"According To The Scriptures"

Little Jetts Teach the Lesson 

By Wade C. Smith

According To The Scriptures

Excerpted from The Sunday School Times (March 28, 1925), p. 210. Cf. Wade C. Smith, The Little Jetts New Testament (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1944), p. 195. 

Paul's Command to "Name Names": Unloving or Unpopular?

If you’ve been around the Christian community for any length of time, you have no doubt heard it said that we shouldn't “name names” because that would be unloving and divisive. People who say we shouldn’t “name names” probably have good intentions. (But as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”!) They don't want to rock the boat or stir up the pot. You may have even heard them quote Bible verses, such as when the apostle Paul says to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3, KJV). Notice though, that Paul specifically qualifies it by saying “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (KJV). In other words, Paul isn't saying to preserve unity at all costs (at the expense of, for example, standing for the truth, cf. 3 Jn 3:4). But rather, Paul qualifies it by saying, in effect, “if at all possible” or in other words: “endeavor to preserve” (KJV), “try your best” (CEV), “make it your aim” (J. B. Phillips), “with eager earnestness to maintain the unity” (Williams translation). And so yes, of course that is what we strive for and endeavor to do. And yet we see that Paul himself “named names”! Paul himself specifically called out by name false teachers in the church. Paul himself (the writer who penned Ephesians 4:3) “named names,” and so obviously there is a biblical precedent and example to call out false teachers by name. And as I explained, we are to do everything possible to “endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3; cf. Rom. 12:18). But when wolves come in among the flock (Matt. 7:16; Acts 20:26-30) or in other words, when false teachers come into the congregation and start preaching a false gospel or when they introduce destructive heresies and begin to lead God's children astray, then we need to call them out by name (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 1 Cor. 11:1, etc.). And that is completely biblical! In fact, not to do so would actually be disobedience to the Lord! In other words, not to call out false teachers by name, would make someone, as Paul says, “a man-pleaser, not a God-pleaser” (see Galatians 1:10). Jay Adams has well said: “In some circles, the fear of controversy is so great that preachers, and congregations following after them, will settle for peace at any cost—even at the cost of truth, God’s truth. The idea is that peace is all-important. Peace is a biblical ideal (Rom. 12:18 makes that clear: 'If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with everybody.') but so is purity. The peace of the church may never be bought at the cost of the purity of the church. That price is too dear.”[1]

Where is the command in the New Testament to call out false teachers by name? We have examples of it in the Bible, but where is it ever commanded? First of all, we have a clear command from the lips of Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 11:1, when he tells us (specifically he tells this to the church in Corinth, and by extension to all Christians) to “follow my example, even as I follow Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). And what example has Paul given to us in the New Testament? Did Paul “name names”? Did the apostle Paul call out false teachers by name? He most certainly did! And not just on one or two occasions, but actually repeatedly in his epistles! For example, in 1 Timothy 1:19-20 the apostle Paul says this: “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some [and who might they be?] having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymanas and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan [!] that they may learn not to blaspheme.” And so here we see the apostle Paul is not just leaving it vague when he says “some have put away faith” (or the faith, i.e. the Christian faith), but he actually specifies who those people are by name, namely Hymanas and Alexander. Paul makes a similar statement in terms of naming names, or in other words, we find another example of Paul doing that very thing in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, when he says: “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” So here again we see the apostle Paul naming two false teachers by name! And who would accuse the apostle Paul of being unloving or unbiblical? Obviously he’s not being unloving or unbiblical. Rather, he’s speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; this should be obvious (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). But someone may say, “Well, he was the apostle Paul. We are not apostles. We don’t have that authority.” Au contraire! (Au contraire! means “On the contrary!”) If someone makes that objection or one to that effect, point them to 1 Corinthians 11:1 where the apostle Paul commands the Corinthian Christians (and by extension all Christians) to follow his example as he follows Christ! Again, notice what Paul says: “Be ye [this is a command!] followers of me even as I also am of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:1, KJV). Notice here that not only does Paul command us to follow his example, but he points us back to Christ’s example! Paul is saying, in effect, “I'm following Christ's example!” 

Did Christ "name names"? And if so, where? Where exactly did Christ “name names”? In answer to this, there is perhaps no better statement than the one by Dr. Walter Martin, the author of the classic book Kingdom of the Cults. Notice what he says, first in regards to the apostle Paul, and then in regards to Christ. Walter Martin correctly states: “We don’t wish to do this [name names] because we don’t want to offend people. You can’t use names [people say]. Since when? ‘Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the truth. They teach the resurrection is past. They overturn the faith of the church.’ [2 Tim. 2:17-18.] Didn’t Paul say that? ‘Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much harm. May the Lord reward him according to his works.’ [2 Tim. 4:14.]” So Walter Martin draws attention to the fact that although some people tell us we are not to “name names,” the apostle Paul named names: “Hymenaeus and Philetus” and “Alexander the coppersmith”! And notice that Paul doesn’t merely say “Alexander,” but he says specifically “Alexander the coppersmith”. Paul is really nailing it down and being specific! Paul wants there to be no confusion about who he's referring to.[2] But where did Jesus call out false teachers by name? Besides the fact that Jesus is the author of the entire Bible (in fact, Jesus is Himself “the Word,” Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13), and therefore any place in the Word of God that is an example of calling out false teachers by name can be understood as from the lips of God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16), did not the Lord Jesus say to the Apostle Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan [!], for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but mans” (Matt 16:23; Mk 8:33). And so this is one example of Jesus calling out a false teacher (one of his own disciples no less!) by name. This no doubt brings to mind the name of another disciple whom Jesus specifically identified, not so much as a false teacher but as the one who would betray Him, namely Judas Iscariot (see Matt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk. 22:21-22; Jn 13:26-27). Another example is when the Pharisees told Jesus that Herod wanted to kill Him, and Jesus responded by saying, "Go ye, and tell THAT FOX, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected [i.e. reach My goal]" (Luke 13:32). And what did Jesus say to the Pharisees, or at least about the Pharisees? Notice what Walter Martin says: “When our Lord was questioned by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, by the Herodians, by the people who were constantly trying to entrap Him – Jesus did not turn around and say, ‘God loves you. The Lord bless you. Depart in peace. Everything’s going to be alright. Remember, love one another.’ And then preach [to] them the Sermon on the Mount. You will not find that theology in the New Testament. Jesus spent the time to answer their questions. And He spent the time to reprove and rebuke what they said, because they were distorting the truth of God. Some of the most scathing words ever found on this planet were uttered by the Man who said, ‘Permit the little children to come to Me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.’ And the world is always ready to have the Jesus with the Roman nose, the light beard, the long hair, the Nordic features, and the milk-sop theology. It will always welcome this Jesus, but it will never stand for the Jesus who said, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting flames, prepared for the devil and his angels since the foundation of the age.’”[3] Dr. Martin is making the point that some people tell us we should just be loving and we should just preach (or praise) Jesus. These types of people don’t want to offend anyone; they are men-pleasers, not God-pleasers (cf. 1 Sam 15:30; Gal. 1:10). They want to tickle people's ears, as the apostle Paul put it (2 Tim 4:3-4). They say, “Let's all get together and stay positive.” And Dr. Martin says that you will not find that teaching in the New Testament. Instead, what you find is that the apostles spoke in defense of the Christian faith, and they called out false teaching and the false teachers; and in so doing they were following the example of Jesus! In other words, when one of God's servants calls out a false teacher by name, they're not being unloving; they are doing exactly what Jesus did. And we are to be imitators of Him and follow His example, for the Bible says, "Be imitators of God" (Eph. 5:1). 

And so, getting back to what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:1, he tells us to follow his example as he follows Christ. Thus, “naming names” is completely biblical because it's what both Jesus and the apostle Paul did, as I’ve noted. But there's actually several more instances in the New Testament of the apostle Paul calling out false teachers by name, and this is interesting. Because the apostle Paul actually called out another apostle by name and identified him as a false teacher! Can you believe that? What am I referring to? If you take a look at Galatians 2:11-14, what you will find is that the apostle Paul called out the apostle Peter by name, to his face, and said in effect: “You are not being true to the gospel of grace!” This is what Paul says in Gal 2:11-14, “but when Peter was come to Antioch,” this is Peter the apostle that Paul is talking about, “but when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed. For before that certain ones came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled [separated themselves] likewise with him, in so much that Barnabas also was carried away in their dissimulation [i.e. in their hypocrisy]. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘if thou being a Jew livest after the manner of gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’” (Gal. 2:11-14). And so here, amazingly, the apostle Paul is essentially calling the apostle Peter a false teacher, or at least labeling him a hypocrite and not true to the gospel. Paul says to Peter that he is not being true to the gospel of grace but instead is practicing hypocrisy. So much so, in fact, that even Barnabas was led astray! And so Paul names Peter by name, and he names Barnabas by name (although Barnabas was not, in this case, necessarily a false teacher, but he was led astray). But my point is that here Paul once again “names names”! And so this is completely biblical. It is not inherently unkind. It is not inherently unloving. But it is inherently unpopular. In regards to it being unpopular, notice what Paul says about popularity in the same epistle. In the first chapter of Galatians, he writes this in Galatians 1:10 (after writing about the fact that some are preaching a false gospel), Paul says: “For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10, KJV). And so yes, following Paul's example will be unpopular. Following Christ's example will be unpopular. Are you willing to be unpopular for the Lord? Are you willing “to go outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13). That is, “bearing the disgrace He bore” (Heb. 13:13, NIV). Or do you rather seek to be a man-pleaser? Let's seek, as the apostle Paul did, to be God-pleasers! 

Some people say that naming names is divisive, but that's actually not correct, at least according to the Bible. That’s just an excuse some people use in an attempt to justify their disobedience to the Lord, in that they're unwilling to call out false teachers by name. Because what we find in the Bible, in Romans 16:17 to be specific, is that it’s not those who call out false teachers by name who are the divisive ones, but actually it’s the false teachers who are being divisive! Paul makes this clear in Romans 16:17. And here again this is a command, or at least a plea of the apostle Paul; he says in verse 17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who caused divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we have learned; and avoid them.” And so Paul is making it clear that any divisiveness (in regards to the “divisions and offenses,” to use Paul’s words), is to be blamed on the false teachers (cf. Gal. 2:11), not on those who call them out! 

Are there any other New Testament examples of Christians calling out false teachers by name? Actually yes, there are! There are several other examples besides that of the apostle Paul. Of course, Paul's example and his command to follow his example should be sufficient in terms of any justification that we need for “naming names” in the church today, but in addition to Paul there are other examples. Actually the apostle Peter, in 2 Peter, says this in 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily [secretly] shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1, KJV). And the apostle Peter goes on to talk about these false teachers. Now my point is not to say that these false teachers are necessarily saved. That's another discussion, whether they are saved or not. Quite frankly, if they were not saved they nonetheless had an opportunity to be, because Peter says that they were even denying “the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1). In other words, Christ shed His blood to save them, and therefore they had the opportunity to be saved. As D. L. Moody has said, “The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’ and the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wonts’.” And so if these false teachers were unsaved, it's not because they could not come but because they would not come (cf. Jn 5:40, 6:40). As Dr. Scudder often used to say, “There is no blood clot at the cross!” And as the hymn-writer put it, “There’s room at the cross for thee.” But that's not my point here. Rather, my point is to show that here again, we have an example of false teachers being called out by name. But someone might say, “But they're not called out by name in verse 1.” Quite right, but keep reading. Because in vv. 15-16 notice what Peter says. And by the way, this is the same context as v. 1; he's still talking about false teachers. And what does he say? He says this in verse 15, “Which have forsaken the right way and are gone astray following the way of….” who? “Balaam”! And not just any “Balaam,” but specifically “Balaam the son of Boser” (2 Pet. 2:15). This of course is a reference to the Old Testament “Balaam” who was rebuked by a donkey of all things, “a dumb ass” as the King James Version has it. And this account is found in the Old Testament book of Numbers, chapters 22-24, and Numbers 31:16. And so this example in 2 Peter chapter 2 is another New Testament example of a false teacher being called out by name. 

What are some other examples? Are there any other examples in the New Testament of false teachers being called out by name? Yes, indeed! Turn in your Bible to 3 John 1, and we see another example. Here we find another example of a false teacher being called out by name. And in this case it's the apostle John who is calling out the false teacher by name. And what does he say? Look in chapter 1 verses 9 and 10. The apostle John says: “I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes….” Let me stop right there for a moment and ask: does the apostle John, the apostle of love, name names? He obviously and most certainly does! Here John calls out a church leader named “Diotrephes” by name. John writes: “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating [speaking] against us with malicious words and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbideth them that would, and casteth them out of the church” (3 Jn. 1:9-10). And so here we find the apostle John, the apostle of love, naming names. He's calling out a false teacher by name; showing once again and very clearly, that it is not inherently unloving or unkind to name names! 

We find another example in Revelation chapter 2. And for those of us who believe that the apostle John penned The Book of Revelation, this is another example of “the apostle of love” calling out a false teacher by name. But regardless, even if it was not the apostle John who wrote it, obviously the Book of Revelation is inspired Scripture and has meaning and application for us today. This is especially true in light of the fact that the text I'm going to quote is specifically written to the “churches” (Rev. 1:11), specifically to the seven churches in Asia Minor and by extension to us today as well. Let’s take a look at Revelation 2:20. Here the apostle John is specifically addressing the church in Thyatira, and notice what be says: “Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest [you allow or put up with] that woman Jezebel….” Wait a minute, who? A woman named “Jezebel”! So here again the apostle John, the apostle of love, is calling out a false teacher by name; and in this case a woman named “Jezebel”. And notice here that the false teacher is a woman! Some Christians might say, “Oh, don't ever rebuke a woman. That would be especially unkind and especially unloving.” Really? Look at the text! Here “the apostle of love” is specifically calling out a woman by name! And John says: “I have a few things against you, church, because you're allowing, you're putting up with, this woman named Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20). Unfortunately many churches today are like the church in Thyatira, in that they won't speak out against false teachers in the congregation. Their excuse is that they don't want to be seen as unloving or "divisive," but in so doing they are being men-pleasers, not God-pleasers (Gal. 1:10). In effect, they are silently "tolerating that woman Jezebel" (Rev. 2:20). This should not be. Related to this woman's name, I can anticipate someone saying: “Well Jezebel is not her real name, it’s just a title connecting her to the Jezebel in the Old Testament. So John doesn't really name the actual woman.” But in response to this, several things should be noted. First of all, I’d say "You don't know that, so that's an argument from silence." And secondly, even if that's true, her real name could still be Jezebel! In other words, the reference to “Jezebel” in Rev 2:20 could be a reference to both the Jezebel in the Old Testament and to a woman named Jezebel in the church in Thyatira; her actual name could still be Jezebel. So both could be true. The one does not preclude the other; they're not mutually exclusive. So even if that were the case, it still doesn't disprove my point that the apostle John is calling out this woman by name. And even if "Jezebel" isn't the real name of the woman in the New Testament, it's the real name of the woman in the Old Testament! So it still proves my point that the apostle John is calling out a false teacher by name. Whether it's the Jezebel in the Old Testament, and/or the Jezebel in the New Testament; it's obviously either one or the other or both. So it still proves my point: that the apostle John, the apostle of love, is calling out a false teacher by name. People can try to spin it however they want, but that is the fact of it. So once again, it becomes abundantly clear that it is not inherently unloving or unkind to call out false teachers (or a particular false teacher) by name. 

I could go on at length to discuss examples from the Old Testament, but I will simply mention them quickly for anyone who may want to do further study on this topic. Because what I want to show is that “naming names” or calling out false teachers by name is a consistent theme throughout the Scriptures. It is a consistent theme throughout the entire Word of God. To state it conversely, the Christian’s duty to “name names” does not merely rest on one Bible verse or on an isolated example or two, nor is it just the task or the responsibility of the apostles alone. But rather, as the apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect [complete, mature], thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear” will find this theme throughout the Bible: that God's people are instructed to "name names," and do in fact "name names" (cf. Num. 16:25-33; 1 Sam. 15:10-28; 2 Sam. 12:7; 1 Kings 18:18; 2 Chron. 19:2, etc.), and this is an action that is entirely pleasing to the Lord. It's a characteristic of godliness, quite honestly, because this is what we find Jesus and His followers doing throughout the entire New Testament. But in regards to the Old Testament, here are some examples of Godly men who "named names". I already mentioned the example of Peter calling out Balaam by name. (Balaam is mentioned in both the Old and New Testament.) Someone may object and say, “But Peter wrote about Balaam hundreds of years after Balaam died, so it's not the same.” Yes, but in the Old Testament it was Moses who opposed him (see Numbers chapters 22-24; 31:8, 16). And I can assure you that Balaam was quite alive at that time! Balaam was a false teacher, and in the Old Testament he is identified as such by name. I'll cite a handful of other examples: in 1 Kings 22:1-28 we have the example of Micaiah, a prophet of God, calling out the false prophet "Zedekiah" by name; and then there is the example of the prophet Jeremiah calling out several false prophets by name: in Jeremiah 28:1-17 he calls out a false prophet named "Hananiah"; in Jeremiah 29:21-23 he calls out two false prophets: "Ahab" and "Zedekiah"; and then in Jeremiah 29:24-32, Jeremiah calls out a false prophet named "Shemiah the Nehelamite". And then I'll cite one further example, and that is the example of Nehemiah, the layman (not a prophet nor an apostle!), from Nehemiah 6:10-14. It is the incident where Nehemiah calls out "Shemiah son of Delaiah" by name, and also a false prophetess (a woman!) named "Noadiah," as well as others. Nehemiah also openly rebukes a man named "Tobiah" and another named "Sanballat". And anyone who has read the book of Nehemiah is probably familiar with the account of it. So these are more examples, particularly from the Old Testament, where we find God's people “naming names”. So for those of us who want to be God-pleasers and not men-pleasers (“Mr. Milk-toast,” as J. Vernon McGee says), it's time to start calling out false teachers by name! And if your heart has been hard to this truth of Scripture, confess your sin and start walking in obedience to the Lord. He will bless you for it.

* * *

“It is not unloving to boldly name names. It is often the most loving thing one can do to protect believers from a life-threatening [spiritual] disease.” --Gregory Brown, “Approved Workers of God (2 Timothy 2:14-19),” bible.org.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Jay Adams, Essays on Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), p. 17. Note: See Essay 2, "Preaching to the Heart," p. 17.

[2] For more information see my blog post titled “Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 4” (FGFS, July 18, 2023). See “Objection #5”.

[3] Walter Martin, YouTube: “Dr. Walter Martin – Kingdom of the Cults Part 1/7 – Introduction to the Cults” (timestamp: approx. 22:00 - 25:30 minutes).

J. Vernon McGee's Warning to America

In the early 1970s, Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave this prophetic warning to America that is more true today than ever before! In a nationwide Thru The Bible radio broadcast, McGee said this: "Socialism is creeping in today. Political parties are willing to sell the birthright of this nation in order to stay in power."[1] McGee went on to say: "My friend, our country is closer to socialism than ever before."[2]

May God help us!

References:

[1] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible, commentary on 2 Kings 22:2 (print edition).

[2] McGee, Thru The Bible, commentary on Ecclesiastes 9:1-14 (radio broadcast). Note: This statement does not appear in the print edition; it is excerpted from the radio broadcast.

A Free Grace Review of "5 Ways Lordship Salvation Is Not Reformed"

YouTube video by theocast.org:

"5 Ways Lordship Salvation Is Not Reformed"

Introduction:

Overall I would say this is a helpful video; not that I agreed with everything. But I found it helpful for several reasons. I'll start with what I liked about the video. I thought it was short and to the point; it was concise and I appreciated that. It wasn't long and drawn out. It was only about 15 minutes in length, and so the video went through the five points rather quickly and I appreciated that. The hosts only spent two or three minutes on each point, so for someone who's looking for sort of a quick synopsis this video would be good to watch. And also something else I liked about it is that the title is "Five Ways". It reminded me of Wayne Grudem's book about Free Grace (FG) theology because his book is titled "Free Grace" Theology: Five Ways It Diminishes the Gospel. What the title of Grudem's book really means, or the way it should be interpreted, is of course coming from his perspective of "Lordship Salvation" (LS). Although he doesn't like to say it, Grudem is absolutely a proponent of Lordship Salvation! So what the title of his book really means, or what Grudem is really saying by the title, is not that Free Grace theology diminishes the gospel, but rather his title means "Five Ways" Free Grace theology diminishes his view of the gospel: which is Lordship Salvation! So in other words, Grudem is presenting "Five Ways" that Free Grace theology diminishes Lordship Salvation. And of course Free Grace theology does indeed diminish Lordship Salvation, because (as I've also noticed elsewhere) Lordship Salvation falls apart under the scrutiny of Free Grace theology — and in this case, it doesn’t even hold up against Reformed theology! So not even considering Free Grace theology, Lordship Salvation can't even stand up to Reformed theology. And that's what this video is highlighting, or one of the things that it's highlighting. So one key take away for me was that even Calvinists are speaking out against Lordship Salvation! Even those in the Reformed camp are speaking out against LS! So when both FG theology and those in the Reformed camp are speaking out against Lordship Salvation, when both sides in the debate are speaking out against it, it shows that LS has serious problems! It reminds me of something Gary Habermas said; he said that when both sides in a debate agree about something, it's called "enemy attestation". And I should make it clear that it's not that the two sides are absolutely or categorically enemies, but it just means that there are two sides in the debate; that's how the term "enemy" should be understood in this context. And so when the two opposing sides in a debate agree about something, in this case both Free Grace theology and Reformed theology agree that Lordship Salvation is wrong, then Gary Habermas is saying it actually is wrong! In others words, it's not a matter of debate anymore, but rather it's a fact! 

So those are two things I appreciated: number one, the video was not long and drawn out; it was concise. It moved along and it wasn't overly wordy. And then the second thing I appreciated was that in a way it was a response, maybe not a direct response but an indirect response, to Grudem's "Five Ways" book. And this video about Lordship Salvation is highlighting "5 Ways" that LS is wrong. And although the video is presented from the viewpoint or perspective of Reformed theology, there are certain things that Free Grace people can and do agree with. And so while we may disagree on some things, there are significant areas of overlap where we both agree that Lordship Salvation is wrong. So I would say in general I think this is a helpful video and for the most part I agree with it, or at least I find common ground with it in a number of areas. Obviously I'm not Reformed, but the point of this video is that even Reformed people, even those in the Reformed camp, even those who adhere to Reform theology, have a big problem with the teachings of Lordship Salvation! So that's the common ground and why I found this video helpful is because, like I said, we agree that Lordship Salvation has BIG problems! In other words, it's unbiblical. 

Review of the "5 Ways":

So now I'll get into the five concerns that were shared in the video related to the "5 Ways Lordship Salvation Is Not Reformed". And so I'll just get into it: (1) Lordship Salvation confuses the order of salvation. What they mean by that is that they're saying that LS confuses the ordo salutis: the order of salvation. So in other words, in Reformed theology, repentance is the result of salvation, not a requirement for salvation. And John MacArthur and Lordship Salvation teach that repentance is a requirement for salvation. So Free Grace people, or at least traditional Free Grace people, agree that repentance is a requirement for salvation. But obviously we disagree on the meaning of repentance. According to proponents of Lordship Salvation, repentance means to have a severe sorrow for sin, and along with sorrow for sin, repentance must also include the intent to turn from sins or an actual turning from sins. These things are included in the meaning of repentance according to John MacArthur and LS. But what the two hosts in the video are saying is that that's not traditional Reformed theology. If I recall correctly, one of the hosts in the video quoted from the 1689 Reformed Baptist confession of faith and he said when it talks about faith and when it talks about the requirements for salvation there's no mention of repentance. And in my research on the subject, that's also what I found in regards to historic Reformed theology. They view repentance not so much as a requirement for salvation but as one of the results of salvation. And so while I would disagree with that (I believe that repentance is required for salvation),  the point being made in the video is that the teaching of Lordship Salvation is not the same as historic Reformed theology in regards to repentance. So even people in the Reformed camp are saying, in effect, "Wait a minute! Wait a minute! That's not our view!" And they're distancing themselves from Lordship Salvation. They're saying, "We don't believe that!" So that was point number one, or concern number one in the video. 

(2) Then concern number two in the video, another way that Lordship Salvation is not Reformed, is that it redefines faith. Lordship Salvation redefines faith. And the point in the video is that those who hold to historic or traditional Reformed theology teach that repentance is not part of faith. So this ties in with point number one, when they say repentance is not required for salvation. So if that's true, then obviously repentance would therefore have to be separate from faith, because faith is required for salvation. Some Free Grace people do teach that repentance is not part of saving faith, but that's not the traditional Free Grace view. But the point in the video about it is that Lordship Salvation is not teaching the historic Reformed view of saving faith and repentance. So again, Free Grace people wouldn't quite see it that way. (Here I'm speaking about the traditional Free Grace view of saving faith. Traditional Free Grace theologians teach that repentance is part of faith. And even Daniel Wallace says, at least in the synoptic Gospels or at least in the book of Luke, that repentance is part of faith. [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 289.] I think it's fairly easy to show from the New Testament that repentance is part of saving faith. Even just thinking about it logically it makes sense. I mean, if repentance means "a change of mind": when a person goes from unbelief in Christ to believing in Christ there's an obvious change of mind! Even Zane Hodges agreed with that before he changed his position on repentance. If you read Zane Hodges' original statement on repentance from his 1985 book Grace in Eclipse, he clearly says that repentance is part of faith. Of course after that he changed his position on repentance and Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society then followed Hodges and also changed their position on repentance even though they too at first believed that repentance was simply a change of mind. And that's the traditional Free Grace view of repentance.) But back to the video, the point they were making in the video is that according to historic Reformed theology, repentance is not part of faith; it's not part of saving faith. And so they disagree with John MacArthur and the LS view, because MacArthur includes repentance in saving faith. Of course, MacArthur's definition of repentance is obviously different from the traditional Free Grace definition of repentance. So although we agree that repentance is part of saving faith, we disagree with MacArthur's definition of repentance (and his definition of faith). So traditional FG theology would not agree with the traditional Reformed view that separates repentance from saving faith. So again, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first two points in the video, but my point is that even Reformed people are disagreeing with Lordship Salvation on these things, right? So again, my point is that this isn't just a "Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation" debate anymore. (Maybe it never was!) This is also a "Reformed theology vs. Lordship Salvation" debate! So this shows that Lordship Salvation has serious problems however you want to look at it! It has serious problems and even those in the Reformed camp are saying, in effect: "Wait a minute! We don't agree with Lordship Salvation either!" And they're distancing themselves from it. So this is good, in that I think it validates what Free Grace theologians have been saying for years, which is that Lordship Salvation has serious problems! We might disagree on exactly what those problems are, but my point is that however you look at it, Lordship Salvation has serious problems. It has big problems. And what I appreciate about this video is that it highlights some of those problems from a Reformed perspective! Not that I necessarily agree with every single point that they're making (I don't), but if you zoom out and look at the big picture, the main point is that Lordship Salvation has some BIG problems! And even people in the Reformed camp are saying that. Even those in the Reformed camp are saying that Lordship Salvation has big problems! So I appreciate that they're speaking out about it and I think it's helpful to see what is being said. 

(3) The third point in the video or the third way that Lordship Salvation is not Reformed is that it collapses Law and Gospel. The way they worded it in the video is that in LS there is "a collapsing of Law and Gospel". In other words, Lordship Salvation in effect teaches that the Law is a means of salvation! And corresponding to this, they say that the Gospel contains all kinds of things to do. The way that they say it in the video is: "The Law is now a means of salvation and the Gospel now contains all kinds of things to do." And so I think that this needs to be pointed out. And this indeed is one of the big problems that those in the Free Grace camp have been pointing out for years about Lordship Salvation; that it's basically works salvation! And that's obviously a huge problem because the Bible says it's "not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us" (Titus 3:5), right? So it's not about what we do in terms of good works. It's not about our trying to keep the Law or anything like that. It's all been DONE by Christ on the cross! See John 19:30. Jesus cried out, "It is finished!" Now if I recall, John Scott in his article trying to prove Lordship Salvation, in his 1959 magazine article trying to prove Lordship Salvation, he appealed to what Paul says in the book of Philippians when Paul says "work out your salvation". I believe that's the Bible verse that John Stott used (misused) trying to prove Lordship Salvation. If it wasn't that exact verse it was one of the verses in Philippians where the apostle Paul is talking about Christian service, not salvation. So Paul is talking to already saved people; he's talking to Christians and it's in reference to the Christian life, not how to be saved in the first place. What Paul is saying is, "Now that you are saved, live like this. These things should be true of you as Christians. It's not how to get saved, but now that you are saved these things should be true of you." So that was concern number three in the video, with my added commentary about John Stott. So that was point number three.

(4) Then moving on to point number four in the video, what they said was that Lordship Salvation has confusion on the uses of the Law. The way they worded it in the video was: "A confusion on uses of the Law". What they were saying is that Lordship Salvation is preaching the Law to Christians in a threatening way: "Do this or else!" I wouldn't necessarily agree with the Reformed view of the Law in terms of how it applies to Christians today, but I do agree with their critique of the LS position. Based on what they were saying in the video, Reformed theology still applies the Mosaic Law to Christians today, although not as a means of salvation. Basically the Reformed view is that the Law, in terms of how it applies to Christians today, is a guide (or at least they use it as a guide) to living the Christian life. Free Grace theology doesn't explain it that way or look at it quite that way. Obviously the Mosaic Law is part of the Word of God and it's profitable for us, although it's not written directly to us. We therefore can derive much benefit from reading it even though it is not written directly to us. As J. Vernon McGee has said, "All Scripture is for us, but it's not all written directly to us." The apostle Paul says, "for you are not under Law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14). And so we as Christians are under something today, just not the Mosaic Law. Free Grace Theology teaches that living under grace is an even higher standard than living under the Law. So I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything in point number four of the video, but I would agree that it's wrong for proponents of Lordship Salvation to be preaching the Law to Christians today basically as a threat: "Do this or else!" That's how they explained it in the video. So I agree with their basic premise and with their critique of Lordship Salvation in that regard: that proponents of LS preach the Law to Christians in a threatening way and that's not right. Where's the grace? So even those in the Reformed camp are saying, "Hey wait a minute, that's not biblical!" They're pointing out what Lordship Salvation is teaching in regards to the Law is not biblical. So that's where I agree with what they're saying in the video. And in particular that's why I agree with point number four. 

(5) The fifth and final concern that was mentioned in the video, or the 5th way that Lordship Salvation is not Reformed, is that they said it confuses the relationship between justification and sanctification. The way they word it in the video is: "A confusion of the relationship between justification and sanctification". And they said that Lordship Salvation collapses these two things into one. And what they say in the video is that Lordship Salvation makes it sound like we are building our justification on our sanctification. I'd say that's an accurate critique of Lordship Salvation and a big problem because obviously only justification is required to come into a right standing with God, to have peace with God. Romans 5:1 says, "having been justified by faith, we have peace with God." Sanctification comes later; sanctification is Christian life truth  -- not how to be saved. In fact, what they explained in the video is that Lordship Salvation is making sanctification more foundational than justification! Lordship Salvation essentially "puts the cart before the horse". They have it backwards. And so I thought it was a really good point that they made in the video about how this is one of the big concerns with Lordship Salvation. And another way that they explained it in the video is that Lordship Salvation has a "Prove it!" sort of theology or mindset that basically it says you have to prove your salvation in order for it to be genuine. There's so many problems with that I don't even know where to start! It makes assurance virtually impossible and it's a foundation made of sand, because it's basically making you the foundation instead of the Word of God. Instead of the promises of God, instead of the work of Christ, Lorship Salvation changes it to where the individual is now some sort of a basis or the individual's actions are some sort of a basis for his or her salvation or for the genuineness of his or her salvation. So that's a foundation of sand; that's a foundation built on sand. I mean, what kind of foundation is that? Now you are your own foundation? That's sad! That's not what the Bible teaches at all. Christ is our foundation! Christ is the chief cornerstone. Christ is the Rock; Christ is the solid rock, and "on the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand!" as the hymn says. 

Conclusion: 

So those were the five concerns discussed and highlighted in the video in regards to Lordship Salvation. For their concluding remarks, one of the hosts read a quote by John Calvin. I should point out that the "5 Ways" video is actually part two in a series; the host had previously shared this particular quote also in the first video, in part one, and I actually commented on it in that first video. I thought it was a really good quote and apparently a lot of other people liked it too. But in the comment that I left in the first video, I said something to the effect that: "This just shows that even a dead clock is right once or twice a day!" (I was speaking obviously in reference to John Calvin.) So in closing  I'll just share what he says; it's excerpted from his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin writes: "For if they begin to judge their salvation by good works, nothing will be more uncertain or more feeble. From this it comes about that the believer's conscience feels more fear and consternation than assurance. If righteousness is supported by works in God's sight it must entirely collapse. It [rather] is confined solely to God's mercy, solely to communion with Christ, and therefore solely to faith." So that's the quote by John Calvin from his Institutes, and I do agree with that statement and I want to say Amen! And I'm glad that Calvin at least here is clear on assurance and on what is the basis for assurance. So that's the video; those are the five concerns that these two Reformed theologians have with Lordship Salvation. And I thought it was a helpful video. I didn't agree with every single thing in the video but I think it makes a good point, which is that even those in the Reformed camp are distancing themselves from Lordship Salvation. And so this isn't just a Free Grace vs. Lordship Salvation debate anymore -- maybe it never was! But we're seeing, I think, more and more as time goes on that this is also and more broadly a Reformed theology vs. Lordship Salvation debate. Even those in the Reformed camp have serious concerns with Lorship Salvation and say it's not biblical. So that's my review of the video "5 Ways Lordship Salvation Is Not Reformed". Overall I would give it probably a three out of five stars.

Addendum:

Here's the comment I left in the comments section of the "5 Ways" video. I was specifically responding to some statements in point #1 made by one of the hosts in regards to his belief that regeneration precedes faith:

Yes, of course God makes us alive. That's regeneration. Free Grace people agree with that. But how are we regenerated? Paul says it's through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15, "begotten you through the gospel"). And to put an even finer point on it, we are regenerated through *believing* the gospel (cf. Jn. 1:12). By the way, the word "believe" in John 1:12 is in the active voice in the Greek, meaning it is something we do, NOT something that is done to [us] or for us. I know Calvinists teach that faith is a gift of God, and in one sense this is true because ultimately everything is a gift from God (cf. Jn. 3:27; 1 Cor. 4:7; James 1:17), but Calvin erred by taking this to the [unbiblical] extreme and saying that man doesn't even have a volitional choice and can't do anything. You talked about how "Lordship Salvation" is an overreaction, and I agree that it is. But Calvinism is also an overreaction, not to Free Grace, but to the error of Pelagianism. (Calvin followed Augustine in his overreaction to Pelagianism.) Pelagianism is an error and Augustine (and by extention, Calvin) was right to oppose it. But as so often happens, they overreacted to it and taught some things that are also unbiblical. In the Bible, "death" refers to separation, not inability (cf. Gen. 3:9; Lk. 15:24; Rom.1:18-20; James 2:17; Rev. 3:1-2). I think D. L. Moody said it best: "Some say faith is a gift of God. So is the air, but you have to breathe it. So is bread, but you have to eat it. So is water, but you have to drink it. Some today are waiting for a miraculous sensation to come upon them, that is not faith. Faith is taking God at His Word (Rom. 10:17)." [D. L. Moody, The Way to God, p. 51.] That's my parphrase of what Moody said since I don't have the exact quote in front of me. But it was to that effect. And I think he was right on! That's what the Bible teaches, for example, in the Gospel of John, where the noun "faith" is never used. Instead, John uses the verb "believe" (90 times!), and each time, it's ALWAYS in the Greek active voice! You mentioned Ephesians chapter 2, but even Daniel B. Wallace has said that "if faith is not meritorious [and it's not, Rom.4:4-5], then faith is not a gift per se." (The statement by Wallace is in his Greek grammar [p. 335, footnote 53]. Again, the quote is my paraphrase because I don't have his exact statement in front of me, but it was to that effect.) God bless! I appreciate you guys warning people about "Lordship Salvation"!

The Case for a Trump Comeback: A Christian Perspective

I voted early today! In Florida, we have early voting going on now for the United States Presidential Election; and yes, I voted for Trump! Maybe I should be a little more descriptive: I happily voted for Trump! Some people may wonder, why would I do a thing like that? I voted for Trump because his vision for America most closely aligns with the biblical principles and God-given freedoms that I believe in. "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to the people thereof" (Prov. 14:34).

After I voted, I thought about how people voted in Bible times. In the New Testament sense, the idea of voting is described as throwing or casting a pebble in favor of something or someone (see Acts 26:10; Rev. 2:17). For example, before the Apostle Paul's conversion, he voted to persecute Christians (Acts 26:9-10; 1 Cor. 15:9-10). The vote could be for anything, either bad or good, depending on the context.

Now I'd like to talk about the main point of this post, which is why I believe that Donald Trump will be re-elected President of the United States. The reason why is highlighted in the video below: Trump exalted Jesus Christ! Trump said, "I'm not the most famous, Jesus is!" In contrast to this, I've been told about what happened to John Lennon the day after he said in regards to the Beatles, something to the effect that: "We're more popular than Jesus now." Let's just say it wasn't good! Donald Trump didn't make that mistake; Trump exalted Jesus Christ. Trump gave all glory and honor to God. In the words of John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was the greatest prophet born of a woman up to that time: "He (Jesus) must increase, I must decrease" (Jn 3:30). So we have John Lennon saying one thing, and John the Baptist saying another. The world's prophet vs. God's prophet. Quite a contrast! Lennon was voicing the spirit of anti-christ; John the Baptist of Christ. And the Scripture that always comes to mind when I recall Trump's statement exalting Jesus Christ, is when God says: "Those who honor Me, I will honor" (1 Samuel 2:30). And that's why I believe that Trump will be re-elected President of the United States: because God honors those who honor Him, and because "the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes" (Dan. 4:17).

Saved in Shanghai: How William R. Newell's Teaching on Romans Changed a Life

The following testimony is related by the Free Grace theologian William R. Newell in the Foreword of his book, Romans with Outline Lessons on The Acts (1925):

"In meetings held in Shanghai, China, the writer heard the testimony of a young German, who, after days of attending the lessons on Romans without finding peace (though himself a religious worker), stopped one day at the meeting door before entering, and said, 'This day I will pick me out a seat, and I will call it the sinner's seat, and will go down and sit down, putting away my righteousness, or any trust in my church membership, or my so-called Christian work; I will be an ordinary sinner and nothing else.' At the close of that meeting, this young man was praising God in public testimony. The moment he took the 'sinner's seat,' the Gospel, which seemed before so difficult, came, as he put it, 'like an anthem of silver bells right into my soul.'"[1]

This reminds me of what Martin Luther said in his commentary on Psalm 126:2, "the Gospel should be to us nothing else but joy and gladness"!

Reference:

[1] William R. Newell, Romans with Outline Lessons on The Acts (Toronto: J. I. C. Wilcox, 1925), no page number.

Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 2

To anticipate a possible objection, someone might say: "But isn't John 3:16 true? Can't I simply believe in Jesus?" And in response to that I would say yes, it's true, but it needs to be read in context. I'm sure many have heard the story of the man who was in the habit of cherry-picking Bible verses at random for his daily devotions. The first verse he came upon was Matthew 27:5, "Judas went and hanged himself." The next verse he happened to choose was Luke 10:37, "Go and do thou likewise." And the third verse he landed on was John 13:27, "And what thou doest, do quickly." The point of this story is obvious: don't take Bible verses out of context! In other words, don't pull a Bible verse out of context and then build an entire doctrine on it. That's horrible Bible interpretation, and quite honestly it's a misuse of Scripture. But sadly that's exactly what the Grace Evangelical Society is doing. Let's take John 3:16 as an example; that's the Bible verse I've been focusing on in this series. If we only share John 3:16, we are sharing maybe 5% of what Jesus said to Nicodemus and omitting everything else! (Editor's note: Using the King James Version, John 3:16 is approximately 5.11% of all the words that Jesus shared with Nicodemus in John chapter 3.) Of course John 3:16 is true! It's 100% true. That's not the point. The point is that it needs to be understood in context and interpreted in light of the complete message of Jesus, which in this particular case is John chapter 3, where, among other things, Jesus pointed Nicodemus back to the incident in the Old Testamemt where Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole as an ensign for the dying Israelites, so that everyone who simply looked to the serpent on the pole would live! (See Numbers 21:4-9.) Jesus likened Himself to the bronze serpent by saying, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3:14-15). So the point I'm making is that Jesus shared more than John 3:16 with Nicodemus! And yes, of course John 3:16 is true. But it needs to be understood and interpreted in context, not out of context. In reading through John's Gospel, John 3:16 first of all needs to be interpreted in light of it's immediate context. Because as the saying goes, "A text without a context is a pretext for error [a covering for error]." To say it another way, what the GES calls "the saving message" isn't the complete message. To get the full message of John's Gospel, the reader should be like those who can’t resist flipping to the end of a love story to see how it all turns out. That's how the Apostle John wrote his Gospel; it's written from a resurrection perspective. It always has the end in view. So that's the complete revelation of the Gospel. The gospel is the good news of who Jesus is and what He came to do -- and did! (See John 19:30, "It is finished!") It's the same gospel message that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15, which he says all the apostles preached (see 1 Cor 15:11). So that is the complete saving message! The Grace Evangelical Society always talks about "the saving message". That's the terminology they use. Well, John 3:16 is part of it. It's most definitely part of it (a BIG part of it!); but still only part of it, right? Because that's not the whole story. That's not the complete picture. Like I said, even if we just look at the Gospel of John (or even just John chapter 3), John 3:16 is not the full message that Jesus gave to Nicodemus. So right away we are seeing red flags in terms of what the GES is saying compared to what Jesus said, for example, in John chapter 3. Not even looking at the full Gospel of John or the teaching of the New Testament in general. Not even bringing in 1 Corinthians 15; let's just stick with John. Let's just stick with John chapter 3, and still we see a discrepancy between the GES gospel and Jesus' gospel because He told Nicodemus, "you must be born again" (Jn 3:7). And Jesus also brought in the Old Testament. He said to Nicodemus, "you don't know these things?" (Jn 3:10). But where would Nicodemus have known these things from? Obviously from the Old Testament! Nicodemus was a Jew living before the cross, so we know the New Testament wasn't written yet. So obviously Jesus is referring to the Old Testament, right? So again, my point is that Jesus is bringing in the whole counsel of God's Word. He's not isolating a Bible verse out of context and building a doctrine on it. He brings in the Old Testament Scriptures, and basically says, "Nicodemus, you should know these things. You should know that you must be born again. There has to be a new birth." If the GES gospel were correct, we would expect Jesus to say, "It's okay that you don't know these things. Just believe in Me for life." But Jesus doesn't say that. He expected Nicodemus to know, and He took the time to explain. Jesus also says to Nicodemus, "That which is flesh is flesh" (Jn 3:6). In other words, the flesh is corrupt. The flesh is condemned. The flesh is perishing. In the words of the Apostle Paul it's, "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), right? Paul said: "in the first Adam we all die, but in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). The Old Testament bears witness to that, that there needs to be life from above. There needs to be regeneration. And in the Old Testament there are pictures of that, such as when Moses struck the rock and water came out of the Rock and gave life to the thirsty Israelites (Exod 17:6; Num 20:7-8; cf. 1 Cor 10:4). It was a picture of the water of Life (Jn 4:14, 7:37-39). And in John chapter 3, Jesus particularly points out the story of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness and how the dying Israelites looked to it to be healed; they simply looked to it in faith, to be saved (Num 20:4-9). In that case they were saved physically. Jesus of course is talking spiritually (Jn. 3:12-17). So again, these are things we need to keep in mind and it highlights a problem with the GES gospel: they aren't preaching the gospel that Jesus preached. Because as I've just described, Jesus said much more than simply "Believe in Him for life." Using the Old Testament, Jesus explained the problem: that we're sinners, that the flesh is corrupt and perishing, and that we must be born again. Jesus also told of God's love, and how He will be "lifted up" (on a cross!) as the brazen serpent was in the wilderness, to bear the curse of humanity and to give His life to take away the sins of the world. And that's the message of the Gospel that Jesus preached and that people must believe to be saved.

Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 1

If you listen to Bob Wilkin and read the articles on the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) website, you might come away thinking that the Apostle John went around just quoting John 3:16 to everyone. But we know from reading the whole counsel of God's Word that that would not be accurate. What do I mean? Well, in 1 Corinthians 15 the Apostle Paul clearly tells us the gospel he preached (see vv. 3-4, or more specifically vv. 3-5), and what's more, Paul says in verse 11 that this same gospel message was preached by all the apostles! Paul tells the Corinthians, "This is what we preach and this is what you believed." Paul is saying, this message that I just delivered to you in great detail (1 Cor 15:3-5), namely "the gospel," this is what we preach! Paul doesn't tell them John 3:16, is my point. I don't want to take anything away from John 3:16, and I'm not saying we shouldn't use it. Indeed, we most definitely should use John 3:16, but use it within the framework of the gospel. First within the framework of its immediate context (John chapter 3), then within the framework of the Gospel of John, and then within the framework of the whole counsel of God's Word. I'm making the point that we shouldn't focus on Bible verses out of context; but rather, we need to take into consideration the whole counsel of God's Word. We shouldn't build an entire doctrine of salvation on one or two Bible verses ripped out of context. And why not? Because first of all, Jesus preached more than John 3:16 to Nicodemus. Read John chapter 3. Among other things, Jesus told Nicodemus about the new birth. Jesus said, "You must be born again." How is a person born again? What does the New Testament say about it? How are we born again? Paul says in 1 Cor 4:15 that we are born again "through the gospel"! So there again it goes back to the gospel that Paul has delivered to us in 1 Cor 15:3-4 (or 3-5 more specifically). So we need to take into consideration the whole counsel of God's Word, not just proof-text Bible verses out of context. Don't misunderstand, John 3:16 is very important to use! But to isolate it apart from the whole counsel of God's Word is not only poor Bible interpretation, it is mishandling the Scriptures. The GES folks like to say they're "focused"; that's the mantra they use now.  They've labeled themselves "Focused Free Grace". Well that's sort of what they're doing actually, because they've focused in so closely on their favorite proof-texts (taken out of context) that they're "missing the forest for the trees"! John 3:16 was not the only thing Jesus shared with Nicodemus. By focusing in so closely on one particular Bible verse to the exclusion of others, they miss the surrounding context and the big picture: which is John chapter 3 (not just John 3:16). I describe this as "missing the forest for the trees." This is a big problem and a prime example of what NOT to do, but sadly that's exactly what the Grace Evangelical Society is doing in terms of their presentation of (or at least their definition of) what they call "the saving message". Their "saving message" is a text without a context. And as someone has famously said, "A text without a context is a pretext for error."  So let that be a word of warning about the Grace Evangelical Society, that it's not focused! Or if it is, it's not properly focused; it's misfocused. It's "missing the forest for the trees." To say it positively or in other words: we need to share the gospel clearly and completely. Something else to notice in regards to the GES gospel that is a red flag and a warning sign, is that they're not even consistent according to their own beliefs. They say, "The Gospel of John," "The Gospel of John". Okay, let's look at the Gospel of John! In the Gospel of John we find much more than John 3:16, thank you very much. Even in John chapter 3, right? And then zooming out still farther to the Gospel of John in its entirety (not just one verse but the entire Gospel of John), we see something else very interesting, that Paul's gospel is clearly set forth in John's Gospel: Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and manifestation after his resurrection (see John chapters 20-21, cf. Acts 13:28-32; 1 Cor 15:3-5). The appearances of Jesus after His resurrection are actually highlighted by the Apostle John three times and form the climax of his book! (See John 20:19-21:14). The purpose statement of John's Gospel (John 20:30-31) is set in this context. In other words, John's Gospel is written from a resurrection perspective and with the end in view. This is completely consistent with the Apostle Paul's declaration of the gospel in 1 Cor 15 and consistent with what the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15:11, that all the apostles preached the same gospel message: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve" (1 Cor 15:3-5). Are you preaching this Good News? (Notice I said "Good News". It's not just good theology, it's Good News!) Are you preaching the Good News that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised, and was seen? The apostles preached it. In fact, according to what Paul says in 1 Cor 15:11, all the apostles preached it! So if you're not preaching it then you're not preaching the apostolic gospel. The GES wants to focus exclusively on the Gospel of John (actually only on their favorite proof-texts in the Gospel of John). But what gospel did the apostle John preach? This is where it is very important to take into consideration what we know (or should know) from other passages in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor 15:11), because what we find is that the Apostle John didn't just preach John 3:16, as important as it is. He preached the gospel recorded in 1 Corinthians 15. And that is the same gospel that is narrated in the Gospel of John! Are you preaching it? If not, you can start today. "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, today is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2b). D. L. Moody wisely said, "The closer we stay to the apostles' way of presenting the gospel, the more success we will have."

Is Your Gospel a "Chopper"?

There's a type of bike known as a "chopper". It's a highly customized motorcycle that features bold modifications to the original design. Wikipedia says: "To be considered a chopper a motorcycle frame must be cut and welded at some point." Needless to say, the "chopper" is very popular among a certain segment of biker enthusiasts! My point in this article is to draw some parallels and make some comparisons between what is done to modify a motorcycle and turn it into a "chopper" and what some people have done to the gospel. What do I mean by this? Let's consider the motorcycle first: What is a "chopper"? Three characteristics that immediately come to mind are: 

(1) A "chopper" is a motorcycle that has been modified from its original design; pieces have been cut off. Parts are missing. Redesigned "replacement parts" have been attached or welded on. Of course it looks good: it's a very sleek design and it's appealing in a certain type of way. But how does all this relate to the gospel? The apostle Paul viewed himself as a steward or a custodian of the gospel (1 Thess. 2:1-4); he did not change it or modify it in any way! Instead he says, "What I received, I passed on to you" (1 Cor. 15:3). 

(2) Another characteristic of a "chopper" is that it is very popular among a certain group of people. In and of itself, this is not necessarily wrong. But popularity is obviously not the basis by which we judge whether or not a motorcycle has been modified from its original design; whether it's an original or not. Popularity is a completely different discussion and consideration, and we should never confuse the two things. In other words, we should never confuse popularity with identity or authenticity. As one pastor has said (and this is in regards to the gospel): the Word of God is not based on a popularity contest. In fact, in regards to the gospel, the apostle Paul says: "Am I now seeking to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10). In other words, we don't determine the gospel based on popularity.

(3) Another characteristic of a "chopper" is that it has LOTS of shiny chrome parts! It's appealing to the human eye. But it's also missing some original parts! In regards to the gospel, it reminds me of how in Genesis chapter 3, Eve was deceived by the serpent when he directed her attention to the glistening fruit which God had forbidden her to eat. (See Genesis 3:1-6.) In 2 Cor 11:3-4, the Apostle Paul says, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!" (2 Cor. 11:3-4, NKJV, cf. 11:13-14).

Now I'd like to summarize and make application to how this relates more specifically to the gospel. Is your gospel a "chopper"? In other words, are you preaching the gospel clearly and completely, or are you leaving out parts of it? Are you preaching the biblical gospel, or perhaps something else: something less than it? Because when we look in the Bible, when the Apostle Paul preached the gospel (and he specifically tells us what he preached: in fact, he specifically defines the gospel in great detail in 1st Corinthians 15:3-5), what did the Apostle Paul say it is? What is the Apostle Paul's definition of the gospel? Some Free Grace folks say that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel, but what does the Bible say? In 1 Corinthians 15:4, the apostle Paul specifically includes Christ burial in the gospel. This is the prima facie ("face value") or plain reading of the text. A famous rule of Bible interpretation says: "If the plain reading makes sense, seek no other sense." In 2 Corinthians 4:2, Paul states that he was always "setting forth the truth plainly" -- and so should we! So to say that Christ's burial (for example) is NOT part of the gospel is to not take God's Word at face value! And in fact even when we look at the Greek it's even more clear that Christ's burial is part of the gospel. What do I mean? Well, besides the fact that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 the Apostle Paul is giving us "direct discourse" or basically the quotation of the exact gospel that he preached (this is made clear by the hoti or kai hoti content clauses in verses 3 through 5: "that Christ died," "and that He was buried," "and that He was raised," "and that He was seen"), the little Greek word hoti (translated "that" in English) is a "content conjunction" and signifies a "content clause". In other words, the Apostle Paul is making it clear that these four clauses, these four phrases, are the content of his gospel. This is the gospel he preached. This is clear from the Greek and also in plain English if we take the Bible at face value and not try to twist it to say something that it doesn't. I'm making a point about Christ's burial because there is a Free Grace author who, a number of years ago now, had the audacity to remove Christ burial from the gospel! (I've written about this before so I won't go into any more detail here.) Of course, he wouldn't say that he "removed" it; he would say it was never part of the gospel in the first place. (It's the same difference either way: he's teaching that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel.) But the Apostle Paul says otherwise. The Bible says otherwise. The Greek says otherwise. And also you can tell that the groundless gospel proponent is wrong because he's not clearly preaching it unashamedly, but rather it's oftentimes something that is very subtle and deceptive. In other words, he's ashamed of his groundless gospel. And that's a clue that it's false teaching. Because if it were clearly what the Bible says he would be shouting it from the house tops (which thankfully he isn't), but that also makes it all the more dangerous because he's subtly deceiving people: he's coming across as orthodox when in fact he's not. Years ago, Pastor John Ashbrook wrote a little booklet about biblical separation and one of the things he said was: "The most dangerous deviation is the one closest to your own position." This relates to what I've labeled "the groundless gospel" because in many ways it's very similar to the true gospel and it can be hard to detect the difference if one is not looking for it or if it's not explicitly stated as such. And so the groundless gospel teaching is deceptive and therefore all the more dangerous. But getting back to my comparison between the "chopper" and the gospel, and how people have cut parts from the gospel and modified it and altered the original, and there are parts missing; there are original parts that are missing from it: I've mentioned Christ's burial as one example, but there are also other parts that are missing from the groundless gospel. Proponents of the groundless gospel don't include any mention of "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4); or if they do mention it, they don't view it as part of the gospel. Proponents of the groundless gospel say it's not really part of the gospel. They also say that the phrases "according to scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4) are (according to them) technically not parts of the gospel. And similarly, the resurrection appearances of Christ described in 1 Corinthians 15:5 they say are also not part of the gospel. And so their "gospel" has a lot of missing parts! And that's why I say that their gospel is a "chopper". 

Dear reader, is your gospel a "chopper"? I hope and pray that it isn't! D. L. Moody was right when he said, "The closer we stay to the apostles way of presenting the gospel, the more success we will have." Let's make sure that we include all the original parts in the gospel when we present it to a lost and dying world, for it is "the gospel" that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), not merely part of it.

The Free Grace Gospel: According to Rick Whitmire

GO TELL Evangelism Syllabus (2003)

Rick Whitmire is one of the founders of Free Grace Seminary (founded in 2004), which has since been renamed "Grace Biblical Seminary and Bible Institute". It is located in McDonough, Georgia. 

Whitmire's statement on the gospel is a good one, but sadly (as so often happens with good Bible teaching, particularly concerning the "hot potatoe" topic of the gospel),  it was sadly deleted some years ago without warning; it just suddenly vanished from the internet! I'm glad that  the gospel in the Bible hasn't disappeared! Luckily (and by the way, the word "luck" stands for: "living under Christ's kindness") I just recovered the archived link recently. Praise the Lord! "I will bless the LORD at all times; His praise will continually be on my lips" (Psa. 34:1).

The archived link to Whitmire's statement on the gospel actually took me a long time to find! But after years of searching, the Lord rewarded my efforts and I finally located and recovered the deleted website. Years ago I had copied and pasted Whitmire's statement on the gospel to a google docs file (I had saved it as a pdf file in google docs), but then sometime after that the internet link went dead, and to my dismay I had not archived it. I finally found the archived web page last year through another link. Whitmire's statement on the gospel is now safely archived in my Free Grace Library: see the "Free Grace Library" page on my blog. (There is also a link to Whitmire's statement on the gospel in the "What is the Gospel?" page on my blog.) 

Below is a screenshot that I took of Rick Whitmire's statement on the gospel, where he does in fact affirm that the gospel has "four" parts (gasp!), as explained by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (not merely two parts as the groundless gospel folks wrongly teach), but in fact FOUR parts: (1) Christ's death, (2) burial, (3) resurrection, and (4) appearances (see 1 Cor. 15:1-5). Whitmire's statement on the gospel stands as a testimony to this truth, and against those who teach otherwise. Here is the screenshot of:

Rick Whitmire's Statement on the Gospel

Reference:

Rick Whitmire, "OUR WITNESS FOR CHRIST" (dated "07-15-03"), GO TELL Evangelism Syllabus, "The Facts Presentation". Note: "OUR WITNESS FOR CHRIST" is Chapter 2 in Whitmire's GO TELL Evangelism Syllabus.

Gone But Not Forgotten: ExPreacherMan's Missing Comment on the Gospel

On October 21, 2013, Pastor Jack Weaver (known online by the handle "ExPreacherMan") posted a comment about the Gospel that has since been deleted from the ExPreacherMan website. The ExPreacherMan website is a Free Grace blog that was founded in 2006 by Jack Weaver, a "narrow-minded Conservative Christian" since 1964. Jack passed away in 2015 and is now with the Lord.

I found ExPreacherMan's statement on the Gospel back in 2018 and liked it so much that I wrote a blog post about it (see my blog post titled "Why the Gospel Matters!"). But since then, it appears that Pastor Jack's comment has been either intentionally or unintentionally removed from the "Notes From A Retired Preacher" website (ExPreacherMan's website). The comment may be gone, but it's not forgotten! Thankfully I archived it before it was deleted so that it can continue to be a testimony to the truth of the Gospel and of God's amazing grace.

Although ExPreacherMan passed away in 2015, his legacy lives on. "Through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks" (Heb. 11:4). Here is ExPreacherMan's missing comment on the Gospel. Pastor Jack writes: 

"As has been said, stick with the Gospel of God’s Grace — IT is the power of God unto salvation. 

The Gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 

Why the Gospel: The Power of God; Romans 1:16 

What to do with the Gospel – Believe it; John 3:16

Why we cannot mix Grace with perseverance and 'repentance' works – they are not comparable; Romans 11:6

Just some ideas - Be encouaged!!

In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack"[1]

Reference:

[1] Jack Weaver, "Wiki-Index" (2013), Notes From A Retired Preacher blog, comment by expreacherman (October 21, 2013 at 10:52 a.m.), https://web.archive.org/web/20210729050347/https://expreacherman.com/wiki-heresies/#comment-21104 

Insights from C. I. Scofield on Luke 10:25

C. I. SCOFIELD

"A lawyer has asked Christ what he has to do, and He turns him to the law, not as the way to be saved, but the answer to his condition. The man gives the summary of the law as love to God and his neighbor, and Christ says, 'Thou hast answered right.' But we are not saved by right answers or a correct creed, but by Christ's work. The law is something to do, not to talk about. 'The man that doeth these things shall live by them.' [Gal. 3:12.] But he is willing to justify himself, instead of letting God do it, and the law never serves that end, but condemns us. ['For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.' Rom. 3:20.] There never will be in the universe such a thing as an unjudged sin, either in ourselves or in our Substitute. [Sin's penalty must be paid: 'For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' Rom. 6:23.] Grace is the basis of all our blessing, and grace is 'getting everything for nothing.' We have here three things: 

   1. Grace comes to the sinner where he is. 

   2. [Grace] saves the sinner as he is.

   3. [Grace] cares for him to the end.

How beautiful to note that if this man went down to Jericho, Jesus came up from Jericho in His last journey to the cross. [The man's works could not avail; whereas Jesus did it all! He 'saves to the uttermost'! Heb. 7:25.] The man does nothing, can do nothing, has not to lift himself up on his elbows; all is done for him--saved where he is, then kept by the way, and cared for to the end."[1]

Reference: 

[1] C. I. Scofield, Goodly Portions, Vol. IV, No. 10 (October 1892), pg. 74, brackets added.