C. I. SCOFIELD |
FREE GRACE FREE SPEECH
A Free Grace research blog
"testifying to the gospel of God's grace"
(Acts 20:24, NIV)
Monday, October 14, 2024
Insights from C. I. Scofield on Luke 10:25
Tuesday, October 8, 2024
Max Lucado on Biblical Repentance
"The Greek word translated 'repentance' [metanoia] in the New Testament comes from two Greek words that mean literally 'to change the mind.' This is what repentance is: a changing of the mind about God, about one's condition, about the means of salvation. It is a turning of the heart."[1]
Reference:
[1] Max Lucado, He Did This Just For You (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), p. 14, brackets added.
Monday, September 30, 2024
Why "Turning from Sins" Misses the Mark on Repentance
Why repentance in the Bible doesn't mean "turn from sins": GOD REPENTS!
The word used is metanoia in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. See Jer. 18:10, KJV; Amos 7:3, 7:6, KJV; Jonah 3:10, KJV.
So for all those who say that "repentance" in the Bible means to "turn from sins," that would make God a sinner, because God repents (Gr. metanoia, see the above Bible verses).
Don't miss the mark on the meaning of repentance! The word simply means to have "a change of mind" ("a whole-hearted change of mind," as Charles Ryrie would say). That is biblical repentance, and that definition is right on target!
Sunday, September 29, 2024
J. Vernon McGee Defends Grace: A 1973 Rebuke of Lordship Salvation
"Now, actually, there is beginning to come into the thinking of a great many folks, that out yonder somewhere there is Someone. And they've got a modern song, 'Put your hand in the hand of the man of Galilee.' Well, that's getting pretty close to it, by the way. But even that I think is missing it, because you've got to come to Him as a sinner. And you have to accept Him first as your Savior. And today I hear a great deal about 'let's make our commitment.' What is your commitment, by the way? If you think that it's a matter of just coming to Him and making Him - as I hear it - 'make Him your Lord and Master,' He said there are gonna be many who are gonna say, 'Lord, Lord,' in that day. You don't make Him Lord and Master first; you make Him Savior. He died for you. And if you don't begin with Him there, at the cross, you're not gonna begin with Him anywhere."[1]
Reference:
[1] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible radio broadcast, "Job 1:1-5 | Thru The Bible" (time stamp: 14:17-15:14 minutes). The air date of the original radio broadcast was sometime around mid-February, 1973. Note: The above statement is transcribed directly from the 1973 radio broadcast. The printed statement that appears in McGee's Thru The Bible commentary is edited and reads slightly differently.
Friday, September 27, 2024
Grace Denied: The Disturbing Reality of Calvinism's "Double Predestination"
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Repentance Explained: What Does It Meme?
This meme reminds me of a cartoon I saw the other day about the meaning of repentance. In the picture there were two men standing outside in what looked like a city park. One was a sidewalk prophet holding a sign that said: "REPENT"! The other man was a bystander out for a walk. After reading the sign, the bystander just had one question: "Wouldn't I have to pent first?" he asked.[1]
This is what we are unfortunately dealing with when it comes to the word "repent". Most people have no clue what it means! And worse yet is that the explanations they are given are usually either unclear or just plain wrong. But if instead of the word "Repent" (whatever that means!) I were to say, "Change your thinking" -- now that's a lot more clear!
Let's keep the gospel clear by explaining what biblical repentance is: a change of mind (e.g. see Hebrews 12:17, KJV, the marginal note for "place of repentance" says: "or, way to change his mind").
Reference:
[1] See the CartoonStock cartoon by Crowden Satz, "Wouldn't I have to pent first?" (Search ID: CS565496), uploaded March 6, 2022. https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS565496
Saturday, September 21, 2024
A Model Argument: How Newton Proved Creation Needs a Maker
"Nobody," answered Sir Isaac, "it happened here."
The gentleman looked up in amazement at the answer, but he soon understood what it meant.
The Bible says, "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Must not that man be a fool indeed, who can say this beautiful and wonderful world came by chance, when he knows there is not a house, or ship, or picture, or any other thing in it, but has had a maker. We might better say that this paper we are reading grew just as it is, than to say that the sun, moon, and stars, and this globe on which we live, came without a creative hand.[1]
Reference:
[1] The Sailor's Magazine and Seamen's Friend (April 1873), Volume 45, Issue 4, pg. 113. Note: This anecdote also appears in Moody Monthly (January 1923), pg. 227. The statement of it given in Moody Monthly, however, does not include the final paragraph as the earlier article does.
Monday, September 2, 2024
C. I. Scofield: The Doctor Who Wasn't
C. I. SCOFIELD |
But nothing could be further from the truth. That was not Scofield's style. For example, I remember reading an old biography of C. I. Scofield that told the story of when Scofield was a new pastor in the south. The church he pastored in Dallas was called "a Yankee church" owing to the fact that it was Congregational, and Scofield was viewed with suspicion as a northerner. It would have bolstered Scofield's status to tell about how he had fought for the Confederacy under General Robert E. Lee, and how he had been awarded the Southern Cross of Honor for bravery in the Civil War. Yet Scofield was silent about it; he left it to someone else to point it out. In light of this incident, it would have been uncharacteristic of Scofield to then self-aggrandize by bestowing on himself the title of Doctor!
Since I found no information online (no facts at least, just guesses) about where and how Scofield received the title of "Doctor," I set out to do my own research in order to find the truth. And this is what I found: in contrast to what the critics say, Scofield did NOT bestow this title on himself; someone else did. Referring to the incident, Scofield remarked with a bit of humor by saying, "I've been indoctrinated." The details of the event and the facts surrounding it are provided by William L. Pettingill, from an article in The Sunday School Times titled "When Scofield Gave Counsel". The article is dated September 17, 1921, less than two months after Scofield's passing. Pettingill begins the article by sharing this incident, which hopefully will "put to rest" the ignorant claims of the critics. Pettingill writes: "When I first met C. I. Scofield, he was already famous as a Bible preacher and teacher, and he was called Pastor Scofield. Later, after someone had succeeded in pinning a 'D.D.' [Doctor of Divinity] on him, I heard him say to an audience to which he had been introduced as 'Doctor' Scofield, 'Yes, at last, I have been indoctrinated.' It seemed strange for a time to hear him called Doctor, but we all knew he richly deserved it when we reflected that it meant Teacher."[1]
So in one sense, C. I. Scofield wasn't a Doctor (he was not officially recognized as such by Who's Who, nor by any academic institution per se). Yet in another sense, he was! Scofield's peers, and the Christian community among whom and to whom he ministered, gave him the title that he so "richly deserved," the title of Doctor.
Reference:
[1] William L. Pettingill, "When Scofield Gave Counsel" (The Sunday School Times, September 17, 1921). https://archive.org/details/sim_sunday-school-times_1921-09-17_63_38
Warren Wiersbe's Tribute to Scofield and His Reference Bible
Monday, August 12, 2024
Wednesday, July 17, 2024
God's Light Shining Down on President Trump
"The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace." (Numbers 6:24-26)
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Saturday, April 27, 2024
What is meant in Hebrews 6:1 when it says, "repentance from dead works"?
"I had a question. James 2 says that faith without works is dead, and by dead it means fruitless. Ephesians 5:11 tells us to avoid the 'fruitless works' of darkness. In Galatians, Paul contrasts the fruit of the Spirit, with works of the flesh, which produce no lasting fruit (fruitless works of darkness). So, in Hebrews 6:1, when Paul tells the believers not to lay again the foundation of repentance from dead works, couldn't an argument be made that dead = fruitless, and so dead works are the fruitless works of darkness or works of the flesh, and therefore repentance from dead works means repentance from fruitless works of darkness, i.e. — repentance from sin? Your thoughts?"
ANSWER:
So in regards to your question, which is about the meaning of repentance, I would say the key Bible verse is Hebrews 6:1 because it uses the word "repentance" (along with the idea of "dead works"). The other Bible verses that you mentioned help to explain what is meant by "dead works". But in Hebrews 6:1 the idea of "dead works" needs to be interpreted in light of that specific context, i.e. the immediate context of Hebrews 6:1 and the book of Hebrews in general. So this brings up the question: what is meant by "dead works" in the context of Hebrews 6:1? My understanding of it is in line with that of Dr. Constable, who I think provides an accurate exposition of the text. In his commentary on the verse, Dr. Constable writes the following helpful analysis:
"The writer proceeded [in Hebrews 6:1ff] to specify six things that his readers did not need to learn again: (1) They did not need further instruction about abandoning confidence in works ('repentance from dead works'). If Christian teaching is in view, the writer probably meant 'dead works' in contrast to faith for salvation. If Jewish teaching is in view, he probably meant the 'dead works' involved in the rituals of Judaism. (2) if Christian 'faith' is in view, he probably meant the necessity of trust in Christ for salvation."[1]
So with this understanding, "repentance from dead works" would be a change of belief, not a change of behavior. This ties in with what I wrote in my blog post titled "Is the Grace Evangelical Society Misunderstanding McGee on Repentance?" (FGFS, April 10, 2021), particularly when I said: "if unsaved people are trusting in the aforementioned sins [we could say "dead works" or false confidences] to save them, then turning from those false confidences to trust in Christ alone would be a change of belief (from unbelief in Christ to now believing in Him as the only hope of salvation), not a change of behavior."[2]
Corresponding to this, I have always maintained that saving repentance is a turning from sin in the sense of turning from the sin of unbelief in Christ, as Jesus says in John 16:8-9. I highlighted this in the article mentioned above when I wrote: "Speaking in reference to the unsaved world, Jesus Himself said that when the Holy Spirit comes, 'He will convict the world of sin...of sin because they don't believe in Me' (see John 16:8-9). The only sin that unsaved people must turn from in order to be saved is the sin of unbelief in Christ." In the same article, I not only quote Dr. McGee on the subject, but also Lewis Sperry Chafer. Concerning the topic of repentance, Dr. Chafer says that "turning to Christ from all other confidences [i.e. saving faith] is one act, and in that one act repentance, which is a change of mind, is included. The Apostle stresses this distinction in accurate terms when he says to the Thessalonians, 'Ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thess. 1:9)."[3]
Saturday, February 24, 2024
Where Is Christ's Blood in the Gospel?
The other day I received an interesting question about Christ’s blood, which I will paraphrase as follows:
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?
In response to this question I wrote the following reply, which I trust will help others who may have also been wondering about it.
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 blood, 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 “The appropriation of salvation”[3], Ryrie elaborates by saying:
“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]
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]
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 ‘faith in His blood’ 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]
In the book Simple Studies in Romans, 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]
References:
[1] Charles Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), p. 185.
[2] Ibid., p. 338.
[3] Ibid., p. 340.
[4] Ibid., p. 340.
[5] Thomas L. Constable, Dr. Constable’s Expository Notes, 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, The Communicator’s Commentary: Romans, p. 93.)
[6] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 312, emphasis his.
[7] William L. Pettingill, Simple Studies in Romans (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, by faith, indicating the subjective condition; and the second, by His blood, 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, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1883], p. 153, italics his, brackets added.)
Saturday, February 17, 2024
Debunking Calvinism: Death Means Separation, Not Inability
CALVINIST VIEW |
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 die.’ Now when Adam took the forbidden fruit, and Eve took it, they died. 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 annihilation, it means separation. Death doesn’t mean that the image of God is erased, it means the image of God is effaced. Death doesn’t mean—and this is a very important distinction—that they cannot perceive the truth, it means they are unwilling to receive the truth. 1 Corinthians 2:14 [says] ‘The natural man does not receive’: it’s the Greek word dechomai, 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 receive 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 perceive the truth, we’re just so separated from God that we’re unwilling to receive the truth.”[2]
In a Bibliotheca Sacra article titled “The Gift of God” (Bib Sac, 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, Dogmatic Theology, 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, Dogmatic Theology, 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]
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 today!
References:
[1] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1981), Vol. 1, p. 27, commentary on Genesis 3:17-19.
[2] Norman Geisler, “Why I Am Not A Five Point Calvinist,” Richard Kalk YouTube channel (time stamp 7:00 minutes – 19:05 minutes).
[3] Roy L. Aldrich, “The Gift of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122 (July 1965): p. 248.
Sunday, February 11, 2024
Pastor Kelly Sensenig's View of Repentance
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:
"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, Except Ye Repent, p. 3]."
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 depending on the context, that could be true in regards to Christian repentance (e.g. see Revelation chapters 2-3), but not the Gospel. In other words, forsaking sinful living 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!
Saturday, January 27, 2024
The Cross Is Now Essential to Believe
In my blog post titled "The Cross Under Siege" (FGFS, 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 has done for us 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 completely in Christ and what He did 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 will live....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, lives! By this very simplicity, the Gospel confronts and refutes all its contemporary distortions."[4]
Saturday, January 20, 2024
A Review of J. Vernon McGee's "Thru The Bible" on Flash Drive
Dr. J. Vernon McGee |
Monday, January 15, 2024
Does John's Gospel Present Jesus' Burial as the Fulfillment of Scripture?
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).
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).
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 into [Gr. eis] the earth" (not "to the earth" but "into 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 the normal process of the seed as picturing His own death, burial, and resurrection. Indeed, Dr. C. I. Scofield in his Reference Bible 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]
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 today!
References:
[1] Thomas L. Stegall, That You May Believe: The Evangelistic Purpose and Message of John's Gospel in Relation to Free Grace Theology (ThD thesis, Grace Biblical Seminary, 2017), p. 232.
[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 Scripture 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 Scripture." (Swift, "Is the New Testament Considered 'Scripture'?" Christian Beliefs 101
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. 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." (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers, 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." (Robertson's Word Pictures, commentary on Luke 10:7.) Furthermore, in The Epistle of Barnabas (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, many are called but few are chosen." (The Epistle of Barnabas. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. Early Christian Writings website.) There is also an ancient Christian homily known as II Clement (written to the Corinthians circa
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 came not to call the righteous." (Second Clement. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot. Early Christian Writings 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!
[3] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 586.
[4] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 1042.
[5] Warren Wiersbe, Be Holy (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1994), p. 128.
Sunday, January 14, 2024
Bob Wilkin Disproves Zane Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario"
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 Jesús 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 that hypothetical scenario! In fact, he promotes it![3]
Saturday, January 13, 2024
Is Scofield's View of Revelation 2-3 "Thoroughly Implausible"?
I responded to Wallace's comment with one of my own, in which I highligted some problems that I saw with his view:
Just a thought on Dr. Wallace's previous comment (from 09-27-10), Dr. Scofield in his Reference Bible (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 school 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 to His disciples: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Matt. 13:11; cf. Lk. 8:10). Obviously God's Word is true regardless of whether people understand it or not. Another example is when it says in the Bible (referring to the disciples), that "as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (Jn. 20:9). Was the resurrection of Christ untrue because it was a prophecy that people did not yet understand? Of course not. Wallace's reasoning related to the church history view of Revelation 2-3 doesn't make any sense, nor does it hold up when comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Wallace's view is the typical Calvinistic/Reformed perspective, but the church history view of Revelation chapters 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 in his Thru The Bible commentary:
“These seven letters [in Revelation chapters 2-3] have a threefold interpretation and application:
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 The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Sir William Ramsay said, ‘The man who wrote these seven letters to the seven churches had been there, and he knew the local conditions.’
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.
3. Chronological—the panoramic history of the church is given in these seven letters, from Pentecost to the Parousia, 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]
References:
[1] John, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.
[2] Daniel B. Wallace, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.
[3] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible, Vol. 5: 1 Corinthians—Revelation, p. 898. See under the heading: "INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS 2 AND 3".
Tuesday, January 9, 2024
Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 6
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 on the third day 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.
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 ‘three days and three nights’ (Jonah 1:17; Matt. 12:40; 26:61; 27:40, 63)”.[5]
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). Note: This point deals with four more texts that Stegall selectively omits from his list of Bible verses!
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 from the ground! 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).
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).
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.
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.
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 three times (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, nor any reference from the Gospel of John! The truth is, these key sections from John’s Gospel do not support Stegall’s groundless gospel. Rather, they argue strongly against it.
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).
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.
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 from the ground, as previously explained (see #4).
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.
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).
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]
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 person of Christ, [and] it also pictures the spiritual reality of our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection....It signifies the believer’s spiritual identification with Christ in His person and work [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.
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.
17. Stegall omits any reference to Colossians 2:12, because while this verse mentions Christ’s death and resurrection, it also mentions His burial.
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!
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(s) 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”).
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).
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”).
To summarize: Christ’s death and resurrection are 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 includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances, truths which Stegall contends are not part of “the gospel”.
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.