A Critique of Bill Fallon's View of Repentance, Part 1

Bill Fallon of FreeGraceResources.org has written a 10-Part "Repentance" Word Study in which he attempts to prove the non-traditional view of Zane Hodges, which is that "repentance" (Grk. metanoia) is not required for salvation but rather is required in order to achieve some supposed "harmony with God" (something akin to "enlightenment" in Zen Buddism?) prior to and acting as an impetus toward saving faith.

It should be noted at the outset that my critique of Mr. Fallon's "Repentance" Word Study is not meant to be exhaustive. I will simply "hit the highlights" and draw attention to a few key particulars where Mr. Fallon's "harmony with God" view of repentance especially diverges from the Scriptural teaching on the subject and from the traditional Free Grace view of it.

On the positive side, I did find Mr. Fallon's study on repentance to be an interesting and thought-provoking read. Obviously I don't completely agree with it in all aspects, although of course there were areas of agreement. I applaud Mr. Fallon's desire to keep the gospel of God's grace free and unencumbered by man-made additions. In regards to this, the "Conclusion and Summary" of his Word Study (Part 7) is quite good in terms of his overall goal of keeping the gospel free. But as he said, we must also be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water." Unfortunately this is exactly what Mr. Fallon has done with "Repentance" as it relates to eternal salvation! He argues that it's not required. And thus, for all intents and purposes, he has in effect "thrown it out" as far as eternal life is concerned. In his view, repentance is a false addition to the saving message that needs to be "thrown out" of gospel presentations. Notice the irony: Fallon tried to "throw out the bathwater" (legalism) but ended up throwing out the "baby" (biblical metanoia). How sad! How unbiblical! But in terms of presentation, I'd say that Mr. Fallon's study was a fair summary of the "harmony with God" view of repentance. And to the same extent, it was a (mostly) fair interaction with the traditional Free Grace view of repentance as "a change of mind" (Grk. metanoia). He obviously disagrees with the traditional Free Grace view, but I appreciated Mr. Fallon's humility, notably when he said in reference to the "change of mind" (i.e. traditional Free Grace) view of repentance: "There are Bible teachers who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me who endorse that teaching."[1] 

Mr. Fallon's "Engulfed Room" Illustration

In an effort to move beyond the traditional "change of mind" definition of metanoia, Mr. Fallon employs the following illustration of an engulfed room to argue that one can move from ignorance to belief without actually "changing" their mind. He presents the scenario as follows: 

"Let me illustrate. (An illustration does not prove doctrine; it seeks to illustrate and clarify doctrine). Suppose that you and I were in a room in a large building and I told you that the next room was fully engulfed in flames. Would you believe me? Your answer would likely depend upon several factors; Do you have any other related input? Do I have a sufficient pattern of trustworthiness with you? Are you having a bad day? etc. Now suppose that you open the door and immediately were almost overcome with the heat and the flames, it would matter little whether or not you believed me before as it would be almost impossible for you to doubt the truth of my warning then. Now, more directly related to this matter, suppose you were in the same room in the same situation except that I was not there to warn you. You might not have been thinking about anything, especially about the condition of the next room or what I might have told you if I had been there; You open the door and immediately are almost overcome with heat and flames; Now what? Did you change your mind about the condition of the next room? Of course not. You were not even thinking about it. You encountered a very convincing realization. You had not believed anything either way about the condition of the next room until you opened the door."[2]

Why Mr. Fallon's Illustration is Flawed

The central error in Mr. Fallon's illustration is his restrictive definition of what it means to "change one's mind." Fallon argues that the man didn't change his mind because he "was not even thinking about" a fire in the next room, and so how could he change his mind? Fallon says that the man didn't believe anything either way about the condition of the next room until he opened the door and realized the truth. Only then did he believe it. But ironically, Mr. Fallon's illustration actually proves that the man did change his mind! How so? Precisely because he realized the truth and believed it! (The man obviously didn't realize it or believe it beforehand, thus a change of mind occurred when he believed.) The man didn't need to be aware of the fire or preemptively deny it in order to change his mind about it. Because even if the man wasn't previously thinking about a fire in the next room, there was a change of mind from believing nothing about it to suddenly believing it! The fact is, the man didn't believe it until he did. That is obviously a change of mind. Whatever reason the man had for not believing it (e.g. ignorance, etc.) is beside the point. Actively or knowingly disbelieving something is not a requirement for a change of mind. If new facts are presented and a person believes something for the first time, they obviously believe differently than they did before. By definition that is a change of mind. The point is: There was a change of mind from "not even thinking about it" to then suddenly thinking about it and actually believing it! The "thinking about it" is obviously part of believing because there must be content to believe. And "not thinking about it" is contrasted with "thinking about it," so by definition there is a change of mind. In other words, omission (not thinking about the fire) followed by commission (believing in the fire) constitutes a change. The reality is: you either believe there is a fire, or you don't. Since the man didn't before and does now, his mind has changed. I should also point out that the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means "after-mind" or "change of mind." It does not require a "reversal" of a specific previous thought, but rather a new direction of the mind. Even a man walking in total darkness who suddenly sees a light has changed his "mind" (perception/direction) regarding the path (cf. Psa. 119:130; Isa. 59:9-10; Acts 17:27; 2 Cor. 4:6). To summarize: Mr. Fallon has made a category error by conflating active rejection with a simple unbelief. A person does not need to be actively "anti-fire" to change their mind upon seeing flames; one only needs to move from a state of ignorance to a state of conviction. To say it another way, moving from a state of non-belief or simple unawareness ("zero") to a state of vivid conviction ("one") is, by definition, a change of mind.

Mr. Fallon's Misrepresentation of L. S. Chafer

I would also like to address the fact that Mr. Fallon completely misrepresents a statement by L. S. Chafer. Mr. Fallon quotes Chafer, but only partially and inaccurately. Referring to Chafer, Fallon states that "though he was a proponent of 'repent/change of mind and believe in Jesus' view, [Chafer] honestly admits that there is no Biblical support that repentance is required for receiving eternal life."[3] Fallon then quotes the statement by Chafer when he says: "From this overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence [the absence of repentance in John, only one occurrence in Romans, its absence in Paul's reply of Acts 16:31], it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation."[4] But Mr. Fallon is quite mistaken in his conclusion because in light of the larger context of what Chafer wrote, it's clear that what he meant is that "the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a [separate] condition of salvation [in addition to faith in Christ, because repentance is included in believing]." This is abundantly clear from the context of what Chafer wrote leading up to Chafer's statement that Fallon took out of context.[5] This understanding of Chafer's statement is also quite clear from statements he made elsewhere to the same effect. For example, in his classic book Grace, Chafer says: "Repentance, which means 'a change of mind,' is never excluded from the terms of salvation; it is included as an essential part of believing."[6] And in his book Dispensationalism, Chafer similarly declares that "the requirement on the human side for present salvation is belief in Christ as Savior, which belief includes all the repentance (which is a change of mind) that a spiritually dead person can produce."[7] It is regrettable that Mr. Fallon resorts to intellectual sleight of hand in his attempt to lend a veneer of credibility to his false view of repentance, specifically by distorting Chafer's actual position on the subject.

Bible Verses Showing Repentance is Required for Salvation

Is repentance required for salvation? What does the Bible say? In regards to this, Mr. Fallon writes: "A basic Scriptural argument is that of all the 112 references to repent and its cognates in the Bible that I can find no statement made to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified, i.e. eternally saved. If this is so, then we are on 'very thin ice' claiming that repentance is also required when the Bible never states that it is required and is extremely clear that we simply need to believe in Jesus to save us." In response to Mr. Fallon, it is important to notice what he does and doesn't say. Notice that Mr. Fallon is careful not to be dogmatic on the issue. Instead, Fallon says "I can find no statement," which is obviously quite different than saying "There is no statement." In like manner, Fallon's conclusion is quite tentative in that he says: "If this is so," rather than the more dogmatic "this is so." I appreciate that Mr. Fallon is hedging or qualifying his statement and not being dogmatic. However, the point I'm making is that his conclusion is still false. His conclusion is that the Bible makes "no statement to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified." Mr. Fallon's conclusion is false because the Bible does in fact make statements to the effect that the unsaved must repent in order to be justified! Notice the following Bible verses, which are merely a representative sampling of the vast weight of biblical evidence that could be cited:

1) Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." This has to do with eternal salvation. The gospel saves! Commenting on this Bible verse, Mr. Fallon says: "The only Bible verse which uses the term 'repent and believe' is Mark 1:15. The context is the exhortation to believe the 'gospel of the kingdom.' This was a message to national Israel and it had to do with the earthly kingdom offered to them and not to eternal life. The Jews wanted the Kingdom but the leaders rejected their King."[8] What Mr. Fallon apparently fails to realize is that individual Israelites needed eternal salvation (from their sins!) in order to enter Christ's earthly kingdom. Jesus makes this clear in the Gospels (see Matt. 18:3, 21:28-32, 22:1-14; Mk. 8:10-12, 10:15; Jn. 3:3-5). Mr. Fallon is correct that in Mark 1:15, Jesus is speaking to the Jews. But strangely, Mr. Fallon appears to be under the false impression that the Jews didn't need eternal salvation! It should go without saying that Jesus "came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15)—which obviously includes the nation of Israel (i.e. the Jews). As Jesus said during His ministry to them: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Commenting on Mark 1:15, Chafer states: "The Scriptures bear an uncomplicated testimony to the sinfulness of man; even the sins of those who wrote the Bible are exposed. The Old Testament declares: 'For there is no man that sinneth not' (1 Kings 8:46); 'For in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Ps. 143:2); 'Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?' (Prov. 20:9); 'For there is not a just man on the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not' (Eccl. 7:20). With the same end in view, the New Testament is even more emphatic. The universal practice of sin is presupposed by Christ (cf. Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 24:47; John 3:3-5). The preaching of the gospel is itself an implication that salvation is needed by all. Apart from redemption, man is wrong in the sight of God. Those who fail to receive the saving grace of God are in every instance condemned."[9] 

2) Luke 5:32 - "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners." Interestingly, although Mr. Fallon cites Luke 5:32 as an example of a Bible verse in which the words "repentance" and "sinner" both occur in the same verse, yet he never once expounds on it anywhere in his entire study on repentance. And I wonder why? Jesus came to save sinners! (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). This obviously has reference to eternal salvation, not a supposed preparatory act prior to saving faith. The fact is: Luke 5:32 clearly refers to eternal salvation, and thus it refutes Mr. Fallon's view that repentance is not required in order to receive eternal life. Ironically, Bob Wilkin actually affirms that Luke 5:32 refers to eternal salvation! I say "ironically" because Wilkin has since changed his view of repentance to align with the new view of repentance put forth by Zane Hodges, namely that "repentance" is merely a preparatory act where the unbeliever abandons sin and gets "in harmony with God" prior to saving faith. But before Wilkin changed his view on repentance, this is what he wrote in regards to Luke 5:32. Under the heading "Gospel - Acts Passages in Which Repentance Is a Change of Mind about Christ and a Condition of Salvation," Wilkin discusses Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; and Luke 5:32. And this is what he says: "Several passages in the Gospels and Acts use 'repentance' as a virtual synonym for eternal salvation. Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17, and Luke 5:32 are parallel accounts. I have selected Mark's account as representative. In Mark 2:17 Jesus responded to scribes and Pharisees who were grumbling because Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He said: 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.' All are sinners. Jesus was not suggesting that some didn't need Him. Rather He was asserting the opposite. All who see their need are invited by Him to heed His call: 'Repent' and be saved. 'Repentance' is used here as a metonymy of cause for the effect. The cause is changing one's mind about Christ, believing in Him. The effect is eternal salvation. Thus Jesus was saying in effect: I have not come to call those who think that they are righteous, but those who recognize that they are sinners, to eternal salvation."[10] Amen!

3) Luke 24:45-48 - "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, 'So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." Jesus says that the repentance is "for forgiveness of sins"! The oldest NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance for forgiveness of sins" (Lk. 24:47, NASB). The more recent NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance and remission of sins" (Lk. 24:47, KJV, NKJV). But as the NT scholar Alfred Plummer notes in his commentary on Luke 24:47, "The eis ["for"] (א B, Boh. Syr.) was corrected [i.e. emended] to kai ["and"] (A C D N X etc.) on account of the second eis. The eis is confirmed by [Lk.] 3.3; Mt. 26.28; Mk. 1.4: compare tēn metanoian eis zōēn (Acts 11.18). Compare also Mt. 28.19."[11] Thus, in Luke 24:47 the correct reading is "repentance for the forgiveness of sins"!

4) Acts 17:30 - "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent..." This is part of the apostle Paul's sermon on Mars Hill to the unsaved Gentiles. Clearly, the context is in regards to eternal salvation (see Acts 17:31). Concerning the word "repent" in Acts 17:30, Chafer lists it as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[12] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[13] Clearly, Paul's command to "repent" in Acts 17:30 has as its result eternal salvation. This is made clear by the context (see Acts 17:34). Once again citing Acts 17:30, Chafer affirms "that such repentance as is possible to an unsaved person in this dispensation is included in the one act of believing."[14] The fact that Paul's statement in Acts 17:30 pertains to eternal salvation is furthermore confirmed by his specific mention that God "winked at" (KJV) or "overlooked" (NKJV) sin in the Old Testament prior to the Cross. This is analogous to Paul's statement in Romans 3:25 that God in His forbearance "passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25b-26, NASB). Chafer notes this connection between Acts 17:30 and Romans 3:25 on several occasions, and affirms that it pertains to "Salvation Before and After the Cross".[15] 

5) Acts 20:21 - "solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is part of Paul's farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus, and it is a summary of the message he proclaimed. Thus, to say that repentance is not required for eternal salvation is to in effect say that Paul didn't proclaim eternal salvation. Because Paul summarized his message as "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously the apostle Paul proclaimed eternal salvation, which included "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Commenting on Acts 20:21 and the phrase "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus," A. T. Robertson affirms: "These two elements run through the Epistle to the Romans which Paul had recently written and sent from Corinth. These two elements appear in all Paul's preaching whether 'to Jews or Gentiles, to philosophers at Athens or to peasants at Lystra, he preached repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus' (Knowling)."[16] Similarly, Chafer includes Acts 20:21 in his list of salvation passages evidencing that repentance as a change of mind "is a part of believing".[17] 

6) Acts 26:20 - "[Paul] kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Acts 26:20 must be read and interpreted in light of Acts 26:18-19, which lead up to it and provide the background context. G. Michael Cocoris (citing Bob Wilkin's dissertation on repentance) quotes Acts 26:20 and then says: "In the context of Paul's speech, 'repent, turn to God' in verse 20 is the same as faith in Christ in verse 18, because verse 19 and 20 are an explanation of verse 18 (Wilkin, dissertation, p. 90). Ironside says that Paul is simply insisting that [spiritually] sick people must recognize and acknowledge the incurableness of their terrible disease, so far as human help is concerned, in order that they may cast themselves in faith upon the Great Physician (Ironside, Except Ye Repent, pp. 62-63)."[18] Charles Ryrie gives a wonderful explanation of the text from a traditional Free Grace perspective when he write the following summary: "In Acts 26:20, quoted above, Paul preached that men 'should repent and TURN to God.' But everyone who simply believes the gospel is by that act turning to God. This is well illustrated by Paul's statement about the Thessalonians, 'How ye TURNED TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). A MAN MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT HIS SINS AND YET NOT TURN TO GOD. HE MAY TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THE MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL TO BE GOD'S MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND TRUSTS JESUS CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR MUST OF NECESSITY IN SO DOING BOTH CHANGE HIS MIND AND TURN TO GOD IN THE ACT OF FAITH."[19]

7) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Chafer clearing understands this verse as pertaining to eternal salvation, particularly when he writes the following: "[It is written:] 'God so loved the world.' At once and with sublime propriety the whole enterprise of saving men is declared to arise in the love of God. Indeed, it is the ruined cosmos world which He loves; but this truth only enhances the lofty, yet gracious, character of that love. This is not a love for an elect company alone—as though the title, The Cosmos World, could ever be applied to the elect company who are saved out of it and whom the cosmos hates (John 15:18)—but it is a love for the cosmos which hates, which is lost, and which needs to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). What, indeed, would be the present wretchedness and the future despair of all men were it not for the supreme revelation that 'God is love'?"[20] Similar to Acts 17:30, Chafer lists 2 Peter 3:9 as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[21] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[22] 

Having surveyed these seven representative passages of Holy Writ in regards to the word "repentance" (Grk. metanoia, a change of mind), it can be concluded that the Bible does in fact require this repentance in order for unbelievers to obtain eternal life/eternal salvation. This is confirmed by  respected Free Grace theologians such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, H. A. Ironside, Charles Ryrie, and G. Michael Cocoris, just to name a few. Therefore, Mr. Fallon's contention that "Repentance is not presented in the Word of God as being a requirement for eternal life"[23] is not only false, but furthermore it is a serious misrepresentation of the truth of God's Word in regards to a most important subject of eternal consequence and yes, eternal salvation: the great doctrine of REPENTANCE.

References:

[1] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations".

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., endnote 7, brackets added.

[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 376, brackets added by Mr. Fallon.

[5] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, pp. 372-378. See under the heading "REPENT AND BELIEVE."

[6] L. S. Chafer, Grace, 1922 Edition, p. 18.

[7] L. S. Chafer, "Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December, 1936), Vol. 93, Number 372, pp. 436-437.

[8] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Conclusion and Summary, footnote 1.

[9] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 281.

[10] Bob Wilkin, "Repentance and Salvation, Part 4: New Testament Repentance: Repentance in the Gospels and Acts," bible.org.

[11] Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 563. 

[12] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377.

[13] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[14] L. S. Chafer, Salvation, p. 49, emphasis his.

[15] See L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 1930 Edition, pp. 39-40; L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Revised Edition, p. 183. See under the heading: "Salvation Before and After the Cross."

[16] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 350, commentary on Acts 20:21.

[17] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, pg. 265.

[18] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible, p. 55.  

[19] Charles C. Ryrie, "Soteriology and Evangelism" Teaching Notes, pp. 43-44, emphasis his. Note: This class was part of the core Th.M. curriculum as taught by Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary, circa 1980.

[20] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 394.

[21] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377. 

[22] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[23] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations," emphasis his.

A Free Grace Interpretation of Matthew 24:13

“But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13

Does Matthew 24:13 teach the Calvinistic doctrine known as “The Perseverance of the Saints”? Let’s take a closer look! In regards to the meaning of Matthew 24:13, I’d like to begin with an excellent quote by Dr. Thomas Ice of the Pre-Trib Research Center. The following statements by Dr. Ice are from his article titled “An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25.” The footnote citations (numbers 9, 10, and 11) are from the original article. Commenting on Matthew 24:13, Dr. Ice writes the following:

The exact meaning and implications of “the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved,” is a hotly debated passage. Some use this passage to teach a Christian doctrine known as “the perseverance of the saints.” While others believe that it refers to a physical deliverance. I hold to the latter position, primarily because it is the only view that makes sense in this specific context. 

The first issue that must be dealt with in this matter is the meaning of the term “saved.” Because the word “saved” is used in the New Testament to refer to the time when one becomes a Christian (the moment of justification as in), many just plug that meaning into this passage. The leading Greek lexicon of our days says that the basic meaning of this word is “save, keep from harm, preserve, rescue.”⁹ [William F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 805.] This word can be used in relation to the doctrine of salvation (Matthew 1:21; Acts 16:31; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 1:19; Titus 3:5; etc.), or it can simply refer to physical deliverance or rescue (Matthew 8:25; 14:30; 27:49; Acts 27:31; Hebrews 5:7; Jude 1:5; etc.). The exact nuance is determined by its context. “The problem begins with the superficial hermeneutic of giving ‘saved’ the same meaning in every context, which is not true of any word,” declares Glasscock. “Words have no specific meaning apart from context. Here, ‘saved’ (sōzō) means basically to ‘deliver’ or to ‘rescue’—from what and in what manner is dependent upon the context.”¹⁰ [Glasscock, Matthew, p. 466.]

Many commentaries on this passage fail to consider the contextual factors before they start sermonizing on endurance in the Christian life. They make this into a passage that teaches the Christian doctrine of endurance, even though it is not supported by the specific factors in the text.¹¹ [An example of one who turns this passage into a sermon on Christian endurance is found in John MacArthur, The New Testament Commentary: Matthew 24-28 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), pp. 28-29.] Truly, there is a Christian doctrine of endurance taught in the Epistles (Romans 12:12; 1 Corinthians 13:7; 2 Timothy 2:10, 12; Hebrews 12:3, 7; James 1:12; 5:11; 1 Peter 2:20). This doctrine teaches that one of the many character qualities that believer is to have is endurance. Why is this so? It is true because endurance under suffering produces character (Romans 5:3-4). Yet, none of those references to the Christian doctrine of endurance speak of “enduring to the end.” Instead, passages that speak of enduring to the end all occur within the same context—the tribulation (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19; Revelation 13:10; 14:12).[1]

Contrary to what the Calvinists want us to believe, Matthew 24:13 does not support the doctrine of “The Perseverance of the Saints” and here’s why. First of all (as Dr. Ice pointed out), look at the context of Matthew chapter 24. It has to do with Israel (not the church) and Christ’s return to the earth after the Tribulation (see Matt. 24:20-21, 29-30). Matthew 24:1 says, “And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when his disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.” The Jewish temple was for the Jews under the Law, not for the church in the dispensation of grace! J. Vernon McGee has well said: “You see, back in the Old Testament [under the dispensation of Law], they brought a little lamb [to the temple]. And I’m sure you don’t take a little lamb to church to sacrifice. Today it would be sinful to do that [because it would be like trampling underfoot the Son of God and regarding as unclean His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, Heb. 10:29]. But back then, before Christ came, it was required; the Law required it.”[2] In Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is answering the disciples’ question about the end of the age (v. 3), that is, the end of the Law age related to the nation of Israel. This has to do with the 70 “weeks” (or seventy units of seven years) spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Matt. 24:15; cf. Daniel 9:24-27): “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place” (Dan. 9:24). Prophetically speaking, the first 69 “weeks” have already taken place; there is but one more “week” remaining: the coming seven-year Tribulation. This is the context of Matthew chapter 24. It is related to Israel's 70th “week,” the seven-year Tribulation period: “the time of Jacob's trouble” (Jer. 30:7). It is in this context that Jesus says in Matthew 24:13: “But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.” This statement is pertaining to those who are left behind after the Rapture of the church. Jesus is saying that those Israelites (notice the reference to the “Sabbath” in v. 20) who persevere to the end of the Great Tribulation will be saved, i.e. physically delivered. The word “saved” in verse 13 is in reference to physical deliverance. Jesus uses the word “saved” again in Matthew 24:22 in the same way, as meaning physical deliverance: “And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect [i.e. Israel] those days shall be cut short.” John F. Walvoord, the second president of Dallas Theological Seminary, affirms this interpretation of Matthew 24:13. Walvoord writes: 

“those that endure to the end (Mt 24:13), that is, survive the tribulation and are still alive, will be saved, or delivered, by Christ at His second coming. This is not a reference to salvation from sin, but rather the deliverance of survivors at the end of the age as stated, for instance, in Romans 11:26, where the Deliverer will save the nation Israel from its persecutors. Many, of course, will not endure to the end, in the sense that they will be martyred, even though they are saved by faith in Christ, and the multitude of martyrs is mentioned in Revelation 7:9-17.”[3]

In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries when he says in regards to Matthew 24:13: “This passage should never be used to teach a doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.”[4]

References:

[1] Thomas D. Ice, “An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25” (2009). Article Archives. 2.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/2 (accessed 1-25-2026). 

[2] J. Vernon McGee, Romans: Chapter 1-8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), p. 72, comment on Romans 3:25-26. Note: Reprint. Originally published: Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 1975.

[3] John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), p. 184. See the comment on Matthew 24:13. https://walvoord.com/article/218 (accessed 1-25-2026).

[4] Charlie Bing, “The Salvation of Those Who Endure to the End in Matthew 24:13” (GraceNotes, Number 61). www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/pdf/gracenotes61.pdf

Why MacArthur's Gospel Leaves Listeners "Empty and Dry"

The tragedy of John MacArthur's gospel is that it imports the Mosaic Law requirements for Israel into the church age of grace.[1] Notice what one listener of MacArthur's radio broadcast "Grace To You" (a misnomer in that it is actually "Law To You") said in this regard. The listener of MacArthur's broadcast shared the following comment:

"John MacArthur leaves me empty and dry when I hear him on the radio. The letter of the law kills but the spirit gives life [2 Cor. 3:6]. I do love to hear Vernon Magee [i.e. J. Vernon McGee], even though he is dead [cf. Heb. 11:4], he is a wonderful man even with that accent that I have learned to love."[2]

This "dryness" is the inevitable result of lingering at the foot of Mt. Sinai rather than at the foot of the Cross. This experience mirrors the scene in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress where Christian is lured toward Mt. Sinai by Mr. Worldly Wiseman. As he draws near the mountain to seek relief from his burden through the Law, the hill begins to flash with fire and thunders so loudly that Christian falls down in fear, realizing that the Law cannot save but instead only condemns. 

D. L. Moody, the great 19th-century evangelist, encountered this same "Law-gospel" in his day and remarked:

"I pity those who are always hanging around Sinai, hoping to get life there... [My friend] thinks I preach free grace too much; and I must confess I do like to speak of the free grace of God. This friend of mine feels as though he has a kind of mission to follow me; and whenever he gets a chance he comes in with the thunders of Sinai... I have made inquiries, and I never heard of any one being converted under his preaching: the effects have always dwindled and died out. If the law is the door to heaven, there is no hope for any of us."[3]

The remedy for this spiritual dryness is not to strive harder under the Law, but to take a deeper drink of the finished work of Jesus Christ — where our standing is based on His performance, not ours.

References:

[1] Here I'm referring to the dispensation of the Mosaic Law in the Gospels (the Gospel of Matthew in particular that MacArthur especially draws upon), not discipleship per se. MacArthur fails to "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim. 2:15) by taking the strict requirements of the Mosaic Law — which Jesus preached in Matthew to bring His Jewish listeners to the end of themselves — and turning them into a checklist for salvation in this church age of grace.

[2] "Ray Comfort/John MacArthur teaches a false gospel" (ChristianChat.com). See the comment by Jezreel (#3), dated September 19, 2009. https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/ray-comfort-john-macarthur-teaches-a-false-gospel.6432/ (accessed 1-17-2026). The link to the archived page is: https://archive.ph/oYN7V (archive.today webpage capture).

[3] D. L. Moody, Sovereign Grace (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1891), pp. 48-49, brackets and ellipsis added.

D. L. Moody on Christians "Living in Doubting Castle"

"There is another thought I want to bring out, and that is, it is the privilege of every child of God in this vast assembly to know that their names are written in the Book of Life, and believe we can have that assurance that our names have gone on before us, and are registered in heaven. Christ sent out His disciples, seventy of them, and told them to go into the towns and villages, and preach the kingdom of God, and tell the glad tidings to the inhabitants; and when these men came back they had had wonderful success. Why, they said that the very devils were subject to them. All they had to do was to command the devils to leave the men, and the devils fled before them. They were all elated with their wonderful success; revivals had followed everywhere they had been; they were revival preachers; they were evangelists going into the towns and preaching. I have not any doubt but that there was a good deal of prejudice against them, but they went on preaching the glad tidings, and when they came back, Christ says, 'Well now, do not rejoice at that; I will tell you what to rejoice over. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.' And I would like to ask every one in this audience to-night this question, Is your name there? Can you rejoice to-night that your name is written in heaven, that your name is in the Book of Life? Says Christ to His disciples, 'Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.'

[...]

Yes, every one whose names are written in the Book of Life shall not perish, but shall be saved....Oh, it is the privilege of every child of God to have his name there, and to know that it is there. I find so many people

LIVING IN DOUBTING CASTLE.

Why, it is salvation by doubts nowadays instead of by faith; there are so few that dare to say, 'I know that my Redeemer liveth; I know in whom I have believed.' We find most Christians nowadays shivering and trembling from head to foot, they do not know whether they are saved or not. Yes, Christ never would have told His disciples to have rejoiced unless they had known that their names were there."

____

Source: D. L. Moody, The London Discourses of Mr. D. L. Moody (London: 1875), pp. 121-123.

Addressing Bob Wilkin's "Gospel of John" Objection

I want to point out the flawed methodology of Bob Wilkin's new view of repentance (as supposedly "harmony with God"), specifically when he says the following: "Since John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ and everlasting life (John 20:31), it is highly unlikely that John would leave out the words repent and repentance and yet include the concept if repentance were a condition of everlasting life. He'd want to be as clear as possible. Besides, John used those words a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in his Gospel. As Hodges says, that is an argument about silence, not an argument from silence. See Zane Hodges, Harmony with God (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 2001), 5-11 (see also 13-21)."¹ 

Wilkin's statement is flawed because obviously Hodges is citing John's silence on the word repentance as evidence for his new "harmony with God" view (and thereby concluding that even the concept of repentance is absent from John's Gospel), which is the same as an argument from silence. So Hodges' and Wilkin's statements that their view is not based on an argument from silence but rather what they call an "argument about silence" are merely equivocation. However they phrase it, it's the same idea: Hodges is building his case on the absence of evidence and concluding that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, in regards to Wilkin's statement that John uses the word "repentance" in Revelation but not in his Gospel, other theological terms are entirely absent in John's Gospel but are found in Revelation: for example, the word "gospel" occurs in Rev. 14:6 but is absent in John; the word "church" occurs in Rev. 1:4, 1:11, 1:20; 2:1, 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 (etc.) but is absent in John, and the word "justified" (as found in the KJV/TR tradition) occurs in Rev. 22:11 but is absent in John. Other theological terms that are absent from both John and Revelation are the words "baptism" (the noun is absent in both John and Revelation, although the verb is present in John), "justification," and "Christian". But hopefully no one will say that those concepts are missing! Thus Wilkin's argument about the word "repentance" occurring "a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in [John's] Gospel" is entirely beside the point and does not prove that the concept is absent from John's Gospel. The word "gospel" doesn't even occur in John's Gospel (!), but is found in Revelation. But who would say that the concept is absent from John's Gospel? Indeed, the very reason that John's Gospel is called a "Gospel" is precisely because the concept of "gospel" is contained probably on every page in the book, even though the word itself is never used.²

Furthermore, Wilkin fails to account for the fact that John's vocabulary for "believing" often carries the conceptual weight of "turning" (e.g., John 12:40 uses strephō, "to turn"; cf. Acts 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9), suggesting that for John, the response of faith is inherently a repentant response, even if he prefers different terminology. This does not import works, commitment, or moral reform into faith; it simply recognizes that believing in Christ necessarily entails abandoning prior unbelief, precisely what metanoia denotes at the conceptual level. Wilkin's statement that "John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ" conveys the same idea of a "change of mind," which is thus inherent in saving faith. Wilkin's statement that John's purpose is leading people to "faith" implicitly requires a metanoia — a change of mind — regarding one's previous unbelief. Therefore, Wilkin is essentially arguing that the concept of repentance (as a change of mind) is absent while simultaneously acknowledging a purpose that makes the concept a logical necessity.

When put to the test, the "silence" of John's Gospel does not support Wilkin's theory; rather, it is the theory itself that shatters when struck by the consistent testimony of Scripture.

ENDNOTES:

¹ Bob Wilkin, "Is the Concept of Repentance Found in John’s Gospel, and if so, What Difference Does It Make?" Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2019), p. 25, endnote 3.

² It should be noted that even the title "The Gospel of John" was added later by scribes who recognized — based on the content alone — that the book was indeed a "Gospel." They did not require the literal word euangelion to be present in the text to identify the foundational concept. This exposes the inconsistency in Wilkin's methodology: he demands that the literal word "repentance" be present before admitting the concept exists in John's Gospel, yet he accepts the title "Gospel" for a book that never once uses that specific word in its text.

The Hammer and the Clay: Why Hodges' View of Repentance Shatters Under Scrutiny

"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"  Jeremiah 23:29, KJV.

The following is a comment that I recently shared regarding the "ivory tower" silence we see from the non-traditional Free Grace camp when it comes to discussing their "harmony with God" view of repentance, with those who would challenge it from the Bible:

"...we will probably hear crickets from the non-traditional Free Gracers who teach the view that I'm critiquing. Despite whatever excuse they give, the lack of engagement suggests that their view cannot stand up to the scrutiny of open dialog and debate from a biblical perspective! Hence their complete and total silence on the matter other than to discuss it within the safe confines of their own ivory towers, where Zane Hodges ideologues offer no challenge to their weak and already disproven arguments. 

So much for 'iron sharpening iron' (Prov. 27:17) — but that assumes their view is 'iron,' which it is not. Their non-traditional view of repentance as supposedly 'harmony with God' is brittle clay that shatters when hit by the hammer of 'Thus saith the Lord'! As the Bible says, 'Is not my Word like fire, saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?' (Jer. 23:29)."

________

Addendum: Addressing Bob Wilkin's "Gospel of John" Objection

I also want to point out the flawed methodology of Bob Wilkin's new view of repentance (as supposedly "harmony with God"), specifically when he says the following: "Since John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ and everlasting life (John 20:31), it is highly unlikely that John would leave out the words repent and repentance and yet include the concept if repentance were a condition of everlasting life. He'd want to be as clear as possible. Besides, John used those words a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in his Gospel. As Hodges says, that is an argument about silence, not an argument from silence. See Zane Hodges, Harmony with God (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 2001), 5-11 (see also 13-21)."¹ 

Wilkin's statement is flawed because obviously Hodges is citing John's silence on the word repentance as evidence for his new "harmony with God" view (and thereby concluding that even the concept of repentance is absent from John's Gospel), which is the same as an argument from silence. So Hodges' and Wilkin's statements that their view is not based on an argument from silence but rather what they call an "argument about silence" are merely equivocation. However they phrase it, it's the same idea: Hodges is building his case on the absence of evidence and concluding that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, in regards to Wilkin's statement that John uses the word "repentance" in Revelation but not in his Gospel, other theological terms are entirely absent in John's Gospel but are found in Revelation: for example, the word "gospel" occurs in Rev. 14:6 but is absent in John; the word "church" occurs in Rev. 1:4, 1:11, 1:20; 2:1, 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 (etc.) but is absent in John, and the word "justified" (as found in the KJV/TR tradition) occurs in Rev. 22:11 but is absent in John. Other theological terms that are absent from both John and Revelation are the words "baptism" (the noun is absent in both John and Revelation, although the verb is present in John), "justification," and "Christian". But hopefully no one will say that those concepts are missing! Thus Wilkin's argument about the word "repentance" occurring "a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in [John's] Gospel" is entirely beside the point and does not prove that the concept is absent from John's Gospel. The word "gospel" doesn't even occur in John's Gospel (!), but is found in Revelation. But who would say that the concept is absent from John's Gospel? Indeed, the very reason that John's Gospel is called a "Gospel" is precisely because the concept of "gospel" is contained probably on every page in the book, even though the word itself is never used.²

Furthermore, Wilkin fails to account for the fact that John's vocabulary for "believing" often carries the conceptual weight of "turning" (e.g., John 12:40 uses strephō, "to turn"; cf. Acts 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9), suggesting that for John, the response of faith is inherently a repentant response, even if he prefers different terminology. This does not import works, commitment, or moral reform into faith; it simply recognizes that believing in Christ necessarily entails abandoning prior unbelief, precisely what metanoia denotes at the conceptual level. Wilkin's statement that "John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ" conveys the same idea of a "change of mind," which is thus inherent in saving faith. Wilkin's statement that John's purpose is leading people to "faith" implicitly requires a metanoia — a change of mind — regarding one's previous unbelief. Therefore, Wilkin is essentially arguing that the concept of repentance (as a change of mind) is absent while simultaneously acknowledging a purpose that makes the concept a logical necessity.

When put to the test, the "silence" of John's Gospel does not support Wilkin's theory; rather, it is the theory itself that shatters when struck by the consistent testimony of Scripture.

ENDNOTES:

¹ Bob Wilkin, "Is the Concept of Repentance Found in John’s Gospel, and if so, What Difference Does It Make?" Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2019), p. 25, endnote 3.

² It should be noted that even the title "The Gospel of John" was added later by scribes who recognized — based on the content alone — that the book was indeed a "Gospel." They did not require the literal word euangelion to be present in the text to identify the foundational concept. This exposes the inconsistency in Wilkin's methodology: he demands that the literal word "repentance" be present before admitting the concept exists in John's Gospel, yet he accepts the title "Gospel" for a book that never once uses that specific word in its text.

A Biblical Defense of Christmas

Grace in the Dungeon: Why John the Baptist's Momentary Doubt Does Not Mean Failure

A Review of John Niemelä's Article, "Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison? Matthew 11:2-3" (Grace In Focus, January/February 2025), pp. 17-19.

by Jonathan Perreault

In the article '"Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison?," John Niemelä offers a revisionist view of John's experience. While Niemelä raises an interesting question, I find his analysis to be significantly lacking in substance, as it rests primarily on a series of unsupported assumptions. Following is my full review, in which I detail my reasons for saying this.

Niemelä begins the article by asking two questions: "Did imprisonment cause John the Baptist to doubt? Did this courageous herald of the Messiah fail to finish strong?" It is important to realize that these are two different questions, but Niemelä writes as if the latter question must follow from the former. In other words, Niemelä seems to assume that if John the Baptist doubted, then he failed to finish strong. Thus, at the end of the article Niemelä has an entire section titled "PROOF THAT JOHN FINISHED STRONG," as if that was in question. But even if John doubted, it doesn't mean that he didn't finish strong. John the Baptist could have lapsed into momentary or temporary doubt, but Jesus' reply to his question could have calmed his fears and reassured him.[1] Thus, it is entirely possible that John the Baptist "finished strong," even if he doubted. This also answers Niemelä's point about how Jesus praised John the Baptist by saying, "Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist" (Luke 7:28). In light of this statement by Jesus, Niemelä asks: "Would one expect such a commendation if the Baptist's faith had just crashed? Would Jesus praise him publicly at this very moment? I think not." But is this not grace?! If John's faith had momentarily failed and Jesus still praised him in spite of the momentary lapse, it simply proves that Jesus is gracious! This restorative grace is beautifully illustrated by the specific vocabulary Jesus uses elsewhere to describe how He handles those who are struggling to remain productive. For instance, He who is "full of grace and truth" (Jn. 1:17) lifts up his servant (cf. Jn. 15:2, where the Greek word αἴρω means "to raise" or "lift up") so that his faith will be strengthened![2] Just as a vinedresser lifts a branch out of the mud to restore its vitality and help it become more fruitful, Jesus used His public commendation to lift John out of the "mud" of his prison-induced doubt. Such a commendation is perfectly consistent with the gracious character of our Lord, who "will bring to light the things hidden in darkness" (1 Cor. 4:5), revealing the true heart of a servant even when it is obscured by a temporary trial.

Niemelä goes on to say, "Over 99 percent of Christians would assert something like ['John the Baptist developed an Elijah complex and didn't finish strong.']" But where did Niemelä come up with that statistic? Maybe he's simply using hyperbole, or exaggeration to make a point. Because even from my brief study on the topic of whether or not John the Baptist doubted while in prison (and I myself being someone who believes that John did, in fact, doubt), I wouldn't even put the number of Christians who believe that at 99 percent! It is likely much less. From my research, I have found that there is actually considerable debate on the issue. If "Over 99 percent of Christians" would assert what Niemelä has assumed, there would hardly be so much debate on the question. As Niemelä even indicated in his article (citing G. H. Trench as an example), there are quite a few Bible commentators who take the view that John the Baptist didn't doubt or lose his faith while in prison.[3]

Drawing from Matthew 11:2-3 and Luke 7:19, Niemelä goes on to contend that "Contrary to overwhelming popular opinion, these verses do not say that the Baptist doubted." Agreed, but neither do those verses state that he DIDN'T doubt! Niemelä then asserts, "Interpreters have assumed that John was depressed." But ironically, his own view is also an assumption! This is evident in that he says, "the text points in a different direction." Since the text doesn't explicitly confirm what Niemelä is assuming, he simply concludes that "it points in [that] direction." So it's Niemelä's opinion, not what the text actually says.

Niemelä then abruptly transitions to discuss the phrase "come and see" in John's Gospel, but he (Niemelä) fails to explain how it connects with the main premise of his article (which has to do with John the Baptist's faith). Niemelä simply says, "After considering the passages in John, a careful examination of Matthew 11 and Luke 7 will be in order." The logic behind this shift is unclear. What's the connection? Apparently Niemelä is attempting to show that John the Baptist sent his disciples to question Jesus for their benefit rather than to allay or relieve any personal doubts of his own. But Niemelä really does not explain the connection very well at all, and thus the entire next section of the article (which Niemelä titles "SENDING SOMEONE TO ASK A QUESTION") feels, if not completely off topic, at least disjointed and out of place. It's as if Niemelä is taking the reader on an excursion, but never clearly telling us where he's going or why.

One thing I noticed about Niemelä's interpretation of these passages is that, despite his claim that "interpreters have assumed that John was depressed," he ironically builds his own case largely on conjecture! A case in point is this statement by Niemelä:

"Was there any reason for John to imagine that some of his disciples needed to be persuaded by Jesus? Yes, indeed. John 3:26 shows that some of them harbored jealousy and ill-will toward Jesus: 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!' (John 3:26). Their animosity toward Jesus is especially troubling because it was voiced shortly before John’s arrest. Soon, they would no longer have daily interaction with John. If they had a grudge against Jesus while John was a free man, their resentment likely grew during his imprisonment. John’s praises of Jesus in John 3:27-36 fell on deaf ears. What was John to do? How could he persuade those of his disciples who (in misguided loyalty to one who was only Jesus' herald) shunned the very One whom John exalted? John arranged for them to hear Jesus’ answer to the very question they had (essentially) asked him: 'Is Jesus truly the Coming One?' As much as they might wish to avoid Jesus, they would certainly carry out John’s command. It was not the Baptist who needed Jesus’ answer; his disciples were the beneficiaries. John provided them with a chance to hear the answer from Jesus’ own lips."

Notice the words that Niemelä uses to describe John's disciples. He claims: "some of them harbored jealousy and ill-will toward Jesus;" "Their animosity toward Jesus is especially troubling;" "If they had a grudge against Jesus;" "their resentment likely grew;" "his disciples...shunned the very One whom John exalted" -- but none of this is in the biblical text! Niemelä is building his case largely on conjecture. The concern voiced by John's disciples in John 3:26 could more naturally be attributed to misguided loyalty to their mentor, rather than the explicit "animosity" that Niemelä suggests. Even the quote cited from G. H. Trench doesn't go so far as to ascribe ill-will and wrong-doing to John's disciples. Thus it appears that Niemelä is guilty of the very thing he has condemned in others, namely, building his view largely on assumption.

Niemelä concludes his article by saying, "Christianity has misread Matt 11:2-3 and Luke 7:19. John 'outvited' [read: 'sent them out' or 'directed'] two of his disciples to query Jesus so His word would stabilize them. John's intentions were noble; his imprisonment did not give him an Elijah complex." Niemela goes on to say, "Matt 11:11a and Luke 7:28a suggest that John finished strong and will hear, 'Well done, good and faithful servant.'" I have no doubt that John the Baptist will hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" from the lips of Christ on Judgment Day. That is not the point of contention, at least with me. As I've said, John the Baptist could have lapsed into doubt yet still finished strong.[4] Thus both of those things could be true; they are not mutually exclusive.

Years ago Zane Hodges made a statement that perfectly captures the reality of John's struggle, and I agree with it one-hundred percent: "When John the Baptist asked, 'Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?' (Matt 11:3), he was doubting his earlier conviction that Jesus was indeed the Christ."[5] Because of this statement by Zane Hodges, I almost titled this article, "John Niemelä vs. Zane Hodges on John the Baptist Doubting Jesus". I'm not saying that Niemelä is wrong simply because he disagrees with Zane Hodges, but it definitely leaves a person wondering how far out on a limb Niemelä has ventured?

In conclusion, the following statement by Thomas L. Constable will suffice to summarize my view on the question of whether or not John the Baptist doubted: "An old interpretation of John's question is that he asked it for his disciples' sake, but he never doubted Jesus' identity himself. There is nothing in the text to support this view. Rather John, like Elijah, seems to have become discouraged (cf. Matthew 11:14). Probably this happened because Jesus did not begin to judge sinners immediately."[6]

In the end, we do not need to rewrite John's humanity to protect his legacy; the greatness of the Baptist is found not in a perfect lack of doubt, but in the perfect grace of the One who lifted him out of it.

ENDNOTES:

[1] See the comment by A. T. Robertson when he points out "John's moment of temporary doubt due to his long imprisonment." (Robertson, John the Loyal, p. 225; cf. pp. 195-222.) Also see the comment by Merrill F. Unger: "John's imprisonment may have given rise to his doubts, but the miraculous evidences of Jesus' person were intended to calm his fears." (Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook, p. 476, comment on Matthew 11:1-6.)

[2] Commenting on John 15:2, even Bill Mounce is forced to admit the obvious when he says: "To be fair, I should point out that the first definition of αἴρω in BDAG [Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature] is 'to raise to a higher place or position, lift up, take up, pick up." (Mounce, "One Example of the Passion Mistranslation (John 15:2)," Monday with Mounce blog, April 24, 2023.)

[3] As another example in addition to G. H. Trench, see the commentary by Homer A. Kent, Jr. in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute, 1962), p. 947, commentary on Matthew 11:3.

[4] In Niemelä's article "Did John the Baptist Lose His Faith While in Prison? Matthew 11:2-3" on the Grace Evangelical Society website, Bob Wilkin even admits that "it is possible that John the Baptist was going through doubts" (see endnote iv, "Editor's note," p. 19).

[5] Zane Hodges, "Assurance: Of the Essence of Saving Faith," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1997), p. 8, emphasis added (for the html version of the article, see here).

[6] Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Matthew, 2012 edition, comment on Matthew 11:3. Studylight.org. See also the 2025 edition, pp. 317-318, for a similar treatment.

Ryrie's Summary: "Repentance/Faith in Vital Relationship"

In the landscape of modern theology, the relationship between faith and repentance is often treated as a source of confusion. Are they two separate requirements for salvation, or are they one and the same? In his 1980 teaching notes for "Soteriology and Evangelism" at Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. Charles Ryrie provided a masterful summary of what he called the "vital relationship" between the two. 

The biblical foundation for this relationship is rooted in Paul’s own description of his gospel ministry:

"[Paul] kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Acts 26:20, NASB 1977.

Drawing on this preaching of Paul in Acts 26:20, as well as 1 Thessalonians 1:9, Ryrie clarifies that while a person can change their mind about sin without turning to God, one cannot truly trust Christ as Savior without both changing their mind and turning to God. Here is Ryrie's summary statement on the topic:

SUMMARY: "In Acts 26:20, quoted above, Paul preached that men 'should repent and TURN to God.' But everyone who simply believes the gospel is by that act turning to God. This is well illustrated by Paul's statement about the Thessalonians, 'How ye TURNED TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). A MAN MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT HIS SINS AND YET NOT TURN TO GOD. HE MAY TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THE MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL TO BE GOD'S MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND TRUSTS JESUS CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR MUST OF NECESSITY IN SO DOING BOTH CHANGE HIS MIND AND TURN TO GOD IN THE ACT OF FAITH." (Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 414.)

Ryrie's summary statement reminds us that repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin; you can't have one without the other. Therefore when a person trusts in Christ alone for salvation, they have repented! So let's be clear on what repentance is and what it's not: it is not a separate step in addition to faith alone in Christ alone, but actually is part of believing! Thus New Testament "repentance" (Gr. metanoia) is perfectly consistent with salvation by grace through faith, and how could it ever be otherwise? This understanding of repentance keeps salvation by grace completely free and also answers the charge of adding extra conditions to the gospel, because it makes clear that repentance is part of believing, not an extra step in the salvation process. This keeps the focus where it belongs: entirely on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ!

_____

Source: Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, "903: Soteriology and Evangelism" Teaching Notes, pp. 43-44, emphasis his. Note: This class was part of the core Th.M. curriculum as taught by Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary, circa 1980.

Why Calvinists Lack Assurance and How to Have 100% Certainty Now

For many Calvinists, gaining assurance of salvation means constantly examining their lives, scrutinizing their good works, and asking: "Have I persevered enough?" The following statement by John Piper is typical of Calvinists when he says, "we persevere. That is the way we have assurance."¹ Not surprisingly, Calvinists can never say with 100% certainty in this life if they're really saved or not because according to their belief system, they have to wait until they die before they can find out if they really persevered to the end and finally made it to heaven. But what if you misjudged the fruit in your life and thought you were saved, only to face judgment and realize your trust was never in Christ alone? By then, it's too late. There are no second chances after death. The Bible says: "it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). 

In contrast to Calvinism, the Bible makes it clear that we can have real assurance of our salvation right now! The apostle John says: "These things I write to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).² We can have a "know so" salvation, not a "hope so" salvation. In fact, the Bible tells us that faith is the assurance! Commenting on Hebrews 11:1, W. H. Griffith Thomas writes: "It is important to notice that this verse is not a definition of faith in itself, but only a description of its effects. The word 'is' is emphatic. Faith is described in a two-fold way. It is the foundation of things hoped for, and the 'conviction (or proof) of things not seen.' The word rendered 'substance' or 'foundation' indicates that faith must have a basis—the Word of God. And so the vital question is not 'Do we believe?' but 'Whom do we believe?' It is not a case of sincerity of belief, but of the truth of what is believed....It will be seen throughout the chapter that faith is not passive but active certitude".³ In other words, faith is being absolutely certain that what God says in His Word is true. The Bible says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17).

But Calvinists have a different focus. For example, in his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), Wayne Grudem treats good works as the benchmark of salvation and the basis for assurance (e.g. see pp. 79, 86-87, 89, 92). Grudem's focus is not on God's Word, but on himself; that's how he gains assurance: by looking at himself. That's why he asks, "How do I know that I have believed and that I have been born again?"⁴ What Grudem is saying is that in his view, the only way to have any real assurance of salvation is to look at your life and see if there are any positive changes after you got saved (or supposedly got saved), and if there are, then he says you can have some measure of assurance that you're saved. In response to Grudem's question, my first thought is that if you have to ask that question, maybe you haven't been born again! Maybe you never did believe. So one possibility is that Grudem may not be born again. Even Grudem would have to admit that this is a possibility according to his theological viewpoint, because as I mentioned, he thinks that people can't really know for sure they're saved until they die. In regards to this, someone has wisely said: "If you don't know you're saved, how can I know you're saved?"

I like how D. L. Moody responded whenever someone would say, "I can't believe." (Maybe we could update the statement to say, "I can't believe that I'm saved.") Mr. Moody would ask: "Believe whom?"⁵ And so in answer to Grudem's question, "How do I know that I have believed?," I would ask: "Believed whom?" Notice that W. H. Griffith Thomas made the same point in his statement above. He said that "the vital question is not 'Do we believe?' but 'Whom do we believe?' It is not a case of sincerity of belief, but of the truth of what is believed."⁶ And so this shows again that the real question is: "Believed whom?" That changes the focus of the original question, doesn't it? It takes the focus off myself and puts the focus on something or someone outside of myself. And biblically, that is where the focus of our faith should be: not on ourselves, but on Christ! We need to take our focus off ourselves and turn our eyes upon Jesus! The Bible encourages us to be "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2). In the Gospels, what happened to Peter when he tried to walk on the water but then took his eyes off the Lord? Peter began to sink! Likewise, when we take our eyes off Jesus we too will begin to sink into doubts and despair. The Bible says that Christ has been made unto us our "righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). We have God's Word on it, and that is where our assurance is found. In other words, our assurance is based first and foremost on God's Word, knowing that what He says in His Word is true. Or in the words of W. H. Griffith Thomas, faith is having an "active certitude" or an absolute certainty that what God says in His Word is true. Such as this promise given by Jesus Himself: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life" (Jn. 5:24, NKJV).

Saving faith looks outside of ourselves to Christ. Whereas doubt focuses back on ourselves or in some way takes the focus off Christ and His promise of eternal life. We need to "turn our eyes upon Jesus and look full in His wonderful face!"⁷ The great Bible teacher H. A. Ironside affirms the true basis for assurance when he says: "And now the One who is alive forevermore (Rev. 1:18) is presented as an object for the hearts of His own. 'He was seen'; and the same apostle exclaims, in another place, 'We see Jesus!' (Heb. 2:9). Poor sinners are first led to see the utter impossibility of improving or rendering themselves more fit for God's presence. The eye of faith is then directed to the One who died, in whom believing, they are 'justified from all things' (Acts 13:38, 39). Now they have also an object for the heart, even Christ in glory (2 Cor. 3:18). How different this from what you [focusing on the sinner] have presented! Here, '’Tis Jesus first, ’tis Jesus last, ’Tis Jesus all the way,' while you are cast entirely on yourself."⁸

Calvinists lack assurance because they are focusing on themselves when they should be focusing on CHRIST! 

’Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, Just to take Him at His word; Just to rest upon His promise; Just to know, “Thus saith the Lord.”

ENDNOTES:

¹ John Piper, "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism" (March 1, 1985), www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism

² "These things I write" (Grk. tauta egrapsa) in John 5:13 refers to the immediate context (1 Jn. 5:9-12), not to the entire epistle (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1, 2:26).

³ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), p. 141, ellipsis added. Note: Notice that Griffith Thomas says that "faith is not passive but active certitude". (Ibid.) This is very important to point out because Calvinists oftentimes take the position that faith is passive in the sense that they view faith as a gift of God. They typically cite Ephesians 2:8 in support of their view that faith is a gift of God. But Greek scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace reject this view.  In reference to the word "faith" in Ephesians 2:8, Wallace says that "it is not a gift per se". (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 334-335.) Nonetheless, it is still a popular viewpoint among Calvinists. In regards to faith supposedly being the gift of God, D. L. Moody has wisely said: "Faith is taking God at His Word; and those people who want some token are always getting into trouble. We want to come to this: GOD SAYS IT—LET US BELIEVE IT. But some say, Faith is the 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 are wanting a miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10. 17). That is whence faith comes. It is not for me to sit down and [passively] wait for faith to come stealing over me with a strange sensation; but it is for me to [actively] take God at His Word." (Moody, The Way to God, p. 51, emphasis his, brackets added.)

⁴ Wayne Grudem, "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), p. 89, emphasis his.

⁵ D. L. Moody, "Mr. Moody on Believing." The Institute Tie (September 1900), Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 151.

⁶ W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary, p. 141.

⁷ Helen Howarth Lemmel, "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" hymn (1922), adapted.

⁸ H. A. Ironside, The Mormon’s Mistake, or What Is the Gospel?, p. 5.

Robertson's Word Pictures on Studylight.org: A Critical Omission

A Key "Gal. 1:6-9" Reference is Omitted from Robertson's Word Pictures on Studylight.org

by Jonathan Perreault

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

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

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

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

ENDNOTES:

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

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

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

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