2FGFJ_2007_04_SE%2FGFJ_2007_04_CrosslessGospel_05_StegallT.pdf">The Tragedy Of The Crossless Gospel, Part 5</a>,” <i>Grace Family
Journal </i>(Special Edition, 2007): p. 27, italics and underlining his, ellipsis and brackets added. Also see: Thomas L. Stegall, <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Gospel_of_the_Christ/uj9H4Jab9DMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover"><i>The Gospel of the Chris</i>t</a>,
p. 147; cf. Dennis Rokser, <i>7 Key Questions about Water Baptism</i>, p. 23. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[8] Tom Stegall, “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B36y94yKNvYpX2thWEhWMjFTTjYydlB1NlpKVGw5Zw/view?pli=1&resourcekey=0-DqjKOI94yziSF72i6AIzaw">Proposed Change</a>” to the Word of Grace Bible Church’s
doctrinal statement on the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (2007).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[9] Ibid. <br /></div>
</div></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-3457129463004866262024-01-08T09:43:00.023-05:002024-02-19T11:26:35.447-05:00"None In Hell!"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div center="" text-align:="">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkZsacvJ9-dbdDb8ZCGAN2TuNVwtNOKjEsnXgY07OKQ5AXs2EjG-AbCShSe5QOt39LWxOrFoffAN4BvqiOTquZdpEXMIXGC7Vyrc8QHkbteI240OxpzZ0wziuchRKF1RPi44lvYyn_fWhKwJ_fsij-ICqXk30bz8l6IvVa88BqJncyfhQvMITX2rDMHj0/s344/gems-from-yesterday.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="344" data-original-width="336" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkZsacvJ9-dbdDb8ZCGAN2TuNVwtNOKjEsnXgY07OKQ5AXs2EjG-AbCShSe5QOt39LWxOrFoffAN4BvqiOTquZdpEXMIXGC7Vyrc8QHkbteI240OxpzZ0wziuchRKF1RPi44lvYyn_fWhKwJ_fsij-ICqXk30bz8l6IvVa88BqJncyfhQvMITX2rDMHj0/w196-h200/gems-from-yesterday.png" width="196" /></a></div> <br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;">"NONE IN HELL!"</span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Yesteryear; font-size: large;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Yesteryear; font-size: x-large;"><span>by William Norton</span></span> </div>
<b><br />
</b></div>
<div justify="" text-align:="">
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Tracts everywhere!" said a youth with a sneer, as a young Christian lad handed him a leaflet one Lord's Day afternoon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"No," said the lad quietly, "there will be none in hell," and passed on.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
God fastened that single sentence as a nail in a sure place and he could not get rid of it—"None in hell!" seemed to echo in his ears every time he saw a tract, and ultimately he was converted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reader, there will be "None in hell!" Neither gospel invitation nor gospel entreaties.</div>
</div>
<div justify="" style="text-align: justify;" text-align:="">
<br />
How earnestly the lost multitudes, in the hopeless region of despair, would welcome the first invitation of mercy; but their day is past, their time of grace is over. Of these there is "None in hell!" How are you treating them on earth?</div>
<div justify="" style="text-align: justify;" text-align:="">
<br />
These golden opportunities, solemn warnings—these loving invitations of God, as (John 3:16): "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Accept them, speedily; for, remember, there will be "None in hell." Prov. 1:24-28.<br />
</div><div justify="" style="text-align: justify;" text-align:=""> </div><div justify="" style="text-align: center;" text-align:="">______________<br /></div><div justify="" style="text-align: justify;" text-align:="">
<br />
Source: William Norton, Editor, excerpted from "The Gospel in Print," <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CJtVAAAAYAAJ&dq=&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Moody Bible Institute Monthly</a></i>, vol. 21 (February 1921): p. 295. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-2151509520298366272024-01-07T11:34:00.008-05:002024-01-07T20:11:26.485-05:00"All The Stones In Stonyford" | by Lance B. Latham<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEY6FILYYF5N0A1XIAnVgHoEqsBRMlp_Noo0UbYLF7s4KrV1nIAMbaxbz6pYsQKKRcdxXwXt8_qm8rzHf6zK4JTf_e_5puQyLMrRwvk3nFXLqLQB0GSQcGPLI-wF_VFanzoKu-fw-heXJ9B5I-IT-VJr0Xpvnp7wFO-TZILPCtu4_1QW8TKGOgeR_C0EI/s142/stonyford.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="134" data-original-width="142" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEY6FILYYF5N0A1XIAnVgHoEqsBRMlp_Noo0UbYLF7s4KrV1nIAMbaxbz6pYsQKKRcdxXwXt8_qm8rzHf6zK4JTf_e_5puQyLMrRwvk3nFXLqLQB0GSQcGPLI-wF_VFanzoKu-fw-heXJ9B5I-IT-VJr0Xpvnp7wFO-TZILPCtu4_1QW8TKGOgeR_C0EI/s1600/stonyford.jpg" width="142" /></a></div>Do people have to turn from their sins in order to be saved? This is what some people teach, but the Bible says that "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. 3:20). The following true story illustrates this truth and is excerpted from the book <i>The Two Gospels</i>, by Lance B. Latham.<sup>1</sup><br />
<br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
"All The Stones In Stonyford"</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Very shortly after the founding of the mission, a camp for training missionaries was founded at Fouts Springs near Stonyford, California.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
One brother saw the truth of Scripture in that task. 'Doc, to move all the sins out of our lives before we get saved <i>would be harder than getting all the stones out of Stonyford</i>!' 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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)."<sup>2</sup><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b><br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup> Lance B. Latham, <i><a href="https://archive.org/details/twogospels0000lanc/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater">The Two Gospels</a></i> (Rolling Meadows, IL: Awana Youth Association, 1984).<br />
<br />
<sup>2</sup> Ibid., pp. 62-64, emphasis his. See under the heading: "All The Stones In Stonyford".<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-15496205984454186552024-01-05T19:57:00.023-05:002024-01-11T19:18:50.367-05:00Are You a Slave to King Sin? Another Look at Romans 8:1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBVAH5MhJ24_zAAqAwjYlynl48pYmudbZd67UHtYRWOVK8CQ22TghWfwdTPYJuNIT4vPXYitptaT2RrzaBAkM-ZDL80ADXsIgXaOI9eX1rMljS0wFTUIaO-NEKN77jFyYvc2IUMklMmjzXLLvg6YX6jxIZ06BDn9qLZB1Y76RMhVX6sBPh7WpW3DzI9w/s400/king%20sin1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="319" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBVAH5MhJ24_zAAqAwjYlynl48pYmudbZd67UHtYRWOVK8CQ22TghWfwdTPYJuNIT4vPXYitptaT2RrzaBAkM-ZDL80ADXsIgXaOI9eX1rMljS0wFTUIaO-NEKN77jFyYvc2IUMklMmjzXLLvg6YX6jxIZ06BDn9qLZB1Y76RMhVX6sBPh7WpW3DzI9w/w159-h200/king%20sin1.jpg" width="159" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What is the context of Romans 8:1: justification or sanctification? People often think of Romans 8:1 in reference to eternal condemnation, and while it is certainly true that believers “in Christ” will not be eternally condemned, is this the best understanding of the <i>condemnation</i> that the apostle Paul is referring to in the context of Romans chapter 8? A Free Grace understanding of Romans 8:1 is here explained.<br /><br />
To begin, I’d like to simply quote my New Tribes Bible Institute class notes on the verse(s) as it provides commentary and illustrations that I believe will be helpful:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<u>ROMANS 8:1</u><br /><i>“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”</i> (Rom. 8:1, KJV)<i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>“no condemnation”</i>: emphatic<br />
<i>“condemnation”</i>: Greek <i>katakrima</i> (cf. Rom. 5:16, 18)<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">What does “no condemnation” mean?<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">A.) No white throne judgment (Jn. 5:24)? This is true, but <i>katakrima</i> doesn’t refer to this here in Romans 8:1.<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">B.) No bad feelings (guilt, shame, etc.)? No, because if a Christian is living carnally, it’s okay to feel bad about it. Christ wants you to get back on your feet (cf. 1 Cor. 15:34-36; Jms. 4:4, 6-10).<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">C.) No disapproval of God? This isn’t the meaning of <i>katakrima</i> in Romans 8:1 either. The wretched man as a Christian is accepted by God in Christ, but the man’s behavior isn’t (Rom. 4:8; 1 Cor. 1:30, 3:1-4, 5:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 1:6). Christians may face God’s disapproval (<i>katakrima</i>, to judge against) at the judgment seat of Christ (Jms. 5:9, in the Received Text).<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">D.) It signifies the condemnatory sentence handed down by a judge for a crime, i.e. <i>slavery</i>: the sentence of absolute bondage to king Sin and the resulting death (talking experientially, i.e. in the believer’s experience). The bitter cycle of sin, defeat, despair. The “Slough of Despond” / mirky quicksand / bondage in <i>The Pilgrim’s Progress</i> that Christian becomes caught in. This is the sense of <i>katakrima</i> / “condemnation” that is meant in Romans 8:1.<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>“in Christ Jesus”</i>: the believer’s position, forever joined to my Lord<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">-no slavery to sin (i.e. no “penal servitude”, see F. F. Bruce, <i>Romans</i>, p. 159) for those who are in Christ Jesus!<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
-who gets out of the Slough of Despond experientially? Those who appropriate the positional truth of who they are in Christ,<i> </i>i.e. in their daily walk<i>. </i>See Romans 7:22, 25.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
-The second part of Romans 8:1 is taken out in some Bibles, but is retained in the KJV and NKJV. This second part reads: <i>“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”</i><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
-The second clause in Romans 8:1 makes sense if you look at <i>condemnation</i> not as the white throne judgment but as the sentence of bondage to sin in my experience / walk.<br />
-The second clause of Romans 8:1 is the key to experiencing victory (cf. Gal. 5:16) and its truth is affirmed in Romans 8:4.<br />
-The clause is conditional, i.e. only when I appropriate my position in Christ can I have practical victory. Practical victory depends on laying hold of my position (in Christ) by faith and practically appropriating the life of Christ in my daily walk.<br />
-practical victory: lay hold of my position (in Christ) by faith and practically appropriate the very life of Christ; i.e<i>. “walk after the Spirit”</i><br />
<i>“walk”</i>: walk about<br />
<i>“after”</i>: according to, under the power and control of the Spirit of God; walk in dependence on the power of and under the governmental control of the Spirit<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">4 Parts of Appropriation (cf. Romans chapters 6-7):<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. know (meditate, memorize)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
2. reckon (agree with God these things are so)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
3. yield (one time act I make early on, but a continuing mindset)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
4. walk<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">ROMANS 8:2</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”</i> (Rom. 8:2, KJV)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>“law”</i>: a principle by which I now operate<br />
<i>“the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus”</i>: my deliverance is thru the power and control of the Holy Spirit who reproduces Christ’s life in me as I depend on Him and trust Him to do so.<br />
-the law of the Spirit overrides the law of sin and death (just like the law of aerodynamics in a plane overrides the law of gravity)<br />
<i>“set me free”</i>: experiential freedom; made real in my experience<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>ROMANS 8:3</u><br /><i>“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”</i> (Rom. 8:3, KJV) <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Christ came and died . . .<br />
1. <i>“for sin”</i>: substitution (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3)<br />
2. <i>“in the likeness of sinful flesh”</i>: identification (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21)<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">-Christ accomplished our sanctification<br />
<i>“He condemned sin in the flesh”</i><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>“condemned”</i> (Greek <i>katakrino</i>): to put an end to a criminal’s power to injure or do harm, to deprive sin of its power in the human nature<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">-Illustration 1: We are billionaires who move into a condemned building (our body controlled by the sin nature). We don’t have to, it’s dangerous, dingy, etc.<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">-Illustration 2: When king Sin shows up at the workshop we say, “I’m sorry but there’s a new owner here now (Christ). You deal with Him now.” And you step out of the conversation. When king Sin sees the new owner (Christ), he flees!<br />
-means of righteousness: not I, but Christ (Gal. 2:20)<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">This interpretation of Romans 8:1 is consistent with Lewis Sperry Chafer’s basic outline of the book in which he writes that Romans 6:1—8:17 concerns “salvation for the believer from the power of sin, or unto sanctification” (<i>Systematic Theology</i>, 3:340).<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-33600601686672278792024-01-04T09:32:00.014-05:002024-01-26T21:22:18.482-05:00Believing, But Not Understanding<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOB_l5u1vgwkd_xVxXWKWrUU1Z9jaOKjq65W3IUo_oWEcJd5CwcvtnqlbLGFe2wMLUp9s3WUNrOFmysuh9ISCTAdOszyi7s0WZFBKTsFh8Rp36CUFNaWtipbfc5YMCUobUaBONsE_UlKnzcdWtWD1xh_nZ6sm15ZqU9qaCry06CngGyASY-8bqF0IrPHI/s400/pace-cartoon-bw2-no6.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="335" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOB_l5u1vgwkd_xVxXWKWrUU1Z9jaOKjq65W3IUo_oWEcJd5CwcvtnqlbLGFe2wMLUp9s3WUNrOFmysuh9ISCTAdOszyi7s0WZFBKTsFh8Rp36CUFNaWtipbfc5YMCUobUaBONsE_UlKnzcdWtWD1xh_nZ6sm15ZqU9qaCry06CngGyASY-8bqF0IrPHI/w168-h200/pace-cartoon-bw2-no6.jpg" width="168" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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 <i>result</i> of saving faith into the <i>required content</i> 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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
“‘I will not believe anything but what I understand,’ said a self-confident young man in a hotel one day.<br />
‘Nor will I,’ said another.<br />
‘Neither will I,’ chimed in a third.<br />
‘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?’<br />
‘I will not,’ said one, and so said each one of the trio.<br />
‘Well,’ said the stranger, “in my ride this morning I saw some geese in a field eating grass; do you believe that?’<br />
‘Certainly,’ said the three unbelievers.<br />
‘I also saw the pigs eating grass; do you believe that?’<br />
‘Of course,’ said the three.<br />
‘And I also saw sheep and cows eating grass; do you believe that?’<br />
‘Of course,’ was again replied.<br />
‘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?’<br />
‘Certainly,’ they replied.<br />
‘Yes, you <i>believe it</i>,’ he rejoined, ‘BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?’<br />
They were confounded and silent, and evidently ashamed, as they well might be.”[3] <br /><br />
A lost person can <i>believe</i> 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 throw 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!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">ENDNOTES:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] See the Grace Evangelical Society’s “Affirmations of Belief” web page under the heading “What We Believe – Fuller Statement”, where it says under the sub-heading “Assurance of Salvation”: “Assurance is of the essence of saving faith. That is, <i>if a person has never been
sure that he personally is eternally secure by faith alone, then he has never been regenerated</i>. 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/) <i>Note:</i> Bob Wilkin is the founder and Execute Director of the Grace Evangelical Society.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, <i>Systematic Theology</i> (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), vol. 1, p. 75.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] “Believing, But Not Understanding,” <i>Good News</i>, 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).<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-10523211036575248922024-01-03T09:10:00.023-05:002024-03-01T21:53:35.671-05:00The GES vs. JESUS: "Believe in Him" or His Promise?<p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyefUD8QoDCVq_r9cZwjJv1En-JR_KJkQH27jlRBZhNbNz4lO5gvhHYJIRqH0D6DUwqEzXaqcYDLQD0fwHJz9Jxpqj9cEjWJb39jHjbhCOmlhVrKJJtFPNNeLMSnt7DmNk50U7breNuBao8wU6wSJ5XvvUSDF73Hxg3Oc82-5JJRYXbcVYyppRs8qIck8/s902/ges-vs-jesus-8.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="523" data-original-width="902" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyefUD8QoDCVq_r9cZwjJv1En-JR_KJkQH27jlRBZhNbNz4lO5gvhHYJIRqH0D6DUwqEzXaqcYDLQD0fwHJz9Jxpqj9cEjWJb39jHjbhCOmlhVrKJJtFPNNeLMSnt7DmNk50U7breNuBao8wU6wSJ5XvvUSDF73Hxg3Oc82-5JJRYXbcVYyppRs8qIck8/s320/ges-vs-jesus-8.png" width="320" /></a></div></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Must a lost person believe specifically in the promise of “eternal life” in order to get saved (as the Grace Evangelical Society teaches), or is eternal life the <i>result</i> of believing in Christ? In passages such as John 3:14-17 for example, “eternal life” is the <i>result</i> of believing in Christ, not the required content of faith. So Bob Wilkin is twisting Scripture by turning the <i>result </i>of saving faith (i.e. “eternal life”) into the <i>required content </i>of saving faith.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">To highlight the absurdity of Wilkin’s position, take a simple illustration based on John 3:16. Keep in mind that Wilkin is the one who teaches that all a lost person has to believe to be saved is snippets of text from the Gospel of John. So accordingly (using Wilkin’s logic and his slogan “Believe in Him for life”), if a lost person only hears the words “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVES IN HIM should not perish...” (Jn. 3:16a), is that person saved or lost? (Notice that in the previous example the promise of “eternal life” is left out!) Based on Wilkin’s public statements, he would have to say that such a person could hear and believe that promise of Jesus and still be unsaved because the promise of specifically “eternal life” was missing! Yet Jesus nonetheless promised that whosoever “believes in Him” should “not perish”, i.e. would be saved! <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So I’m just pointing out that the promise of “eternal life” is really not part of the content of the gospel message (even according to Wilkin if he were consistent with what he teaches) because if the promise of specifically “eternal life” was required to believe, then Jesus would be lying when he said that whoever BELIEVES IN HIM would “not perish”, because believing in Him is really not enough to save if believing in the promise of specifically “eternal life” is also required. Just a thought that I had pointing out the inconsistency of Wilkin’s position. <br /></div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Charles Spurgeon has well said (and this may be applied to Wilkin's promise-only gospel): "Friends, I may surprise you by what I am about to say, but there is another fault into which we sometimes fall, namely, looking to God’s promises instead of looking to Christ as the propitiation of sin. The text [of Romans 3:25] does not say that God the Father hath set forth promises. Indeed he has given us exceeding great and precious promises, and they are true in Christ. We often err by going to promises instead of going to Christ....Oh, that we lived more on Christ and less on anything but Christ, nearer to Christ’s person, more surely resting on Christ’s blood [i.e. His death "for our sins according to the Scriptures," 1 Cor. 15:3; cf. Rom. 5:9-10], more simply accepting him as our all in all."[1]</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference:</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] C. H. Spurgeon, "<a href="https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/christ-set-forth-as-a-propitiation/#flipbook/">Christ Set Forth as a Propitiation</a>" (March 29, 1861), <i>The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit</i>, Vol. 7. Sermon on Romans 3:25.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-34315804789705701442024-01-02T07:48:00.011-05:002024-01-14T20:25:48.838-05:00The Hydra's Other Head: Theological Minimalism<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3mVuhjdUQsz12ClatDpAFr2MwGdPnPS1qHnose5UVDBfmSnGq3oEmECK-yGCZfRxI30HFl7qy4xmWSWE6uKe-MsLWbfvU9e0SS0cPFXllouycovPkJK725B8GCgjxa4ZpHPTtiokSjo2RJ9D_u7LLVmUiubhv1xWuB23KslYA8fl7cUzM3aoAG-ariMw/s451/hydra-statue-1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="451" data-original-width="340" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3mVuhjdUQsz12ClatDpAFr2MwGdPnPS1qHnose5UVDBfmSnGq3oEmECK-yGCZfRxI30HFl7qy4xmWSWE6uKe-MsLWbfvU9e0SS0cPFXllouycovPkJK725B8GCgjxa4ZpHPTtiokSjo2RJ9D_u7LLVmUiubhv1xWuB23KslYA8fl7cUzM3aoAG-ariMw/w151-h200/hydra-statue-1.jpg" width="151" /></a></div>Zane Hodges admits that Paul begins to enumerate the content of his gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3b, and that these items are “of first importance”.[1] However, Hodges extends the actual content of Paul’s gospel through 1 Corinthians 15:8 <i>while offering no exegesis to support
his claim.</i> Hodges simply declares: “In 1 Cor 15:1-8 Paul is reminding the Christians about the
content of his gospel.”[2] After merely quoting 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Hodges concludes:
“Clearly, for Paul, the term ‘gospel’ is <i>broader than the essential content of saving faith</i>.”[3]
Such an obvious lack of exegesis is expected from first year seminary students, but not from a
former professor of New Testament Greek and exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary!
Hodges’ arguments are exegetically unconvincing. Let us now consider the question that
Hodges is so reluctant to research: does the content of Paul’s gospel extend through 1
Corinthians 15:8? Where does the content of Paul’s gospel conclude? The content of Paul’s
gospel concludes with the fourth and final <i>hoti</i> content clause in 1 Corinthians 15:5: “and that
[<i>kai hoti</i>] He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” There is a grammatical break after 1
Corinthians 15:5 indicating the end of the gospel tradition. Famed New Testament scholar
Joachim Jeremias affirms: “[I]t can be proved linguistically that the kerygma (which includes
verses 3b from <i>Christos</i> to 5 <i>dōdeka</i> [i.e. the ‘twelve’], as shown e.g. by the syntactic break at the beginning of
verse 6) was not formulated by Paul. [...] Up to v. 5 there are <i>hoti</i>-clauses, from v. 6 onwards
main clauses”.[4]
F. Godet notes another exegetical point bearing on the subject when he states: “The <i>epeita</i>,
<i>thereafter</i> [in 1 Cor. 15:6a], separates more forcibly than the <i>eita</i>, <i>then</i>, of ver. 5; it makes the
following appearances [in 1 Cor. 15:6ff] a new step in the series, and rightly so.”[5] Even crossless gospel advocate John Niemelä affirms these exegetical truths.
Under the heading “Indicating a Content Clause”, Niemelä notes that “1
Corinthians...15:3...15:4a-b, [and] 5” (but not 15:6ff) each indicate “a Content Clause”.[6] The words of Matt Myllykoski are appropriate: “Most
scholars have regarded vv. 3b-5 as an old traditional unit.”[7] The apostle Paul confirms this gospel tradition by listing several more
appearances of Christ in vv. 6-8. Ladd writes: “[The] tradition embodied in the apostolic <i>kērygma</i>
or <i>euaggelion</i>. Paul delivered (<i>paredōka</i>) to the Corinthians the gospel that he also received
(<i>parelabon</i>), that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose on the third day, that
he appeared to his disciples (1 Cor. 15:1-5). It is generally accepted that verses 3b-5 embody a
primitive piece of pre-Pauline kerygma that Paul has received as a tradition from [Christ and]
those who were apostles before him. [...] Probably the appearances mentioned in vv. 6-8 were
added by Paul to the tradition he received.”[8] Zane Hodges
has not even attempted to explain these exegetical truths that even fellow crossless gospel
advocate John Niemelä affirms!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Zane Hodges, “<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B36y94yKNvYpZThjODdiNTQtZWY3YS00MDJlLWI1ZGQtNjYzYmMzZGI0NDYw/view?hl=en&pli=1&resourcekey=0-eLcsbqbZZ1byyBqfRI63WQ">The Hydra’s Other Head: Theological Legalism</a>,” <i>Grace In Focus </i>(Sept/Oct 2008).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Ibid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] Ibid, italics his.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] Joachim Jeremias, <i>The Eucharistic Words of Jesus</i> (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 129, brackets added.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[5] Frederic Godet,
<i>Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians</i>, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1957), 2:334, brackets added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[6] John Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10,” <i>Chafer Theological
Seminary Journal </i>6 (January 2000): 29-30, ellipsis and brackets added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[7] Matt Myllykoski; Ismo Dundererg,
Christopher Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni, Editors, <i>Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity</i> (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 66.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[8] George Eldon Ladd, Donald A. Hagner, Editor, <i>A Theology
of the New Testament</i>, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 427, brackets added. Cf. Ladd, <i>A Theology of the New Testament</i> (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 388-389.<br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-10367618232999590542023-12-27T10:08:00.030-05:002024-03-13T18:38:31.496-04:00Double Predestination: The "Dark Side" of Calvinism<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Ej32B1p3FB9iyAvJuVUDU9nsCya2foK/view" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="138" data-original-width="296" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhvtwb9LNspaljAoVDOLGikpl7zRnSHFCYW3qTmGalSTAu5wl9muno4c6y7FDE0Zoxb7mbLLnTaHOMApdCHs0TAQandemv43VqmiEwZyJjWKRvn-hIqmNVlEdjEyWeei2VnhRNNvXDCK2cHEXnMQVep_r_8z9Akc2q1tzaWusgCyYC-aEer726d5pbrvo/w640-h298/calvinhobbes%202.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some years ago I heard Dr. Michael Vanlaningham on Moody’s <i>Open Line</i> radio program answering a caller’s question about Calvinism, and Vanlaningham was pushing “double predestination”: which is the view of extreme 5-point Calvinists that God not only unconditionally elects some people to heaven, but He also unconditionally elects some people to hell (even babies!) without their choice being involved at all. And I distinctly remember Vanlaningham saying that he believes God predestines some people to hell, and he described it as the “dark side” of divine providence. Let me just follow up by saying that Vanlaningham is a hardcore Calvinist. I noticed online that one of Vanlaningham’s students gave this critique of his teaching: “Dr. V is a Calvinist to the core and it even comes out in his Greek class!”[1]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
But the Bible says that “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8), and an all-loving God will not capriciously pick and choose some people for heaven and some people for hell without them having any choice in the matter. That’s not the God of the Bible! (See the following list of Bible verses showing that God does not show partiality or favoritism: Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; James 2:9, etc.) Of course Calvinists have their proof texts, but see the excellent response by Dr. Norman Geisler titled: “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”.[2]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Related to Dr. Vanlaningham’s comments about the “dark side” of God’s providence, notice the following transcript from Moody Radio’s <i>Open Line</i> with Dr. Michael Rydelnik. Airtime: Saturday, 10:00AM – 12:00PM. Hour 1: The Other Michael Answers Your Bible Questions, Hour 2: Bible Q & A with the Other Michael. The following transcript is from Hour 2, time stamp: 33:26 – 36:52 minutes. Unfortunately I do not have the exact date of this recording, but I believe it was in 2017 when I first heard it live on the radio. What’s interesting is that since then, all the <i>Open Line</i> radio programs from 2017 have been scrubbed from the internet! But thankfully I was able to transcribe the audio before it was deleted. Here’s what Vanlaningham said in regards to “double predestination”, or what he calls the “dark side” of God’s providence:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Michael Rydelnik: “Okay, I got another question here. This one comes from Ed. He wants to know if some people, created by God, are also predestined to go to Hell and suffer forever exclusively for God’s glory?”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Michael Vanlaningham: “Um, yeah Ed. I’m gonna give you an answer that you’re not gonna like. And it’s a hard, hard, hard answer. In Romans chapter 9, it talks about that very thing. It says in verse 21, ‘Does not the potter’ (that would be God), ‘have a right over the clay’ (that would be all of humanity), ‘Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the Church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24], and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ Now in the context of Romans chapter 9, what we’re talking about is salvation. [<i>Editor’s note:</i> No it’s not. Romans chapter 9 is about the past national election of Israel, not individual election to salvation.] And so Paul’s point seems to be, that God has a right to save some — to take some from humanity for salvation, and to take others from humanity for condemnation. You have to read the context to get the idea of salvation. And then it says in verse 19, just before that, ‘You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? Who resists His will?’ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Will it? Does not the potter have the right over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use [i.e. the Church, cf. Rom. 9:23-24] and another for common use [i.e. unrepentant Israel, cf. Jer. 18:1-18, 19:1-13]?’ That is, Paul anticipates that there are going to be people who will object to the concept, and yet he says it is not our place to argue it with an angry sense against who God is and what He does. We have to be very careful about that. Finally, in the same passage it says (related to Pharaoh in verse 17), ‘For the Scripture says to Pharaoh’ (God said to Pharaoh), ‘For this very purpose I raised you up to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.’ Pharaoh was born, he was put into the position of leading Egypt, he hardened his own heart [!] and God hardened his heart. Why? So that God could demonstrate His power and make His mighty name proclaimed. And so what happens is, yes, I think as hard as this is to hear, and it’s hard, and I have unbelievers in my immediate family — my brother and my sister and my mom, and yet I have to grapple with the idea that God may not have chosen them to accept Christ and to be saved. I don’t know that. We don’t know who is among the elect and who isn’t. But those who are not, God has determined that, and He will bring glory to Himself — as he does with Pharaoh, eventually when He judges them. And that’s exactly what He did with Pharaoh, and that’s what God does with unbelievers, and that’s a hard, hard, hard, dark side to the providence of God. But it’s still providence. [<i>Editor’s note: </i>But the Bible says in 1 John 1:5 that “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”] And this is still how God functions [according to Calvinism] — hard to hear though isn’t it?”[3]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Tricia McMillan: “Yeah, it is.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
But in response to Vanlaningham’s Calvinistic (and unbiblical) view of God’s providence, Dr. J. Vernon McGee has well said: “There never will be a person in hell who did not choose to be there, my friend. You are the one who makes your own decision.”[4]<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
[1] Comment by GREEKGRAMMAR1, “Mike Vanlaningham”, <i>Rate My Professors</i> website, Dec 17th, 2014, www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/671895 (accessed 12/27/2023). Interestingly, another student of Vanlaningham’s gave this critique of his class on Romans: “Had him for Romans. V uses his teaching position to explain why he’s right and everyone else is wrong. Students’ questions are swatted down. Papers are graded on format more than actual content. A student was told to ‘shut up’ for voicing a contrary view. If you want a narrow-minded, unforgiving class on Romans, take V.” Comment by BI441002, “Mike Vanlaningham”, <i>Rate My Professors</i> website, March 7th, 2014, www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/671895 (accessed 12/27/2023).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist”, <i>Richard Kalk</i> YouTube channel (posted September 30, 2019, although Geisler’s original sermon appears to be from sometime around 2009), www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwNZhdPqGDE (accessed 12/27/2023).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
[3] Michael Vanlaningham, Moody Radio’s <i>Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik</i>. “Bible Q & A with the Other Michael” (2017), time stamp: 33:26 – 36:52 minutes, brackets added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] J. Vernon McGee, <i>Romans: Chapters 9-16</i> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991), p. 32.<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-42312836145531095412023-12-26T09:02:00.044-05:002024-01-25T19:55:53.554-05:00What's the Difference Between the Mosaic Law and the Gospel?<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: IM Fell English SC; font-size: x-large;"><span>The Difference Between the Law and the Gospel</span></span><span style="font-family: IM Fell English; font-size: x-large;"><b><span> </span></b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i style="font-family: Metal;"><span style="font-size: large;">“rightly dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) </span></i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: medium;">*<i> </i>*<i> </i>*<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b></span><i><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidr5ogyq9PFH5z-GgcPvi0H5VAp60bBwdCns3vcYLeKHfv6WRSfrjyTUr3kz8-bT2qfuGqgPImt47vJhSyhrN01slPeMq_g0IueIOx6maZXoB3uZ03MFIfPlyaEacHF0Q2qYQXkax6FFS9Kq6hvAA3Ak9G4ui4nepU9c1YmNnA-cRR04HO1tZeI7mNwzU/s1450/lutherquote1.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1450" data-original-width="1000" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidr5ogyq9PFH5z-GgcPvi0H5VAp60bBwdCns3vcYLeKHfv6WRSfrjyTUr3kz8-bT2qfuGqgPImt47vJhSyhrN01slPeMq_g0IueIOx6maZXoB3uZ03MFIfPlyaEacHF0Q2qYQXkax6FFS9Kq6hvAA3Ak9G4ui4nepU9c1YmNnA-cRR04HO1tZeI7mNwzU/w138-h200/lutherquote1.jpg" width="138" /></a></div>The difference between the Law and the Gospel is admirably pointed out by John Foxe, the noted author of <i>Foxe’s Book of Martyrs</i>, in the following words:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">“[Read Martin Luther’s writings:] First for true comfort and spiritual consolation to such weak minds as in cases of conscience are distressed, and wrestle in faith against the terror of Satan, of death, of damnation, against the power of the Law, and wrath of God; wherein I see very few or none (without comparison be it spoken) in these our days, to instruct more fruitfully, with like feeling and experience. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, for discerning and discussing the difference between the Law and the Gospel, how these two parts are to be separated and distincted asunder as repugnant and contrary, and yet notwithstanding how they both stand together in Scripture and doctrine [i.e. that “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,” Gal. 3:24], and yet in doctrine no repugnance. The knowledge whereof how requisite it is for all Christians to learn, the miserable lack thereof will soon declare. For where these two be not rightly parted, but confounded [as in John MacArthur’s book <i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i>], what can follow there, but confusion of conscience, either leading to despair [when there is a lack of good works in one’s life], or else to blind security [when good works are present], without any order in doctrine, or true comfort of salvation? As by examples of time is soon seen, namely if we look into the later times of the Romish Church, where for want of right distinguishing between these two [i.e. between Law and Grace], great errors have risen; and no great marvel. For where the Gospel is taken for the Law, and the Law for the Gospel, and Christ received but only for a lawgiver: and where things go by works and law of deserving, what hope or assurance of salvation can be there, considering our works in their best kind be so imperfect and unprofitable? And what shall be said then of our naughty works? But especially what shall be said then to the mourning and lamenting sinner, who feeleth no good thing dwelling in him, but all wickedness? [Such a one] shall then despair, or how else will ye comfort him? For if Christ in His principal office be but a Teacher of the law and of works, and that be the chiefest thing to be required in a Christian, to work salvation by the law of working: where is then grace, mercy, promise, faith justifying, peace and rest of conscience, redemption from malediction of the law, if we be under the law still? Briefly, where is the new covenant of God made by His Son, if the old covenant made by Moses do yet remain? If it do not remain, then must there needs be a difference between the Law and the Gospel: between the old Testament and the new: between the law of works & the law of faith: between Moses and Christ, between the master and the servant: between Hagar and Sarah, and their two children. Now what difference this is, thou shalt not need, Christian Reader, by me to be instructed, having here the book of Martin Luther to read and peruse. Who as in his former Treatise before set forth upon the Epistle to the Galatians, so likewise in these his Commentaries upon the Psalms, doth so lively and at large discourse that matter, with many other things more, full of heavenly instruction and edification, that having him, though thou hadst no other expositor upon the holy Scripture, thou mayest have almost sufficient to make a perfect soldier against all the fiery darts of the tempting enemy. Again, having all other, and lacking this writer [i.e. Martin Luther], thou shouldest yet want something to the perfect practice and experience of a Christian Divine.”[1] </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference: </b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">[1] John Foxe, “To The Christian Reader”, Martin Luther’s <i><a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Commentarie_Vpon_the_Fifteene_Psalmes/HKpCAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP9&printsec=frontcover">A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes</a></i> (London: 1615), no page number. <i>Editor’s note: </i>The spelling of certain archaic words has been updated in order to conform to modern English spelling.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-7059872971691927272023-12-10T12:51:00.022-05:002024-02-18T12:19:51.988-05:00Biblical Repentance: Does It Mean "Change Your Mind"?<div style="text-align: justify;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj49Im7phAPq1kcXtUM0kZ8c-lGvx9gDN1WQaeOSHkV-FtXE9mbtUeOfZ6WitcT4sMsCRoAKEK-DkVISh6IgY0ohOSEQtXDhg8Ghvr27LyJ57GVHtjzWGkzoJpF1iiwu2hXGXgAxXISr0ximCr8HuMwAVr7HZEiK3ZHHwrV3i-tVci4wEc1DuSRegvITcE/s521/repent-and-belive-the-gospel-2-cropped.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="398" data-original-width="521" height="244" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj49Im7phAPq1kcXtUM0kZ8c-lGvx9gDN1WQaeOSHkV-FtXE9mbtUeOfZ6WitcT4sMsCRoAKEK-DkVISh6IgY0ohOSEQtXDhg8Ghvr27LyJ57GVHtjzWGkzoJpF1iiwu2hXGXgAxXISr0ximCr8HuMwAVr7HZEiK3ZHHwrV3i-tVci4wEc1DuSRegvITcE/s320/repent-and-belive-the-gospel-2-cropped.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Question #1:</b><br />
“1. Acts 28:4-6 ‒ The locals were expecting Paul to drop dead, but after seeing that nothing happened to him, they ‘changed their minds’ ‒ from the Greek <i>metaballomai</i>. Pruitt’s argument is that if <i>metanoeō</i> means to change the mind, why not use it here? Instead he uses an entirely different verb.”<br /><br />
<b>Answer:</b><br />
In response I’d ask, what’s wrong with using a synonym? We do it all the time! Basically Pruitt is arguing that we are not allowed to use synonyms, or that doing so somehow calls into question the “change your mind” meaning of <i>metanoeō</i>. But this is hardly the case, as the following example from Josephus shows. Notice that in the following quotation, Josephus uses both <i>metanoeō</i> and <i>metaballomai</i> in the same context and synonymously. I will copy and paste the quote from my article “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”. Notice the following statement from Josephus:<br /><br />
<i>Wars of the Jews, book 3, chapter 6, section 3 (Whiston translation):</i><br />
“And thus did Vespasian march with his army, and came to the bounds of Galilee, where he pitched his camp and restrained his soldiers, who were eager for war; he also showed his army to the enemy, in order to affright them, and to afford them a season for repentance [<i>metanoias</i>], to see whether they would change their minds [<i>metabalointo</i>; cf. Acts 28:6] before it came to a battle, and at the same time he got things ready for besieging their strong holds. And indeed this sight of the general brought many to repent [<i>metanoian</i>] of their revolt...”<br /><br />
<b>Question #2:</b><br />
“2. In response to the accusation that Lordship salvation is works-based, he responds saying that since repentance is a gift from God, then the resulting change is a work of God’s grace, not our work. So, it is not works-based after all (I can imagine his smug grin). How does one counter that argument?”<br /><br />
<b>Answer:</b><br />
But in the Calvinistic view, everything is a work of God’s grace! They teach that God is hyper-sovereign (in the extreme Calvinistic sense of the word), and God “makes” everything happen. Does this mean that people are “off the hook” and not responsible for anything, including works? For example, clearly the apostle Paul tells Christians to do good works! Are these actions not to be called “works” because they are wrought by the Holy Spirit? Hardly. And furthermore, Christians will be rewarded for <i>their</i> works at the Bema Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor. 3:10-14), even though such works are clearly wrought by the Holy Spirit. So Pruitt’s argument trying to redefine or dismiss works wrought by the Holy Spirit from somehow not being our works is a faulty argument. Just because works are wrought or produced by the Holy Spirit does not make them something besides “works”: they are still “works”! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In answer to Pruitt’s claim that Lordship Salvation is not works-based because the works are wrought by the Holy Spirit, I like the statement by Todd Vierheller from his amazon book review of Wayne Grudem’s book on “Free Grace” theology. Vierheller says: “When your salvation directly depends upon your works [Holy Spirit wrought or not], I have trouble calling that salvation by faith—because it’s not. Salvation is either by grace or it’s by works – not both (Rom 11:6). If you are not saved unless you turn from sin [i.e. sinful behaviors] and do additional good works, that isn’t salvation by faith regardless of how much wild gesticulation [hand gesturing] accompanies the claim.”<br /><br />
<b>Question #3:</b><br />
“3. <i>Epistrephō</i> [in the NT], or <i>shub</i>, in the OT, implies a turning from sin in obedience to the law. So, in Acts 26:20, how is the turning spoken of there (<i>epistrephō</i>) somehow not connected to turning in obedience or forsaking sin? Also Acts 3:19 ‒ repent and be converted (turned, <i>epistrephō</i>, OT turning...)”<br /><br />
<b>Answer:</b><br />
I would say that what the “turning” is in reference to depends on the context. You mentioned Acts 26:20. This is where the apostle Paul says that he preached that all men “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.” I would point out at least three things in regards to this: (1) the “performing deeds” is separate from and comes <i>after </i>the repentance and turning to God, (2) the turning is described as being “to God”, (3) the turning is connected with the repentance: “repent and turn to God”. It reminds me of when Jesus says: “Repent and believe the gospel!” (Mk. 1:15). These are not two separate conditions for salvation, but rather two parts or two aspects of one condition. I like to describe it like two sides of the same coin, the coin being saving faith. Dr. Scofield has well said, "Saving faith...includes and implies that change of mind which is called repentance." (C. I. Scofield, Editor, <i>The Scofield Reference Bible</i> [New York: Oxford University Press, 1909], p. 1174, note 2.)<br /><br />
In 1 Thessalonians 1:8-9 Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians and commends them by saying, “For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place <i>your faith toward God</i> has gone forth, so that we have no need to say anything. For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how <i>you turned to God from idols</i>...” (vv. 8-9a). Then Paul adds the purpose: “to serve a living and true God” (1:9b). That last part of the verse (1:9b) has to do with service, not salvation. It is salvation first (vv. 8-9a), then service (v. 9b). So here in 1 Thess. 1:8-9 we see that the turning to God from idols is a description of saving faith, and has to do with their belief system: they changed their minds about God and transferred their trust to Him alone. They realized that their idols were worthless false gods, and they turned in faith (transferred their trust) to trust in the one true God!<br /><br />
So getting back to Acts 26:20, the way I understand the phrase “repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” (v. 20b), is in other words: “change your thinking and transfer your trust to God: the one and only true God, then do good works appropriate to that change of mind” (Acts 26:20; cf. Eph. 2:8-10; 1 Thess. 1:8-9). You mentioned the Old Testament. Some OT examples of turning to God for salvation would be in the illustration that Jesus told to Nicodemus in John chapter 3, about how the dying Israelites had to turn in faith and look to the bronze serpent lifted up on a pole in order to be healed. Jesus explained that sinners must look to Him “lifted up” on the cross in order to be saved (Jn. 3:14-17). People must turn to Him in faith to be saved, or as it says in the Old Testament (from the illustration that Jesus gave to Nicodemus about the bronze serpent lifted up on the standard): “And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, <i>when he looked to the bronze serpent</i>, he lived” (Num. 21:9, emphasis added). As Pastor Chuck Swindoll has said: there was no issue made of Lordship-looking, no clean-up-your-life-looking, no I-promise-to-do-better-looking. It was just look and live! Regarding this, Jesus said to Nicodemus: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever believes [turns in faith or transfers their trust to “the Son of Man ... lifted up”] may in Him have eternal life” (Jn. 3:14-15). It reminds me of another OT Scripture where God says through the prophet Isaiah: “Turn to Me [some Bible translations say “Look to Me”], and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22, NASB). This again is a transfer of trust ‒ not a transfer of allegiance, not a commitment of “I-promise-to-do-better”, but a simple look of faith to the Savior! “Look and live!” “Look and live!” It reminds me of the old hymn that says: “There’s life for a look at the Crucified One, there’s life at this moment for thee!” Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has well said: “It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind [repentance] is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for <i>believing</i> at times”.[1]<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference:</b><br /><br />
[1] Lewis Sperry Chafer, <i>Systematic Theology</i> (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. 7, p. 265, emphasis his. For more information see the article by Dr. Charlie Bing titled: “Is Repentance in John’s Gospel?” (<i>GraceNotes</i>, Number 83).
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-74781147581960665252023-12-09T06:42:00.059-05:002024-02-18T12:17:09.906-05:00Exposing the Straw Man: What Free Grace Theologians Are Missing From Grudem's "Free Grace" Book?<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIb5BUabmMhPvDOezz4EJgoP8HDEHN5Odp-73eiTb5t59qPj4TLgg3aWJTa7F6WtyP5Ky6D0ott73ZjCbq51eNkOwAOI-_5CmDFPHl41xmHFJSJU9VA5OvAMvPccMeCMO8HkoLY1cy9rFTxn_tKFQ2NVuWCz61bczRsubAK88nY_FVEY1MLNOYUIsErVk/s499/Grudem-book-against-free-grace-strawman.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="324" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIb5BUabmMhPvDOezz4EJgoP8HDEHN5Odp-73eiTb5t59qPj4TLgg3aWJTa7F6WtyP5Ky6D0ott73ZjCbq51eNkOwAOI-_5CmDFPHl41xmHFJSJU9VA5OvAMvPccMeCMO8HkoLY1cy9rFTxn_tKFQ2NVuWCz61bczRsubAK88nY_FVEY1MLNOYUIsErVk/w130-h200/Grudem-book-against-free-grace-strawman.jpg" width="130" /></a></div>I wrote the following thoughts in my article titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Part 2,” but I want to bring particular attention to it here because this is significant. Notice how Wayne Grudem misrepresents Free Grace theology in his book <i>“Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel</i>. If you look in the General Index of Grudem’s book<i> </i>(pp. 152-156), Charles Ryrie’s name isn’t even listed. For those who may be unaware, Charles Ryrie is probably one of the foremost Free Grace theologians of all time. But strangely, Grudem doesn’t feel that its necessary to mention him anywhere in his book on the subject! The same can be said in regards to Lewis Sperry Chafer, arguably one of the most influential voices in the Free Grace movement. You won’t find Chafer’s name in Grudem’s book either, not even in a footnote! How can anyone honestly write a book about “Free Grace” theology and never once mention two of its most well-known proponents? If the “shoe were on the other foot”, this would be like writing a book about Calvinism and never once mentioning John Calvin or Theodore Beza! Or it would be like writing a book purporting to critique “Calvinism” but only discussing the off-shoot view of Amyraldism. (This is the logical fallacy called “The straw man argument”: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.) There are actually more references to Zane Hodges in the General Index of Grudem’s book than there are references to Jesus Christ and John MacArthur combined! Grudem strangely has a myopic fixation on Zane Hodges, to the exclusion of other (more prominent) Free Grace voices. And worse, Grudem seems bent on giving the (false) impression that the views of Zane Hodges characterize the Free Grace movement. That is to say, his book appears to be built on the premise that the views of Zane Hodges are representative of Free Grace theology in general. But this is hardly the case, as even a novice would know from reading just one Wikipedia article on the subject. Thus, Grudem’s entire book is built on a completely false premise and is a misrepresentation of Free Grace theology.[1]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Jonathan Perreault, “<a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2023/06/ryrie-on-repentance-and-faith-pt-2.html">Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Part 2</a>” (<i>FGFS</i>, June 25, 2023), footnote 10. <br /></div><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-14742362108715147642023-12-08T04:04:00.050-05:002024-03-03T09:25:51.575-05:00Debunking Calvinism: How Is Saving Faith "Not Alone"?<div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixRe7chWmfv3AdxJo2typ8aQL99JF2f05wpJvbXAl0vKagmRJeGCid8gt8o7mt6bJ9hkGWi51WwlgsEfDOAEwQVFsN1fqXiumY1dTf8NqAdDDKqCLaPZ2eIxRFfVmjbkefID4x0hP_z6yMubScGXLpvkTXNfGDlrm8YEmh-xXtPQC21CHeEAguTmj4NiI/s532/calvin-painting-2.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="391" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixRe7chWmfv3AdxJo2typ8aQL99JF2f05wpJvbXAl0vKagmRJeGCid8gt8o7mt6bJ9hkGWi51WwlgsEfDOAEwQVFsN1fqXiumY1dTf8NqAdDDKqCLaPZ2eIxRFfVmjbkefID4x0hP_z6yMubScGXLpvkTXNfGDlrm8YEmh-xXtPQC21CHeEAguTmj4NiI/w147-h200/calvin-painting-2.jpg" width="147" /></a></div>Free Grace theologian Charles Ryrie says that “Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.”[1] Ryrie goes on to further explain this statement by saying, “So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or heaven), sometime (regularly and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately).”[2] From a Free Grace perspective, Ryrie’s statement is helpful because it explains (and defuses) the often-quoted Calvinistic axiom that: “We are justified by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.” Calvinists interpret this axiom to be referring specifically to good<i> </i>works,[3] but notice that’s <i>not</i> what the statement actually says! It simply says that the faith that saves is not alone. Thus, Free Grace people can agree with the statement <i>as it is stated</i> (i.e. without the Calvinistic twist), in that we agree that the faith that saves “will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow.” And thus, the faith that saves is “not alone”! It will bear spiritual fruit: somewhere, sometime, somehow. And what is “spiritual fruit” according to the Bible? The apostle Paul says in Galatians 5:22, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,” etc. These qualities are spiritual, and are in distinction to overtly “good works”.[4] <br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let’s take a closer look at the Calvinistic view of saving faith and how they inject good works into the whole equation. Wayne Grudem says “that ‘the faith that saves is never alone’ because it is
always accompanied by good works [in a person’s life], and numerous New Testament passages
such as Galatians 6:7-9 point to that conclusion.”[5] When Grudem says that numerous NT passages “point to that
conclusion”, he’s basically admitting that those passages don’t
explicitly prove his point; thus he merely says they “point to that
conclusion.” It’s obvious that Grudem is looking at the biblical text
through the rose-colored stained glass windows of his Calvinistic belief
system! But if we let the Bible speak for itself, it does not
point to that conclusion. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take Galatians 6:7-9 as an example, the biblical
reference that Grudem cited. How does it show that saving faith “is
always accompanied by good works”? If anything, Galatians 6:7-9 shows exactly
the opposite! How so? Well, look at the text. What does it say? The
apostle Paul specifically says that “those who sow to the flesh shall of
the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). In context, Paul is talking about
believers who are selfish and don’t share (cf. Gal. 6:6). Commenting on Galatians 6:6, H. A. Ironside writes: “He who seeks only to be benefited by
others and is not concerned about sharing with them, will have a Dead
Sea kind of life [i.e. stagnant; nothing flowing out].”[6] Ironside goes on
to say: “whether it be the
case of the unsaved worldling, or the failing Christian, the inexorable
law will be fulfilled—we reap what we sow.”[7] Maybe Grudem doesn’t understand this, but according to the Word of
God, believers can indeed “reap corruption”! (See Gal. 6:8; cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor.
5:10; 2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11.) Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 3:15 that
it’s entirely possible for some Christians to get to Heaven “by the skin
of their teeth”—with no good works, everything “burned up” (Gr.
κατακαήσεται = “to burn up, consume entirely”), i.e. “saved yet so as
through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15, NASB). And the apostle Peter says that some
Christians will be “barely saved” (1 Pet. 4:18, NET Bible). D. L. Moody has well said: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">“Salvation is as free as the air we breathe; it is a gift, to be obtained without money and without price. [Isa. 55:1.] You cannot have salvation on any other terms; it is given not to him that worketh but to him that believeth. [Rom. 4:5.] 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. 3:11-15.
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.’ [Job 19:20.] 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.”[8] </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Commenting on Galatians 6:8, H. A. Ironside affirms that “at the judgment seat of Christ, we shall reap according
to our sowing. They who live for God now will receive rich reward in
that day. And they who yield now to the impulses of the flesh and are
occupied with things that do not glorify God will suffer loss [cf. 1
Cor. 3:15].”[9] Commenting on the same verse, Everett F. Harrison similarly states: “A selfish
Christian <b>soweth to his flesh</b>, spending his resources to gratify his own personal desires. He may expect to <b>reap corruption</b>.
That which might have brought reward by being invested in the Lord’s
work will be nothing but a decayed mass, a complete loss in terms of
eternity. On the other hand, by responding to the Spirit in love and
kindness, and gladly participating in the extension of the Gospel by
supporting Christian workers, believers will be adding interest to the
capital of eternal life. This passage is capable of broader application,
in line with the proverbial character of the statement in verse 7. But <b>flesh</b> and <b>Spirit </b>suggest
primary application to the believer (cf. 5:17, 24, 25), in line with
the immediate context.”[10] </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">In light of these biblical truths, it becomes clear that Galatians 6:7-9 does not point to the conclusion
that saving faith will always be accompanied by good works; if anything,
it shows exactly the opposite! There are “Dead Sea” Christians who are
stagnant: they are doing nothing for the cause of Christ. These
believers are saved because their foundation is Christ, but they will
not have any reward to show for their earthly life. They “will be
saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">And yet this faith is still a productive faith because it has born the spiritual fruit of “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1; cf. Gal. 5:22) and joy in the presence of the angels in heaven (Lk. 15:7, 10; cf. Gal. 5:22). Commenting on Romans 5:1, even John Calvin affirms: “We have peace with God and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith.”[11]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">For more information see my blog post series titled “Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith”, Parts 1-4. <br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><b><br />
References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
[1] Charles Ryrie,<i> <a href="https://archive.org/details/sogreatsalvation0000ryri">So Great Salvation</a></i> (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), p. 45.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Ibid., pp. 46-47.<br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] Wayne Grudem, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Free-Grace-Theology-Diminishes-Gospel/dp/1433551144"><i>“Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of </i><i>“</i><i>Lordship Salvation</i><i>”]</i></a> (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 139, footnote 31. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[4] For more information see my article: “<a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2023/06/ryrie-on-repentance-and-faith-pt-2.html">Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Part 2</a>”.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[5] Wayne Grudem, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Free-Grace-Theology-Diminishes-Gospel/dp/1433551144">“Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel [of “Lordship Salvation”]</a></i>, p. 139, footnote 31. Also see pp. 20, 34, 35, and 38.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[6] H. A. Ironside, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Expository-Messages-Epistle-Galatians-Ironside/dp/B001VNEJ7K"><i>Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians</i></a> (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1941), pp. 217. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[7] Ibid, p. 218.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[8] D. L. Moody, “<a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Northfield_Echoes/YkRQAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA452&printsec=frontcover&dq">The Overcoming Life.</a>” An address delivered Saturday morning, July 6, 1895. Northfield Bible Conference, Summer 1895. <i>Northfield Echoes</i>, Vol. II, p. 452. <i>Note:</i> The Roman numerals in the original statement have been updated to the current format.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[9] Ibid, p. 219.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[10] Everett F. Harrison, “The Epistle to the Galatians.”
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, <a href="https://www.christianbook.com/wycliffe-bible-commentary/9780802496959/pd/96954"><i>The Wycliffe Bible Commentary</i></a> (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1962), pp. 1297-1298,
emphasis his.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">[11] John Calvin, “<a href="https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/romans-5.html">Commentary on Romans 5</a>.” <i>Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible</i>. www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/romans-5.html. 1840-57<br /></div>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-6955683688403727412023-12-06T17:58:00.008-05:002023-12-08T19:53:00.545-05:00More Thoughts on Phil Johnson's Sermon: "Answering the Antinomians"<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ71QrrRdgNv-natEFdKh3eQDgju9JTT8qtmybhD24yT_ggMI2pszcCCXvLUP7QRyQDR9kXBTvWBXPnD_UeW5kOXFn7pG2WkVCx8v6cHK7R7OwzAGtVyyDe5wLYTcR3EvfXUzIxLNuV7nBmR5PtndULexjQ0mq50XsoTpVKAE3oGFHR21bTK6rHPy-Ojk/s225/phil9.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ71QrrRdgNv-natEFdKh3eQDgju9JTT8qtmybhD24yT_ggMI2pszcCCXvLUP7QRyQDR9kXBTvWBXPnD_UeW5kOXFn7pG2WkVCx8v6cHK7R7OwzAGtVyyDe5wLYTcR3EvfXUzIxLNuV7nBmR5PtndULexjQ0mq50XsoTpVKAE3oGFHR21bTK6rHPy-Ojk/w200-h200/phil9.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Phil Johnson</i><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;">After listening to Phil Johnson’s 1 hour and 15 minute sermon titled “Answering the Antinomians”, what I noticed is that he didn’t mainly go back to the Bible, but rather he kept pushing John MacArthur’s books, particularly <i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i>, and <i>The Gospel According to the Apostles</i>. I thought Mr. Johnson’s arguments were very weak, he basically just name-called the opposing side in the debate, labeling them as “Antinomians” because we believe that “we are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14). And no, in case anyone is wondering, Mr. Johnson didn’t even attempt to explain that verse! I also noticed that it was not until the 1 hour and 5 minute mark when Mr. Johnson finally admits a key distinction between Law and Grace: that “the Law condemns us because we can’t obey perfectly, grace grants us forgiveness on the basis of Christ’s perfect obedience.” That’s a key distinction and a big difference between Law and Grace, and Mr. Johnson even admits it! Mr. Johnson wants to preach the Law today because it is good; Paul says yes, but only if we use it lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8-11): meaning to show a person how far we all fall short of God’s perfect and holy standard (see Romans chapters 1-3). But in this age of grace, the Mosaic Law should not be used as a rule of life (a measuring stick), but rather the Law today should be used as a mirror to show us that we all fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness and we are therefore sinners in need of a Savior. As the apostle Paul says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-24). Mr. Johnson says that Law and Grace have mostly similar messages, such as loving God and loving other people. Okay, but that doesn’t mean believers today are under the Law, just because there are similarities. Take the 10 commandments for example. Most of them are repeated in the grace teachings of the apostles to the church in this age of grace, but from the standpoint of grace, not Law. The only one of the 10 commandments that is not repeated for believers today in the age of grace is the commandment about Sabbath-keeping. Again, that doesn’t mean we are under the Law (Paul expressly says we are not!), but rather we are to do those things from the standpoint of (as Jesus said to his disciples), “If you love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). I talked about this in the Free Grace Notes for my blog post titled: <a href="https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2020/06/must-christ-be-lord-to-be-savior.html">“Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?” | 1959 Eternity Magazine</a>. In that blog post I reprinted the 1959 Eternity magazine article and added some Free Grace Notes at the end of the article responding to John R. Stott (an early proponent of “Lordship Salvation”). And for endnote 41 in that blog post, I made the following statement which relates to the discussion here:<br /><br /><div>
[John] Stott says, “We cannot pick and choose which benefits of His death we will appropriate.” I would ask Stott: Are they <i>benefits</i> or <i>requirements</i>? Stott is turning the benefits given us at salvation into legalistic requirements that one must commit to in order to be saved! I like the following statements by Dr. J. Vernon McGee on this topic. Commenting on Ephesians 1:7, McGee writes: “We looked at the Greek words for redemption and saw that it involved the paying of a price which was the blood of Christ: we can have forgiveness because He paid the price. We know that God went into the marketplace where we were sold on the slave block of sin and He bought us, all of us. He is going to use us for Himself — He establishes a personal relationship. We saw also that He bought us in order to set us free. Now somebody will ask, ‘Doesn’t that upset the hymn that says, ‘I gave, I gave My life for thee. What hast thou done for Me?’?’ My friend, it surely does. The very word for <i>redemption</i> in verse seven, <i>apolutrosis</i>, means that God never asks you what you have done for Him. That is the glorious thing about grace: when God saves you by grace, it doesn’t put you in debt to Him. He bought you in order to set you free. Someone else will ask, ‘But aren’t we supposed to serve Him?’ Certainly. But it is on another basis, a new relationship — the relationship now is love. The Lord Jesus said, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments’ (John 14:15). He didn’t say, ‘Because I’m dying for you, you are to keep My commandments.’ He said, ‘If you love Me.’ Today, if you love Him, He wants your service. If you don’t love Him, then forget about this business of service. One hears so much today about commitment to Christ. Friend, you and I have very little to commit to Him. We are to respond in love to Him, and that is a different basis altogether. We love Him because He first loved us. . . . He paid a price for you. He gave Himself and shed His blood so that you could have forgiveness of sins. This is all yours if you are willing to come to Him and accept Him as your Savior.”<br /></div><br />
The late Miles J. Stanford wrote an excellent response specifically to Phil Johnson’s false charge of “antinomianism”, which is available <a href="https://withchrist.org/faqs.htm#Reformed_Baptist_Phil_Johnsons_web_site_lists">here</a>.
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-20955960519027196832023-12-03T17:39:00.055-05:002023-12-29T23:09:46.879-05:00Phil Johnson Refers to John MacArthur as "God"<div style="text-align: justify;"><i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcvBGFay80ni-3ETDeUDqWTg11qaWpa8kb_fm9kQTDws5GEGTQYmQaTLq3r9ayqnLOkhMS-Kc3WpzZzcivwKmY_v07TQ57RysUrCYcSkoANpOjnzhNjPdmRSQDMzSr3V3a7NNOEJlyJp_VWKhWVqdMkBYdh8hMEnNM5p5oDcAVMCIoJ5XUi9vpyPU0pQw/s180/johnson3.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="153" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcvBGFay80ni-3ETDeUDqWTg11qaWpa8kb_fm9kQTDws5GEGTQYmQaTLq3r9ayqnLOkhMS-Kc3WpzZzcivwKmY_v07TQ57RysUrCYcSkoANpOjnzhNjPdmRSQDMzSr3V3a7NNOEJlyJp_VWKhWVqdMkBYdh8hMEnNM5p5oDcAVMCIoJ5XUi9vpyPU0pQw/w170-h200/johnson3.jpg" width="170" /></a></div></i>In a very revealing slip of the tongue, Phil Johnson earlier this year referred to John MacArthur as “God”, and his audience of MacArthurites applauded it! Here’s the statement by Johnson, from a sermon he delivered at this year’s Shepherd’s Conference:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
“The first time I met John MacArthur face to face was in 1981. I had spent three years in youth ministry in Florida, shepherding a group of students who believed that they were Christians because they had invited Jesus into their heart [?] when they were toddlers, but they were as carnal and as unsanctified as the un-churched hoodlums in my neighborhood. [<i>Editor’s note: </i>It reminds me of the carnal Corinthian Christians that the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.] And so I had taken my youth group through a study of 1 John, and some of them along the way realized that they were not Christians at all, and they were soundly converted [to ‘Lordship Salvation’]. And to my surprise, their parents at first were pretty upset with me! They would scold me for teaching their kids ‘Lordship Salvation’ – a big thing in Florida because that’s where Ray Stanford was. And I was listening to <i>Grace To You</i> by then. Tampa was one of the first three stations that carried John MacArthur on the radio. I listened to him every day and he was preaching through 1 John, and that was extremely helpful and encouraging to me [in accepting ‘a different gospel,’ 2 Cor. 11:1-4]. And after three years I left Florida because Moody Press wanted me to return to Chicago and work for them. It would have been my second tour of duty with Moody Press. And they wanted me; they arranged for me to be at a meeting with John MacArthur to talk about <i>The MacArthur New Testament Commentary</i> series. And that was where I met John for the first time, around a little table with a bunch of editors and we talked about the commentaries. And afterwards we were sort of doing the social thing with coffee or whatever. And I saddled up to him because he was there by himself kind of, and I said, ‘You know, I listen to you every day on the radio, and I think you need to do a book on the Lordship issue.’ And he brightened up immediately and he said, ‘You know, I plan to. I want to. I even have a title in mind,’ he says, ‘<i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i>’. ‘That’s what I want to call it.’ <b>And that was the start of my relationship with God. Or, with John MacArthur.</b> [The audience roars with laughter and applauds.] Freudian slip! [More laughter from the audience.] There’s <i>a bit</i> of truth in that. [The audience laughs.] There <i>is</i> a bit of truth in that! [More laughter.] It had a massive impact on my relationship with God. But that was the start of my relationship with John, and uh, his book [<i>The Gospel According to Jesus</i>] and the sequel that came [i.e. <i>The Gospel According to the Apostles</i>], have been so formative in my life and thinking that they helped me finally untangle the confusion that I had carried for years between what I had read in Louis Berkhof [in his <i>Systematic Theology</i>] and what I had read from Charles Ryrie [in his book <i>Balancing the Christian Life</i>, in the chapter titled ‘Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?’].”[1]<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Reference:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b> </b><br />
[1] Phil Johnson, “Answering the Antinomians” (March 9, 2023), Shepherd’s Conference 2023: “Shepherding the Remnant” (time stamp: 44:00 minutes – 46:30 minutes), brackets added. www.gracechurch.org/sermons/20917</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-75164855477908653252023-12-02T09:37:00.038-05:002024-01-09T08:15:09.705-05:00The Resurrection Signs and John 20:30-31<div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-family: Castoro Titling;">"But these (signs) are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life through His name." (John 20:31, KJV)</span></blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;">In my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior”, I ask the following question: “Do the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John?” To this question I answer: “Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the ‘signs’ cited in John 20:31 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.” </p><p style="text-align: justify;">To further solidify my premise that the “signs” cited in John 20:31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John, four more evidences can be added to the six listed above: common sense, claim, composer’s usage, and clarifying comments. These evidences are explained as follows:</p><div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Common sense:</b> Commenting on my article, Greg Schliesmann says: “Jon, I was only able to spend a short time reading your paper but enjoyed it. I think the thesis of the paper is very strong. Recently I've been thinking of a couple facts that would support your thesis of John 20:31 relating to the resurrection signs. First of all, it’s interesting the so-called ‘purpose statement’ comes near the end of the book. It is well known that purpose statements for letters of the time came at the beginning, not the end.”<sup>1</sup> Similar to this, Charlie Bing writes: “It would be natural for any author to put the purpose statement for the entire book at the beginning”.<sup>2</sup> Even Zane Hodges affirms: “The mistake made here is simple. . . The purpose for the epistle [of 1 John] is given precisely where we would expect it to be – in the Prologue (1:1-4) [i.e. at the beginning of the book].”<sup>3</sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b>Claim of the writer:</b> Greg Schliesmann asserts: “John 20:31 does not claim to be the purpose statement for the book but the purpose statement for the writing of ‘these signs’ (whatever they are).”<sup>4</sup> Similarly, O’Day writes: “[A]ccording to the majority opinion, ‘many other signs [<i>sēmeia</i>]’ in v. 30 is a summary statement of all of Jesus’ activity in the Gospel. By reading the reference to signs in v. 30 so broadly, however, one misses the importance of this verse in clarifying the Evangelist’s understanding of both the resurrection appearances and signs. Rather than referring to Jesus’ entire ministry, the narrator is identifying the events of John 20 as signs.<sup>5</sup> Note that also in 2:11 and 4:54 the reader is not informed that the miracles Jesus performed were “signs” until the end of the story (so also 12:18). In addition, in 2:18-20 Jesus Himself pointed to his [death and] resurrection as a sign.<sup>6</sup> The narrator’s comments about signs in v. 30 thus echo the narrative commentary of 2:21-22, in which the disciples’ faith is linked to the completion of the events narrated in John 20.”<sup>7</sup> As I wrote in my article “Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior”, Matthew Henry also understands the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 as referring to the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples, not all the signs in the book of John. Concerning this Henry writes: “[John] instructs us in the design of recording what we do find here; (v. 31.) ‘These accounts are given in this and the following chapter [i.e. John chapters 20-21], <i>that ye might believe</i> upon these evidences; that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, declared with power to be so by his resurrection.’ . . . [This is the] duty of those that read and hear the gospel. It is their duty to believe, to embrace the doctrine of Christ, and that record given concerning him, 1 John 5. 11.”<sup>8</sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b>Composer’s usage:</b> Greg Schliesmann writes: “[S]imilar purpose statements, using the same near demonstrative pronoun (‘these’ [Greek:<i> tauta</i>]) found in his first epistle (1 John 2:1, 26; 5:13) refer to the immediate context, not the entire book. This would fit about your point of John 20:31 fitting solely within the scope of resurrection signs.”<sup>9</sup> Similarly, speaking of John’s first epistle and 1 John 5:13 in particular, Bob Wilkin says: “Such an interpretation hinges on a questionable understanding of the first words of v 13: ‘these things I have written’ (<i>tauta egrapsa</i>). It is suggested that ‘these things I have written’ refers to the whole epistle. . . . This interpretation is questionable for two reasons. In the first place the expression ‘these things I have written’ occurs in two other places in the epistle—in 2:1 (with the present tense) and in 2:26. It is clear in both of those passages that ‘these things’ refers not to the whole epistle but to the immediately preceding words. That is, ‘these things I have written’ in 2:1 looks back to 1:5-10 and in 2:26 to 2:18-25. It thus is evident that ‘these things I have written’ in 5:13 looks back to 5:9-12, not the whole book.”<sup>10</sup> Concerning 1 John 5:13 and the near demonstrative pronoun “these” (Gr. <i>tauta</i>), Zane Hodges affirms: “Strangely enough, the idea has taken hold in some circles that the words <b>These things</b> refer to the contents of the whole epistle. This view is a centerpiece for the school of thought that treats the entire epistle as a test of its readers’ salvation. We have already noted how completely far afield this perspective really is. . . . The phrase <b>These things</b> (Greek: <i>Tauta</i>) by no means refers to the entire content of the epistle, but rather to verses 6 through 12. Indeed, this near reference is consistent with John’s style elsewhere in the letter. Thus in 1:4, the words ‘these things [Greek: <i>tauta</i>] we write to you’ refer to what has just been mentioned in the prologue (1:1-3). In 2:1, the statement ‘these things [Greek: <i>tauta</i>] I write to you, so that you may not sin,’ refer to the previous discussion on sin found in 1:5-10. In the same way, the words of 2:26, ‘these things [Greek: <i>Tauta</i>] I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you,’ obviously refer to the preceding discussion about the antichrists in 2:18-25.”<sup>11</sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b>Clarifying comments: </b>Concerning this point O’Day writes: “[T]he intrusion of the narrator’s voice directly into the storytelling (vv. 30-31) is not unusual in the Fourth Gospel; indeed, it is one of the distinctive traits of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative style. For example, at 11:51-52 the narrator interprets the story of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in order to ensure that the reader understands the full meaning of Caiaphas’s prophecy; at 2:22 and 12:16, the narrator makes explicit connections to the disciples’ situation after Jesus’ glorification; at 12:33, the narrator interprets Jesus’ words about his death for the reader (see also 18:32); and at 19:35, the narrator comments on the source and veracity of the testimony in 19:34. The narrator’s words in 20:30-31 belong to this same category of interpretive comment; the Fourth Evangelist interrupts the flow of the narrative to ensure that the reader grasps the significance of what has just been recounted. On this basis, John 21 is not an addendum. The Fourth Evangelist uses the narrator’s comments in vv. 30-31 to underscore for his readers that Jesus’ blessing in v. 29b is addressed to them; ‘you,’ the readers, are among ‘those who have not seen.’”<sup>12</sup></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
In light of these ten truths, it is clear that John 20:31 refers to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and not to all the signs recorded in the book of John!<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>1</sup> Greg Schliesmann, <i>Pursuit of Truth</i> blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>2</sup> Charlie Bing, “Interpreting 1 John”, <i>GraceNotes</i>, Number 37: 1.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>3</sup> Zane C. Hodges, “We Believe In: Assurance of Salvation”, <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 3 (Autumn 90): 3.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>4</sup> Greg Schliesmann, <i>Pursuit of Truth</i> blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>5</sup> At this point in the original statement there is a footnote citing: Edwyn Hoskyns, <i>The Fourth Gospel</i>, 550; P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 88-90.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>6</sup> In the original statement there is a footnote citing: P. S. Minear, “The Original Functions of John 21,” 90.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>7</sup> Gail R. O’Day, <i>The New Interpreter’s Bible</i>, 12 Vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 9:851.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>8</sup> Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:949.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>9</sup> Greg Schliesmann, <i>Pursuit of Truth</i> blog. See the post by knetknight titled “Losing sight of the lost man” (November 1, 2007). In the comment thread, see the comment by Schliesmann on November 3, 2007 at 10:59 pm.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>10</sup> Bob Wilkin, “Assurance: That You May Know”, <i>Grace in Focus</i> (Dec 90): 1.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>11</sup> Zane C. Hodges, <i>The Epistles of John</i> (Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999), 226-227.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>12</sup> Gail R. O’Day, <i>The New Interpreter’s Bible</i>, 9:851.<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-46689677877936596772023-11-25T08:51:00.075-05:002024-02-26T08:28:06.245-05:00Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior<div><span style="font-family: verdana;"></span><div style="text-align: center;"><blockquote><span style="font-family: Castoro Titling;">"THIS IS NOW THE THIRD TIME JESUS SHOWED HIMSELF TO HIS DISCIPLES AFTER HE WAS RAised FROM THE DEAD."</span> <br /></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: Castoro Titling;">(jOHN 21:14, NKJV)</span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Castoro Titling;"><br /></span></div></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Introduction</b></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
While this study does critique the teachings of Zane Hodges as set forth in his articles “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of our Message”<sup>1</sup> and “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation to Respond”<sup>2</sup>, it should not be viewed so narrowly. The tenor of this treatise is actually broader in scope, and involves a subject that is immensely important but often overlooked. More than simply a response to Zane Hodges, this exposition is a study in the Gospel of John with a focus on the signs of Jesus “in the presence of His disciples” (Jn. 20:30, NKJV).<sup>3</sup> It will be argued that these signs constitute a separate group of signs specifically highlighting the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that these so called “resurrection signs” provide the basis for belief that this Johannine, resurrected Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (cf. Jn. 20:30-31).<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Greatest Sign</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, “Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise.” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Thy house will consume Me.” The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body. When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:13-22)<br /></div><br />
How important is the sign of Christ’s death and resurrection? Jesus indicated this sign to be His greatest. When the Jews questioned His authority to cleanse the temple by demanding of Him one incontestable sign to justify His actions, Jesus did nothing but prophesy of His own death and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 2:18-22)! “‘Christ Himself,’ as B. B. Warfield puts it, ‘deliberately staked His whole claim to the credit of men upon His resurrection. When asked for a sign He pointed to this sign as His single and sufficient credential.’”<sup>4</sup><br /><br />
There seems to be agreement among many scholars that Christ’s death and resurrection was the greatest sign of all in the book of John.<sup>5</sup> Thomas Arnold, former Professor of History at Rugby and Oxford, and one of the world’s greatest historians, made the following statement: “I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better, fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair enquirer, than <i>the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died, and rose again from the dead</i>.”<sup>6</sup> Wilbur M. Smith affirms this statement.<sup>7</sup> Similarly, Merrill C. Tenney says, “These seven signs culminating in the resurrection of Jesus, the eighth and greatest of all.”<sup>8</sup> And John Niemelä declares, “That sign was the cross and resurrection. It was the greatest of all the signs in a number of ways.”<sup>9</sup><br /><br />
Why are the two momentous events of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day considered to be one sign (and not two)? In John 2:18 the Jews specifically asked Jesus, “What sign [<i>singular</i>] do You show us”? In Jesus’ answer to this specific question, He links his death and resurrection together by saying, “Destroy this temple, <i>and</i> in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19, italics added). Furthermore, the disciples understood the cross and resurrection to be one sign: “When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said <i>this</i> [<i>singular</i>]” (Jn. 2:22a, italics added). Even John Niemelä argues that Christ’s death and resurrection is one sign.<sup>10</sup><br /><br />
In reading through John’s narrative, it becomes clear that no other sign approaches the prominence given to the great climactic Passover sign of the Lamb’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day! While the death and resurrection of Jesus is the greatest sign in John’s Gospel, there are three unique signs that cannot be separated from it. They are the three resurrection signs of the Savior.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><b>
Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior</b><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
A number of Scriptures verify that Jesus Christ manifested Himself specifically to His disciples after He rose from the dead:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written</i> that you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders <i>to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs</i>, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:2-3, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The word which He sent to the sons of Israel [in context], preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all). . . You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day, <i>and granted that He should become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead</i>. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One [i.e. the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ, the Son of God] who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:36, 38- 43, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And though they found no ground for putting Him to death, they asked Pilate that He be executed. And when they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. <i>But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people</i>. (Acts 13:28-31, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, <i>and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve</i>. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5, italics added)<br /></div><br />
In the Gospel of John, chapters 20-21, the beloved disciple recounts three post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to gatherings of His followers. These appearances of Jesus are described as “signs . . . in the presence of His disciples” (Jn. 20:30, NKJV). In his narrative, John describes only three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples:<br /><br />
<b>Resurrection Sign #1:</b><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst</i>, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” And when He had said this, <i>He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord</i>. . . . But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus [i.e. the Twin], was not with them when Jesus came.<sup>11</sup> (John 20:19-20, 24, italics added)<br /></div><br />
<u>Day</u>: Resurrection Sunday (the very same day Jesus rose from the dead), evening (Jn. 20:1, 19)<br />
<u>Location</u>: Locked room (Jn. 20:19)<br />
<u>Audience</u>: Only the disciples (Jn. 20:19), excluding Thomas (Jn. 20:24)<br />
<u>Key Sign Miracle</u>: Jesus miraculously appears to His disciples after his resurrection from the dead and shows them His hands and side (Jn. 20:19-20)<br /><br />
<b>Resurrection Sign #2</b><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>And after eight days again His disciples were inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst</i>, and said, “Peace be with you.” <i>Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”</i> Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:26-29, italics added)<br /></div><br />
<u>Day</u>: Eight days after first resurrection appearance (Jn. 20:26)<br />
<u>Location</u>: “again” in locked room (Jn. 20:26)<br />
<u>Audience</u>: “again” only the disciples (Jn. 20:26), this time including Thomas (Jn. 20:26)<br />
<u>Key Sign Miracle</u>: Once again, Jesus miraculously appears to His disciples after his resurrection from the dead and this time specifically invites Thomas to touch His scarred hands and side (Jn. 20:26-29)<br /><br />
(In the context of John’s narrative, John 20:30-31 occurs here, between the second and third resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. These verses read as follows: “<i>Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you</i> [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] <i>may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you</i> [the post crucifixion and resurrection church-age reader] <i>may have life in His name.</i>”)<br /><br />
<b>Resurrection Sign #3</b><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>After these things Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and in this way He showed Himself . . . This is now the third time Jesus showed Himself to the disciples after He was raised from the dead. </i>(Jn. 21:1, 14, NKJV)<br /></div><br />
<u>Day</u>: Unknown (Jn. 21:1)<br />
<u>Location</u>: Sea of Tiberias (Jn. 21:1)<br />
<u>Audience</u>: Only certain disciples: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (James and John)<sup>12</sup>, and two others – possibly Phillip and Andrew<sup>13</sup> (Jn. 21:1-2)<br />
<u>Key Sign Miracle</u>: Jesus “again” appears to His disciples a “third time” after his resurrection from the dead, displays omniscience and eats food (Jn. 21:1-14).<sup>14</sup><br /><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The Resurrection Signs and John 20:30-31</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Do the “signs” cited in John 20:30 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples or do they refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John? Context, chronology, Christ Himself, cross references, church-age audience, and certain scholars will demonstrate that the “signs” cited in John 20:30 refer specifically to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.<br /><br />
First, the context surrounding John 20:30-31 clearly indicates that in these two verses the apostle John speaks of Jesus’ three resurrection signs in the presence of His disciples. The skilled exegete of Scripture will recognize that John 20:30-31 is not an island of two verses by itself. Instead, these two verses are directly connected to and associated with the surrounding context of John chapters 20-21 (which describes the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples). John 20:30 begins with the connective word “and” (NKJV), tying verse 30 into the surrounding context. Also, notice that in John 20:30-31a the apostle states that “<i>Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples</i>, which are not written in this book; but <i>these are written</i>” (italics added). This language clearly implies that the appearances which are written in the context are to be considered “signs”. Furthermore, John 21:1 continues the thought of the previous chapter (chapter 20) by describing yet another resurrection appearance of Jesus to His disciples: “After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias” (Jn. 21:1a). This is further proof that John 20:30-31 cannot be divorced from its surrounding context which involves the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples.<br /><br />
Second, an important chronological fact is stated in John 21:14 which helps to confirm that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. What the apostle writes in John 21:14 is very significant: “This is now <i>the third time</i> that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead” (italics added). This is a key phrase because it unlocks an important truth: <i>Jesus’ three signs in the presence of His disciples after His resurrection are numbered separately from the previous signs in the book of John!</i> The apostle John obviously started counting a new group of signs <i>after</i> the resurrection of Jesus! To further verify this truth simply compare John 2:11 and John 4:54 with John 21:14:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>This beginning of His signs Jesus did</i> in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him. (John 2:11, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>This is again a second sign that Jesus performed</i>, when He had come out of Judea into Galilee. (John 4:54, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples, after He was raised from the dead.</i> (John 21:14, italics added)<br /></div><br />
John 2:11 and John 4:54 are said to record the first and second signs of Jesus in John’s Gospel. In his narrative the apostle John goes on to describe many more signs that Jesus performed: healing an invalid at the Pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem (Jn. 5:1-18), feeding the 5,000 near the Sea of Galilee (Jn. 6:5-14), walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee (Jn. 6:16-21), healing a blind man in Jerusalem (Jn. 9:1-7), raising Lazarus in Bethany (Jn. 11:1-45), and Jesus’ own crucifixion and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 2:18-22, chapters 18-21). If these signs are counted by addition, their total is more than three in number! <i>Clearly, the three signs that Jesus performed in the presence of His disciples after His resurrection are grouped separately from the other signs in John’s narrative!</i><br /><br />
It is not accidental that in his narrative the apostle John includes <i>three</i> resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. This numbering is by divine design and has significance. Concerning the symbolism of the number three, Birch notes: “As the number most distinctly marked with a beginning, middle, and end it seems to have been regarded as symbolic of a complete and ordered whole.”<sup>15</sup> Birch goes on to say: “A threefold repetition of something not only has symbolic meaning but also is a method of expressing the superlative (e.g., Isa. 6:3).”<sup>16</sup> John’s unique triad of resurrection signs are truly of inestimable value not only because they confirm Jesus’ greatest sign, but also because their message must be believed for eternal life: “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn. 20:30-31). These truths underscore the fact that in John’s narrative the three resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples form a complete and superlative group of signs!<br /><br />
Third, Christ’s statement in John 2:19 further demonstrates that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to Jesus’ resurrection appearances in the presence of His disciples. The great “sign” of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection emphasized in John 2 is linked to Jesus’ resurrection “signs” evidenced in John 20-21! In John 2:18 the Jewish leaders ask Jesus a specific question: “What sign do You show to us, seeing that You do these things?” Jesus, of course, refers to the sign of His death and resurrection on the third day when He declares: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn. 2:19b).<sup>17</sup> Regarding this, the apostle John notes: “When therefore [Jesus] was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn. 2:22). John clearly presents Jesus’ great statement <i>in the light of the resurrection!</i><sup>18</sup> How do the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples relate to the one great sign of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection on the third day? The answer to this important question may “connect the dots” for many readers. In John 2:18-22 the sign of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection is <i>prophesied</i>. In John chapters 18-19 Christ’s crucifixion is <i>performed</i> and then <i>proved</i> (by His burial). In John chapters 20-21 Christ’s resurrection is <i>performed</i> and then <i>proved</i> (by His appearances, or resurrection signs). The three resurrection signs (as opposed to all the signs recorded in John’s Gospel) are the final proof of Christ’s original prophecy!<sup>19</sup><br /><br />
Fourth, two key cross-references similarly highlight the fact that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the three resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples; they do not refer to all the signs recorded in the book of John. The book of Acts commences where the Gospels conclude. In Acts 1:1-3 Luke speaks of the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples and calls these appearances “convincing proofs”:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The first account I composed [i.e. the Gospel of Luke], Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, <i>after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days</i>, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3, italics added)<br /></div><br />
By simply comparing Scripture with Scripture, and on the authority of the Word of God, one can safely identify the “signs . . . in the presence of the disciples” (Jn. 20:30-31) with the “convincing proofs . . . to the apostles” (Acts 1:1-3)! Similarly, the apostle Paul writes that Jesus Christ “was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness” (Rom. 1:4a). Definbaugh affirms: “the resurrection of Jesus is the final and compelling proof that He is the Son of God and Savior of the world”.<sup>20</sup> These verses simply verify that in John’s mind, he considered the resurrection appearances of Jesus in the presence of His disciples to be powerful and climactic “signs” proving that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Jn. 20:30-31)!<br /><br />
Fifth, John’s particular audience of church-age readers is another reason to believe that the “signs” of John 20:30 refer to the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples. There is virtually no question that John’s readers comprise a church-age audience. Concerning the date of John’s Gospel, Scofield declares: “The date of John’s Gospel falls between A.D. 85 and 90. Probably the latter.”<sup>21</sup> Similarly, Blum writes that “a date between 85 and 95 is best.”<sup>22</sup> McGee suggests even later: “It was the last one written, probably close to A.D. 100.”<sup>23</sup> Charles Ryrie and Earl Radmacher suggest similar dates around A.D. 90.<sup>24</sup> Even Zane Hodges affirms, “In my view, [John’s Gospel] was written before 70 AD . . . At the time of writing, the cross was years ago”.<sup>25</sup><br /><br />
The apostle John directly addresses his church-age audience in John 19:35 and again in John 20:31 with the words “<i>that you may believe</i>” (NKJV, italics added):<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so <i>that you may believe</i>. (John 19:34-35, NKJV, italics added)<br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written <i>that you may believe</i> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31, NKJV, italics added)<br /></div><br />
This directness of approach bestows great importance on the facts involved!<sup>26</sup> What are the specific facts that John is emphasizing his audience believe in these two passages? Consider the following reasoning. If John wants his church-age readers to believe his testimony regarding Jesus’ blood death (Jn. 19:34-35), it follows that the apostle would be <i>at least</i> equally desirous (if not more so) that these same readers believe his threefold testimony regarding Jesus’ resulting bodily resurrection from the dead (Jn. 20:30-31)!<sup>27</sup> In this scenario, John would be specifically drawing attention to Jesus‟ blood death and resulting bodily resurrection from the dead. Concerning this, Matthew Henry writes that in John 19:34 the apostle “give[s] an evidence of <i>the truth of his death</i>, in order to <i>the proof of his resurrection</i>. If he was only in a trance or swoon <i>his resurrection</i> was a sham”.<sup>28</sup> John knows that if his readers are not assured of Jesus’ death, neither will they be assured of His resurrection! If they do not believe in Jesus’ death, neither will they believe in His resurrection from the dead! Based on this reasoning and evidence alone, it becomes clear that since John 19:35 involves Jesus’ death, John 20:31 most likely involves the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples (as opposed to all the signs recorded in John’s Gospel). John has drawn special attention to the two great events of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead in order that his church-age readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing . . . may have life in His name.” A logical flow chart of these specific Johannine truths might look something like this: Believe that Jesus died (Jn. 19:35) → Believe that Jesus not only died, but also rose from the dead (Jn. 20:31a) → Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Jn. 20:31b) → Eternal Life (Jn. 20:31c)! (The apostle John obviously elaborates more on these truths in his Gospel narrative. The previous diagram simply displays the logical sequence of certain important facts.) The main point is this: The apostle’s direct references to his church-age audience (“you”) in the contexts of John 19:35 and John 20:31 highlight the importance and coherence of Jesus’ death and resurrection from the dead as necessary elements of belief for eternal life. This double coherence (of John’s church-age audience and Jesus’ crucifixion-resurrection action) would be greatly reduced and even lost if the “signs” cited in John 20:31 referred to all the signs recorded in the book of John, and not specifically to the three resurrection signs of the Savior!<br /><br />
Sixth, certain scholars have correctly taught that the “signs” cited in John 20:30-31 refer to the three resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. Alva J. McClain states:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>1. Christ’s Post-Resurrection Ministry and the Kingdom </i><br /></div><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The first eleven verses of Acts describe this ministry of our Lord. The parallel passages appear in chapter 28 of Matthew, chapter 16 of Mark, chapter 24 of Luke, and chapters 20-21 of John. Luke only, in the first-named passage, states the length of this ministry as “forty days” (Acts 1:3).<br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px;">. . . During this period of time Christ demonstrated to them the reality of His resurrection from the dead. In the words of Acts 1:3, “he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days.” Some of these “proofs” are described in detail by Luke in his “former treatise” (Luke 24:30-43). This testimony is confirmed by the other three gospel writers, and John adds that “many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:30-31). And, as we shall see, these visual demonstrations were supported by appeals to the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures (Luke 24:44). Thus by sensible signs and Biblical testimony were the disciples convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, and so prepared for further instruction about the Kingdom.<sup>29</sup><br /></div><br />
Matthew Henry aptly writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The remark which the evangelist makes upon his narrative, like an historian drawing towards a conclusion, v. 30, 31. And here . . . He assures us that many other things occurred, which were all worthy to be recorded, but are<i> not written in the book: many signs</i>. Some refer this to all the signs that Jesus did during his whole life, all the wondrous words he spake, and all the wondrous works he did. But it seems rather to be confined to the signs he did after his resurrection, for these were in <i>the presence of the disciples </i>only, which are here spoken of, Acts 10.41.<sup>30</sup><br /></div><br />
Thomas Scott makes a similar comment regarding the signs spoken of in John 20:30-31:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
“The signs” here spoken of, seem to refer to the evidences of our Lord’s resurrection, of which there were far more than it was necessary to record: (<i>Note,</i> <i>Acts</i> 1:1-3.) but these were committed to writing, in order that all those who should ever read them, might believe that Jesus was indeed the promised “Messiah” . . . the Savior of sinners, and “the Son of God;” that by this faith they might obtain eternal life, through his name, for his sake, and by his mercy, truth, and power.<sup>31</sup><br /></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A Resurrection Dimension</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Zane Hodges makes the following statement regarding the content of faith in John’s gospel:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;"> Let me put it to you this way. The Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic. Of course, I am thinking of the famous theme statement found in John 20:30-31, where we read: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”<br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px;"> This statement does not affirm the necessity of believing in our Lord’s substitutionary atonement. If by the time of the writing of John’s Gospel, it was actually necessary to believe this, then it would have been not only simple, but essential to say so.<br /></div><div style="margin-left: 40px;"> Inasmuch as the key figures in John’s narrative did believe in Jesus before they understood His atoning death and resurrection, it would have been even more essential for John to state that the content of faith had changed. But of course he does not do this. The simple fact is that the whole Fourth Gospel is designed to show that its readers can get saved in the same way as the people who got saved in John’s narrative. To say anything other than this is to accept a fallacy. It is to mistakenly suppose that the Fourth Gospel presents the terms of salvation incompletely and inadequately. I sincerely hope no grace person would want to be stuck with a position like that.<sup>32</sup><br /></div><br />
Christ’s resurrection signs in the presence of His disciples will demonstrate that Jesus Himself modified the content of belief for eternal life as a natural result of His crucifixion and resurrection.<sup>33</sup> Furthermore, an overview of related Scriptures will also evidence important changes resulting from Christ’s death and resurrection. John chapter 20 will be the key text because “the hinge point of the Gospel of John is the resurrection. That fact should not take us by surprise because the resurrection is in reality the hinge point of Christianity.”<sup>34</sup> Furthermore, in the outline of the apostle’s narrative, chapter 20 speaks of “The culmination of faith”.<sup>35</sup><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
A Resurrection Order<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. . . . Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; <i>but go to My brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the </i>[resurrected] <i>Lord,</i><i>”</i><i> and that He had said these things to her.</i> (John 20:1, 15-18, italics added)<br /></div><br />
Before the risen Savior appeared to the ten disciples, He appeared to Mary Magdalene. It was early resurrection Sunday morning. During this brief encounter, Jesus clearly described <i>significant changes</i> resulting from His resurrection from the dead. Ryrie notes that the words of Jesus in John 20:17 describe “His new relationship as resurrected Lord.”<sup>36</sup> F. W. Grant writes, “[Mary] learns, not only that He is risen, but of a relationship that His resurrection has brought His people into.”<sup>37</sup> Borchert adds, “A new resurrection relationship between Jesus and his followers was being established because Jesus was returning to the presence of God.”<sup>38</sup> William MacDonald comments that Christ “told [Mary] to go to His brethren and tell them of the new order that had been ushered in.”<sup>39</sup> Harrison echoes this idea of “the new order”.<sup>40</sup> Similarly, Edwin A. Blum notes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
These words spoke of a new relationship, new relatives, and a new responsibility. . . . Jesus said, in effect, “This (the physical contact) is not My real presence for the church. A <i><b>new relationship</b></i> will begin with My Ascension and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church.” Jesus then explained the fact of the <i><b>new relatives</b></i>. He called His disciples His brothers. Earlier He had said they were friends: “I no longer call you servants . . . instead, I have called you friends” (15:15). Believers in Jesus become a part of Jesus’ family with God as their Father (cf. Heb. 2:11-12; Rom. 8:15-17, 29; Gal. 3:26). Mary’s <i><b>new responsibility</b></i> was to testify to His risen presence. She was the recipient of four special graces. . . . Christians today are also the recipients of special grace; they too are given this new responsibility to witness to the world (cf. Matt. 28:16-20[; Jn. 20:19-23]).<sup>41</sup><br /></div><br />
Chafer asserts: “When Christ arose from the dead, Christianity was born, and the new creation was brought into existence. There is nothing in the old order for the believer. He stands on resurrection ground.”<sup>42</sup> The death and resurrection of Christ was not simply another sign, but was instead “the ONE MOST IMPORTANT”<sup>43</sup> “epoch-making event”<sup>44</sup> that ushered in significant changes and a new order.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
A Resurrection Message<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
After His pre-dawn encounter with Mary, the resurrected Savior appeared to ten of His disciples (Judas Iscariot having committed suicide and Thomas being absent) that same day toward evening (Jn. 20:1, 19). Jesus emphasized their need to believe in His resurrection by showing them His nail scarred hands and pierced side (Jn. 20:19-20). He commissioned them with a message of forgiveness that now involved His substitutionary death and resurrection (Jn. 20:20-23).<sup>45</sup> The text reads as follows:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus therefore said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:20-23)<br /></div><br />
This is truly an amazing statement that Jesus declared to His disciples! Tenney exposits the Scriptural text from the original language with the following words:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The commission to forgive sins is phrased in an unusual construction. Literally, it is: “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” The first verbs in the two clauses are aorists, which imply the action of an instant; the second verbs are perfects, which imply an abiding state that began before the action of the first verbs. God does not forgive men’s sins because we decide to do so nor withhold forgiveness because we will not grant it. We announce it; we do not create it. This is the essence of salvation. And all who proclaim the gospel are in effect forgiving or not forgiving sins, depending on whether the hearer accepts or rejects the Lord Jesus as the Sin-Bearer.<sup>46</sup><br /></div><br />
Similarly, Harrison strongly describes Jesus’ emphasis when he writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
“It follows, then, that what our Lord here commits to His disciples, to His Church, is the right authoritatively to declare, in His name, that there is forgiveness for man’s sin, and on what conditions the sin will be forgiven” (Milligan and Moulton, <i>Commentary on John</i>) This scene involves the death of Christ (his wounds presented), his resurrection (declared by his living presence), the resultant commission to go and bear witness to him [which the apostle John is doing through his Gospel narrative], the equipment for this task, and the message itself, centering in forgiveness of sins.<sup>47</sup><br /></div><br />
As a result of His resurrection, Jesus appeared to His disciples and set forth the good news of complete forgiveness involving not only His substitutionary blood death for the sins of the world and but also His subsequent bodily resurrection on the third day. John 20:19-23 narrates the saving message of Jesus’ substitutionary death (Jn. 20:20, cf. 20:23) for the forgiveness of anyone’s sins (Jn. 20:23) and resurrection on the third day (Jn. 20:1, 19-20), which the disciples were now commissioned to preach (Jn. 20:21, cf. Lk. 24:46-49).<sup>48</sup> It is significant that Jesus emphasized this saving message of forgiveness centered on His death and resurrection in His very first resurrection appearance to His ten disciples! Chafer affirms: “On the first day of the week [Jesus] commanded the disciples to preach the new message to all the world.”<sup>49</sup><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
A Resurrection Belief<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Eight days later, Jesus miraculously appeared a second time to His disciples; this time Thomas was present (Jn. 20:26). But this doubting disciple still didn’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Jn. 20:24-25). Jesus graciously encouraged Thomas to believe in the reality of His resurrection by saying, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (Jn. 20:27). Keep in mind that Thomas already believed in the Jesus who turned water into wine and did many wonderful works, <i>but Thomas didn’t believe in the “Lamb standing, as if slain” </i>(cf. Rev. 5:6)! He didn’t believe in Jesus risen from the dead! But after being confronted with such irrefutable evidence, Thomas needed no further urging. John 20:28 states: “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” Thomas’ response of belief is the climax of John’s narrative. Concerning this, Ryrie says: “This marks the climax of John’s gospel.”<sup>50</sup><br /><br />
The doubting disciple’s encounter with Jesus in John 20:26-29 conveys an elementary yet essential truth: As a result of Jesus’ resurrection, believing in Him now involves believing that He did, in fact, rise from the dead! According to Jesus, one must believe in the Man described in John 20:26-29! For those already possessing eternal life prior to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, such belief was an essential part of sanctification, as in the case of Thomas (cf. Jn. 13:10- 11, 20:24-28). For those coming to eternal life after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, such belief is an essential part of justification (cf. Jn. 20:23, 30-31).<br /><br />
In His encounter with Thomas, Jesus gave a special blessing to those who believe in Him apart from the physical reality of His resurrected presence. Notice the beatitude Jesus declared to Thomas in the Scripture text immediately preceding John 20:30-31: “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? <i>Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed”</i> (Jn. 20:29, italics added). Commenting on John 20:29, Definbaugh writes, “It is not too hard to see what John is leading up to. John is writing this Gospel for those who have never seen the risen Lord.”<sup>51</sup> Similarly, Edwin A. Blum, writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<b>Jesus</b> then pronounced a blessing on all who would come to faith without the help of a visible, bodily manifestation to them (John 20:29; cf. 1 Peter 1:8). This blessing comes to all who believe on the basis of the proclaimed gospel and the evidences for its validity. Believers living today are not deprived by not seeing Him physically; instead, they are the recipients of His special blessing: <b>Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.</b><sup>52</sup><br /></div><br />
In John 20:30-31, John declares to his readers that the resurrection belief he has been describing is required for eternal life. In other words, in these two key verses the apostle explains that the resurrection signs of Jesus in the presence of the disciples have been written in order that his church-age readers “may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing . . . may have life in His name.”<br /><br />
In John 21:1-14, John goes on to describe a third and final resurrection sign of Jesus in the presence of His disciples. By including this third resurrection sign in his narrative, John encourages belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus by highlighting His divine attributes and portraying Him involved in a very human activity, that of eating breakfast.<br /><br />
At this point it needs to be emphasized that believing in Jesus’ resurrection is different than believing Jesus will resurrect all believers! This distinction is important because some draw a connection between John 11:25-27 and John 20:30-31 based on the common phrase “the Christ, the Son of God” and argue that the contents of “saving faith” haven’t changed from the time Christ walked the earth before the cross in John 11:25-27 to the present day after the cross in John 20:30-31.<sup>53</sup> While it is true that there are similarities between John 11:25-27 and John 20:30-31 (both passages contain the phrase “the Christ, the Son of God”, deal with the subject of resurrection, and evidence Christ’s power over death), one must realize that the two passages deal with different resurrections! John 11:25-27 occurs in a context that involves <i>the resurrection of Lazarus</i>, while John 20:30-31 occurs in a context that involves <i>the resurrection of the Lamb</i>. John 11:25-27 speaks <i>generally of the resurrection of the saved</i>, John 20:30-31 speaks <i>specifically of the resurrection of the Savior</i>. Interestingly, John Niemelä admits this. Concerning John 11:25-27, he writes: “[Jesus] will resurrect all who believe in Him, even though they may die physically. . . . Martha knows that now deceased saints will be in the Messiah’s kingdom, so obviously the Messiah will resurrect them and give them eternal life”.<sup>54</sup> However, it must be stressed that the resurrection of “<i>saints</i>” described in John chapter 11 is different from the resurrection of <i>the Savior</i> described in John chapters 20-21! While John chapter 11 does not affirm Jesus’ <i>own</i> death and resurrection, John chapters 20-21 not only affirms these, but emphasizes them as well!<br /><br />
The death and resurrection of Jesus are of central importance to the One who makes “all things new” (Rev. 21:5). These key events clearly add a new dimension to the belief John encourages in his narrative. Tenney aptly comments, <i>“Jesus’ postresurrection presence brought a new dimension to belief”</i> (italics added).<sup>55</sup> In speaking of the resurrection appearances of Jesus to His disciples as the basis of Christian faith, Halley avows: “What a Halo of Glory this simple belief sheds on human life. Our hope of resurrection and life everlasting is based, not on a philosophical guess about immortality, but an historic fact.”<sup>56</sup><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
A Resurrection Perspective<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
If the death and resurrection of Jesus naturally ushered in an original order of things, a modified message of eternal salvation yet still by grace through faith, and a different dimension of belief, why does John write so much of Jesus’ pre-resurrection miracles and ministry? Doesn’t this confuse the issue if John’s readers are ultimately to believe the <i>resurrection</i> signs and the <i>resurrected</i> Jesus? In answer to these questions it is helpful to understand the central theme and perspective of John’s narrative. The central theme, of course, is belief. Tenney notes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
the central theme [is] “belief”. The varied episodes and teachings of the Gospel are all subordinate to the definition and development of this concept. . . .The word “believe” (<i>pisteuo</i>) appears ninety-eight times in the Gospel, more often than any other key word, and is obviously the major theme. All the signs, teachings, and events in the Gospel are used to stimulate faith in Christ.<sup>57</sup><br /></div><br />
The apostle John included the initial, pre-resurrection works and wonders of Jesus in his narrative because they support his overall theme of belief. “Clearly, to promote authentic believing in the living Lord is the reason why John wrote this gospel.”<sup>58</sup><br /><br />
Furthermore, John’s narrative is written with a resurrection perspective. His Gospel is correctly understood in light of the resurrection of Jesus. Borchert writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
While there are certainly many obvious themes in this gospel that could be studied profitably, such as: seeing, believing, knowing, signs, light, darkness, life, etc.; let me turn your attention to what may be for you a less obvious theme: the resurrection perspective in John. . . . in the Gospel of John the resurrection is an organizing theme . . . . the entire Gospel is built upon the foundation of the resurrection hope. It is the resurrection perspective that gives the focus to the evolving story of the rejection of Jesus. . . . Throughout the Gospel this resurrection theme is woven into the very core of the Johannine symphony.<sup>59</sup><br /></div><br />
Similarly, the comments of Merrill C. Tenney are appropriate in highlighting the resurrection perspective of John’s narrative. Tenney writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
[John’s] comment [in John 2:22] indicates that from the first of his ministry Jesus had the end of it in view. One can hardly escape the conviction that the fourth Gospel depicts the career of Jesus as a voluntary progress toward a predetermined goal. The allusions to the destruction of the temple of his body (2:22), to the elevation on a cross (3:14; 12:32-33), to the giving of his flesh for the life of the world (6:51), to his burial (12:7), and the announcement of his betrayal and death to his disciples (13:19, 21) attest to his consciousness of the fate that awaited him in Jerusalem. Though the disciples did not comprehend the situation of Jesus’ career, the Resurrection placed the memory of his saying in a new perspective. The author’s note [in John 2:22] illustrates the principle that the Gospel presents the life of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and of the apostolic experience based on the results of that event.<sup>60</sup><br /></div><br />
In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Edwin A. Blum says: “The focus of the Gospels is the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The Gospels have been called ‘Passion narratives with extended introductions.’”<sup>61</sup> Instead of “blur[ring] the necessary focus on the Person of Christ as the object of faith”<sup>62</sup>, the death and resurrection of Jesus <i>bring Him into focus!</i><br /><br />
The reader must understand that the Gospel of John is an unfolding narrative or “evolving story”<sup>63</sup> that “depicts the career of Jesus as a voluntary progress toward a predetermined goal”<sup>64</sup> and “presents the life of Jesus in the light of the Resurrection and of the apostolic experience based on the results of that event.”<sup>65</sup> In this context, the pre-resurrection works and wonders of Jesus are seen to support John’s central theme of belief and the resurrection perspective of his narrative.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Conclusion</b><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Toward the close of his Gospel narrative, the apostle John specifically describes three resurrection appearances of Jesus to various groups of His disciples. These three unique sign appearances furnish the final and compelling proof of Jesus’ greatest sign, His death and resurrection. The three resurrection signs of the Savior are seen to involve not only Jesus’ substitutionary blood death for the sins of the world, but also His subsequent bodily resurrection on the third day. These key facts are inherent in the three resurrection signs of the Savior! In John 20:30-31 the beloved disciple cites these three resurrection signs of the Savior as <i>the rationale and reason</i> his church-age readers should believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing they may have life in His name. If John’s readers indeed believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God <i>as a result of</i> the three resurrection signs of the Savior, they obviously believe the three resurrection signs of the Savior! Thus, in John’s mind, there is no dichotomy or bifurcation between the person of Jesus and His crucifixion-resurrection work! In this regard, Gregory Sapaugh says that “[Hodges] has artificially bifurcated the person and work of Christ. For sure, I believe that salvation is through faith alone in Christ alone. But my faith is in the Christ who died in my place, paying the penalty for my sin.”<sup>66</sup> The fact is, if someone disbelieves the three resurrection signs of the Savior, they will disbelieve the substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus, and they will disbelieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!<sup>67</sup> Josh McDowell writes:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
<i>John Locke</i>, the famous British philosopher, said concerning Christ’s resurrection: “Our Saviour’s resurrection. . . is truly of great importance in Christianity; so great that His being or not being the Messiah stands or falls with it: so that these two important articles are inseparable and in effect make one. For since that time, believe one and you believe both; deny one of them, and you can believe neither.”<sup>68</sup><br /></div><br />
Tenney seems to convey this idea when he writes, “the <i>signs</i> are the basis of belief; the<i> person of Christ</i> is the object of faith, and eternal life is the result of belief.”<sup>69</sup> By making this connection between the resurrection signs and the Savior, John makes it clear that his church-age readers need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who declared He will forgive anyone’s sins because of His death and resurrection (Jn. 20:19-23)! They need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who stood before Thomas with nail scarred hands and pierced side and said, “Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing” (Jn. 20:27)! They need to believe in the now resurrected Jesus who appeared to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias and once again demonstrated the reality of His resurrection from the dead (Jn. 21:1, 14)! McDowell writes: “<i>Michael Green</i> makes the point well: ‘Christianity does not hold the resurrection to be one among many tenets of belief. Without faith in the resurrection <i>there would be no Christianity at all.</i>’”<sup>70</sup><br /><br />
Wilbur Smith asserts:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
Christ Himself frequently predicted He would rise – even telling them on what day such a supernatural event would occur. When it did occur, He showed Himself to His disciples, bidding them to touch His hands and His side, to see that it was really and truly the crucified Lord, raised again from the dead. . . . Do not let any man tell you that this is a “myth‟ which attaches itself to the rest of the doctrine of the Christian Church, <b>or do not even let one say, “Well you may believe it if you can.”</b> No one says that about Waterloo. As the great Calvinist, Dr. Warfield, once said: “The resurrection of Christ is a fact, an external occurrence within the cognizance of man to be established by its testimony and yet, it is the cardinal doctrine of our system, on it all other doctrines hang.”<sup>71</sup><br /></div><br />
Charlie Bing declares:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
[W]e must <i>give people something to believe</i>. Since it is the object of faith that saves, <b>there must be meaningful content about that object</b>, which is Jesus Christ Himself. We should present Jesus as the Son of God who died for our sins (1:29) and rose again. Content-less emotional appeals are not enough. <b>It will do no good to call people to believe in something empty or erroneous.</b><sup>72</sup><br /></div><br />
In this regard, <i>even John Niemelä affirms</i>,<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">
The present author categorically rejects the idea that John minimizes the cross. <b>A paraphrase of John’s salvific message indicates this: I am to believe that</b> <i>– through His cross and resurrection – Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gives me eternal life and resurrection, removing the death sentence that I deserve as a sinner.</i><sup>73</sup><br /></div><br />
According to the three resurrection signs of the Savior cited in John 20:30-31, there must be a knowledge of the Johannine concepts of Jesus’ substitutionary blood death and subsequent bodily resurrection and a belief in them. Otherwise, John’s church-age readers might believe that someone is the Christ, the Son of God, but it wouldn’t be the Biblical, Johannine, resurrected Jesus that the apostle John climactically sets forth in his Gospel narrative!</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /><i>Soli Deo Gloria!</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(Psalm 115:1)<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b><br /><br />
<sup>1</sup> Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 13 (Autumn 2000). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>2</sup> Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation to Respond,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 14 (Spring 2001). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>3</sup> All Scriptures taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>4</sup> Josh McDowell, <i>Evidence That Demands A Verdict</i> (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1979), 182.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>5</sup> It is therefore especially odd when other scholars never even mention this sign when listing the signs in John’s Gospel! For example, see Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i> (Colorado Springs: Victor, 2004), 269; Mark Bailey and Tom Constable, <i>Nelson’s New Testament Survey </i>(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999), 155-156; Robert G. Gromacki, <i>New Testament Survey</i> (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 134; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, <i>The Ryrie Study Bible</i>, <i>Expanded Edition</i>, New American Standard translation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 1678. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>6</sup> Thomas Arnold, <i>Sermons on Christian Life </i>(London: 1854), 324, italics added. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>7</sup> Wilbur M. Smith, “The Need for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Battle for the Christian Faith: Part 2,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> 100 (October 1943): 541. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>8</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, “Literary Keys to the Fourth Gospel, Part 1: The Symphonic Structure of John,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> 120 (April 1963): 121. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>9</sup> John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 16 (Spring 03): 22-23. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>10</sup> Ibid., 20-23.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>11</sup> Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org), affirms what the Biblical text indicates: “It would appear that this was our Lord’s first appearance to the disciples after His resurrection.” Also see Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 6 Vols. (Philadelphia: Towar & Hogan, 1828), 5:942, “In these verses, we have an account of his first appearance to the college of the disciples, on the day on which he rose.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>12</sup> Cf. Mk. 10:35; Lk. 5:10. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>13</sup> Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 5:950, seems to indicate that this was the prevailing opinion of his day. He writes, “The two not named, are supposed to be Philip of Bethsaida, and Andrew of Capernaum.” </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>14</sup> Jesus did not <i>need</i> to eat food because He possessed a glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13, Rev. 7:16). Yet in John 21, Jesus ate food to demonstrate to the disciples that His resurrected body was real “flesh and bones” (cf. Lk. 24:36- 43). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>15</sup> B. C. Birch, <i>The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia</i>, 4 Vols. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 3:558. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>16</sup> Ibid.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>17</sup> It is interesting to note that in John 2:19a Jesus <i>doesn’t </i>say, “<i>If </i>you destroy this temple”. Instead, He prophesied that the Jews <i>actually would</i> destroy the temple of His body. Similarly, in John 2:19b, Jesus <i>doesn’t </i>say, “in three days I will rebuild it.” Instead, He says, “in three days I will raise it up.” This is a reference to His bodily resurrection. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>18</sup> See Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 12 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:45; Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 1988): 503. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>19</sup> These key truths are consistent with the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, 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, then to the twelve.” </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>20</sup> Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>21</sup> C. I. Scofield, <i>The Scofield Study Bible</i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1114. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>22</sup> Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i>, 268. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>23</sup> J. Vernon McGee, <i>Thru The Bible</i>, 6 Vols. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 4:362. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>24</sup> See Charles Caldwell Ryrie, <i>The Ryrie Study Bible</i>, <i>Expanded Edition</i>, New American Standard translation, 1675.; Earl D. Radmacher, Gen. Ed., The Nelson Study Bible, New King James translation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 1754. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>25</sup> Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 13 (Autumn 2000): 6. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>26</sup> See Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:185; Everett F. Harrison, <i>The Wycliffe Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel According to John</i> (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), 1118; Leon Morris, <i>The NIV Study Bible</i>, <i>John</i> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 1669. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>27</sup> While John 19:34-35 involves the death of Jesus, John 20:30-31 goes further and involves not only the death of Jesus, but also His resurrection from the dead by way of the three resurrection signs of the Savior! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>28</sup> Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 5:933. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>29</sup> Alva J. McClain, <i>The Greatness of the Kingdom</i> (Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1983), 390-391.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>30</sup> Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 5:948.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>31</sup> Thomas Scott, <i>Scott’s Bible</i>, 6 Vols. (Boston: Samuel T. Armstrong, and Crocker and Brewster, 1830), 5:596. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>32</sup> Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society </i>13 (Autumn 2000): 7-8. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>33</sup> This relates to the doctrine of progressive revelation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>34</sup> Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 1988): 502. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>35</sup> W. H. Griffith Thomas, “The Plan of the Fourth Gospel, Part II,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> 125 (October 1968): 318.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>36</sup> Charles Caldwell Ryrie, <i>The Ryrie Study Bible</i>, <i>Expanded Edition</i>, New American Standard translation, 1721. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>37</sup> F. W. Grant, <i>The Numerical Bible</i>, <i>The Gospels </i>(New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1904), 615. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>38</sup> Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 1988): 509.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>39</sup> William MacDonald, <i>Believer’s Bible Commentary</i> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1567. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>40</sup> Everett F. Harrison, <i>The Wycliffe Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel According to John</i>, 1119.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>41</sup> Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i>, 342-343, bold added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>42</sup> Lewis Sperry Chafer, <i>Grace </i>(Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1995), 202. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>43</sup> Henry H. Halley, <i>Halley’s Bible Handbook</i> (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), 556.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>44</sup> Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 88): 503.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>45</sup> The apostle John clearly indicates that the death of Jesus was a substitutionary death. Besides John 20:19-23, see John 1:29, 1:35-36, 3:10-17, 6:47-54, 10:7-18, 11:47-53, and 18:14. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>46</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:193.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>47</sup> Everett F. Harrison, <i>The Wycliffe Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel According to John</i>, 1120. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>48</sup> Also notice the many references to the deity of Jesus in the context: His miraculous appearance (Jn. 20:19), His resurrection from the dead (Jn. 20:20, cf. Rom. 1:4), His calling God His Father (Jn. 20:21, cf. Jn. 5:17-18), His equality with God (“[A]s the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”), His giving of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22, cf. Jn. 16:5-15), and His forgiving of sins (Jn. 20:23, cf. Lk. 5:20-21). In his narrative, the apostle John makes it clear that belief in the deity of Jesus is essential for eternal salvation (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Matthew Henry, <i>Henry’s Exposition</i>, 5:948, affirms: “We must believe his deity – that he is God; not a man made God, but God made man, as this evangelist had laid down his thesis at first, ch. 1. 1.” </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>49</sup> Lewis Sperry Chafer, <i>Systematic Theology</i>, 8 Vols. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 4:118; Cf. Lewis Sperry Chafer, <i>Grace</i>, 203.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>50</sup> Charles C. Ryrie,<i> Ryrie Study Bible</i>, <i>Expanded Edition</i>, 1722.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>51</sup> Bob Definbaugh, “That You Might Believe: A Study of the Gospel of John” (bible.org).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>52</sup> Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i>, 344, bold his.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>53</sup> See John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 16 (Spring 2003): 23-25. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>54</sup> Ibid., 24.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>55</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:14. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>56</sup> Henry H. Halley, <i>Halley’s Bible Handbook</i>, 557.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>57</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:12.; Also see Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i>, 270. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>58</sup> Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 1988): 510. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>59</sup> Ibid., 501-503.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>60</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:45. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>61</sup> Edwin A. Blum, <i>The Bible Knowledge Commentary</i>, <i>John</i>, 269.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>62</sup> Zane C. Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation To Respond,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society </i>14 (Spring 2001): 12.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>63</sup> Gerald L. Borchert, “The Resurrection Perspective in John: An Evangelical Summons,” <i>Review and Expositor</i> 85 (Summer 88): 502. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>64</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, <i>The Expositor’s Bible Commentary</i>, <i>The Gospel of John</i>, 9:45. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>65</sup> Ibid. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>66</sup> Gregory P. Sapaugh, “A Response to Hodges: How to Lead a Person to Christ, Parts 1 and 2,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 14 (August 2001): 29. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>67</sup> My sincere thanks to Liam Moran for helping to clarify these issues. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>68</sup> Josh McDowell, <i>Evidence That Demands A Verdict</i>, 183. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> <br />
<sup>69</sup> Merrill C. Tenney, “Literary Keys to the Fourth Gospel, Part 1: The Symphonic Structure of John,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> 120 (April 1963): 125. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>70</sup> Josh McDowell, <i>Evidence That Demands A Verdict</i>, 182. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>71</sup> Wilbur M. Smith, “The Need for a Vigorous Apologetic in the Present Battle for the Christian Faith: Part 2,” <i>Bibliotheca Sacra</i> 100 (October 1943): 539-540, bold added. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>72</sup> Charlie Bing, “The Condition For Salvation In John’s Gospel,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 9 (Spring 1996): 34, bold added. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<sup>73</sup> John Niemelä, “The Cross in John’s Gospel,” <i>Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society</i> 16 (Spring 2003): 18-19, bold added. Also see Ibid., 28, where Niemelä writes, “<b>My paraphrase of John’s message to the unbeliever follows: I am to believe that</b> – through His cross and resurrection – Jesus Christ, God’s Son, gives me eternal life and resurrection, removing the death sentence that I deserve as a sinner” (bold added). The aforementioned quotes appear to evidence an inconsistency in Niemelä’s position because on another occasion he writes, “How Does the Cross Relate to the Message for the Unbeliever? The bottom line is to believe that Jesus grants eternal life to everyone who simply believes Him for that gift” (Ibid., 27). By his own admission, John Niemelä’s “bottom line” is <i>noticeably different</i> than John the apostle’s bottom line!
<br /></div>
</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835945093677920077.post-65731642186081371962023-11-23T12:49:00.030-05:002024-01-09T06:38:37.170-05:00Zane Hodges vs. Paul on the Gospel<div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVTSRaCVc88c3RvIEZ1Sl7xaK3wXQqzwIqzkNKGIVmTaGF1byVV1_D17ZIYTo0mJMYbjpwPM0Al2pgUbM9qYrgLzcPhsesvZXw4UpjdqWK7LKGdBi3D1WfMiM07SReMpVs8wfdqLs0g1RbG8FwQgTa9KLxBkSGwUWsjlSWgUCAg0RUDr-citRIJ6pEIa0/s600/gospel-change.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVTSRaCVc88c3RvIEZ1Sl7xaK3wXQqzwIqzkNKGIVmTaGF1byVV1_D17ZIYTo0mJMYbjpwPM0Al2pgUbM9qYrgLzcPhsesvZXw4UpjdqWK7LKGdBi3D1WfMiM07SReMpVs8wfdqLs0g1RbG8FwQgTa9KLxBkSGwUWsjlSWgUCAg0RUDr-citRIJ6pEIa0/w200-h200/gospel-change.jpg" width="200" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Gospel According to Paul </b></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">“According to Paul’s own statement, when he came to Corinth to preach, he was ‘determined not to know anything among [them] except Jesus Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor 2:2). Later in the epistle, <i>Paul describes his gospel as one that declared ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures’</i> (15:3).”[1] </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Gospel According to Hodges </b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">“You see, as we noted previously, <i>the facts surrounding the gospel
message – such as the death and resurrection of Christ</i> – are important
facts for what they tell us about the reasons for trusting Christ. But
believing these facts doesn’t save anyone. People are only saved when
they believe that Jesus gives them eternal life the moment they believe
in Him for that.”[2]</div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Can Two Walk Together Without Agreeing?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is a Bible verse in the Old Testament where the question is asked, <i>“Can two walk together without agreeing...?” </i>(Amos 3:3). My point is simply this: the apostle Paul clearly <i>includes</i> Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection in the gospel (Hodges even admits this!), but Hodges <i>excludes</i> them. The apostle Paul only preached one gospel (i.e. the biblical gospel, Gal. 1:6-9) which is therefore true, which means that Hodges’ gospel is “another gospel” and is therefore false. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so while Zane Hodges might not have changed <i>his view</i> on the gospel, he did change the gospel![3]<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>References:</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[1] Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message,” <i>Journal of the Grace
Evangelical Society</i> 13 (Autumn 2000), p. 10, italics added.
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[2] Zane Hodges, “How to Lead People to Christ, Part 2: Our Invitation to Respond,” <i>Journal of the Grace
Evangelical Society</i> 14 (Spring 2001), p. 11, italics added.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[3] I believe that Hodges did change his view on the gospel, but my point here is that whether he did or didn’t change his view, either way his “promise-only gospel” is a distortion of Paul’s gospel, i.e. the biblical gospel. Thus Hodges’ new mini-gospel falls under the curse of God (see Gal. 1:6-9).</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2