Scandalous Grace and the Text: Why John 7:53–8:11 Belongs in the Bible

John 7:53–8:11, traditionally called the Pericope Adulterae, records Jesus' radical grace and compassion toward the woman caught in adultery. Today, the passage is frequently viewed with skepticism by Bible scholars and textual critics. Most modern critical editions of the New Testament assign it a secondary status in terms of its authenticity and in regard to whether it is truly inspired—and thus whether it really belongs in the Bible at all. Most scholars feel it doesn't belong, and thus they relegate it to a non-inspired status by placing the text in brackets or even double brackets. And if they do include it, they often do so begrudgingly: printing it in a smaller font or banishing it to an appendix at the very back of the Bible.

In many ways, this treatment serves as a metaphor for how legalism views God's grace. Like the Pharisees, many people appear religious and claim to love God and follow His Word, but in reality they disdain God's grace and view it with contempt, relegating it to a secondary status in their theological belief system. Sadly, that's the attitude of many toward Free Grace theology: they regard it with suspicion, and ultimately reject it as unacceptable. They may give lip service to God's "free grace" (as in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly states that "justification is only of free grace" and that divine pardon "is the act of God's free grace in Christ"), but in their theological belief system they functionally deny it, choosing rather to accept the strict legalism of "Lordship Salvation" or a similar type of Pharisaical framework where God's grace is relegated to an implicit footnote in their theology of the cross.

This is precisely why I believe the Pericope Adulterae belongs in the Bible! Not only for text-critical reasons (which I will explain below), but also for the profound theological truths it preserves. Far from being a spurious later addition, the story's radical message of grace is the very core of its authenticity.

Free Grace Reflections on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

What follows are my Free Grace reflections on John 7:53–8:11 and why it deserves its place in both the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus. Note that these remarks were originally written as an edited response to an article by Valtteri Lahti titled "Why the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) Belongs in the Bible."

Grace vs. Legalism

I myself just came to believe that the Pericope Adulterae is genuine very recently, based on something I read by William Barclay which I will explain below.

Although I do not hold to the Byzantine priority view of the New Testament manuscripts (I personally view the few older manuscripts as more trustworthy than the many newer manuscripts), I do agree that the Pericope Adulterae was most likely in the original text. It's free grace, and I'd say that's likely why it was removed. When Barclay explained it along those lines, it convinced me.

Specifically, it was his perspective on the story's theological scandal that shifted my view. Barclay has an interesting note on this issue at the end of his commentary on the Gospel of John. It's in Volume 2 of his Daily Study Bible Series (I have the Revised Edition), and the section is titled "Note on The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery" (p. 290). He argues that it was removed due to (in your words) "theological piety." I think that's a nice way to say it, as it seems "theological piety" is a gentle euphemism for what was ultimately a legalistic fear of scandalous grace.

As you noted, the story is referenced or alluded to quite early in the manuscript tradition (exactly how early is debatable, but the point is true in the main that it can be traced back to quite an early date). Then the story was removed from the manuscripts, then it is added back in. Barclay asks, "What is the explanation?" and he goes on to say: "Augustine gives us a hint. He says that this story was removed from the text of the gospel because 'some were of slight faith,' and 'to avoid scandal.' We cannot tell for certain, but it would seem that in the very early days the people who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous story [where have we heard that before, i.e., that free grace is dangerous??], a justification for a light view of adultery, and therefore omitted it. After all, the Christian Church was a little island in a sea of paganism. Its members were so apt to relapse into a way of life where chastity was unknown; and were for ever open to pagan infection. But as time went on the danger grew less, or was less feared, and the story, which had always circulated by word of mouth and which one manuscript retained, came back. [...] In spite of the doubt that the modern translations cast on it, and in spite of the fact that the early manuscripts do not include it [except "only in one," says Barclay], we may be sure that this is a real story about Jesus, although one so gracious that for long men were afraid to tell it." (Ibid., pp. 291-292, brackets added.)

I also noticed that C. I. Scofield has a note on John 7:53–8:11 in his Reference Bible in which he takes the same view as Barclay. Regarding this, Scofield says: "John 7.53–8.11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality!" (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1917 Edition], p. 1125.)

It seems, then, that the story of the woman caught in adultery was removed from the Bible because it was scandalous grace—just like the gospel is. To me, that verifies the free grace gospel, because it too is scandalous: "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24). Praise the Lord!

When Was It Removed?

Barclay's comment also helps to solve the problem that you mentioned at the end of your article, when you said: "While it is possible that some copyists might have done that [removed the Pericope Adulterae due to their 'theological piety'], I do not believe that it is a sufficient reason for its absence in most of the manuscripts we have." That seems fair to say. However, if the removal of the Pericope Adulterae happened "in the very early days" (as Barclay surmises, p. 291), when "the people who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous story" (Ibid., p. 291), then it would have been before "most of the manuscripts we have." A very logical explanation is that such an early removal would help explain the widespread absence of the passage, before there were very many NT manuscripts to remove it from. (Because how else do you explain its removal from so many different manuscripts in different parts of the world?) And thus this would attest to a "very early" date of inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae in the NT manuscripts, before there were very many copies! Otherwise if it wasn't removed until later when there were more NT copies/manuscripts, how was the removal orchestrated? It would need to be orchestrated but not orchestrated, and that is vastly more difficult to do and to explain. The simplest/easiest explanation it seems to me, is that the Pericope Adulterae was in the original NT manuscript text, and thus in the very early copies, but then "very early" (when there were still not very many NT manuscripts) it was then removed.

If the Pericope Adulterae was originally present, its absence from manuscripts produced in widely separated places and at different times requires an explanation. It seems difficult to explain such widespread omission as the result of thousands of scribes independently deciding, for the same theological reason, to remove the passage. A much simpler possibility is that the omission occurred very early, before the surviving textual traditions had multiplied extensively. Once an early exemplar lacking the passage began to be copied, the omission could naturally propagate through numerous subsequent manuscripts and geographical regions without requiring any later coordination. Thus, paradoxically, the widespread absence of the Pericope may be consistent with—and perhaps even supportive of—the hypothesis that its removal occurred very early.

To put this in more concrete terms, the question is: How do we explain the fact that the Pericope Adulterae is absent from all these different manuscripts, written at all these different times, in all these different parts of the world? My answer is that if the Pericope Adulterae was removed "very early" when there was only, say, a handful of localized manuscripts, that would not be difficult to do, right? Five local scribes would simply get together and agree not to copy the Pericope Adulterae in any future NT manuscripts that they copied. In that case, it would be an easy thing to do...if it was removed "in the very early days" (as Barclay suggests). So that supports the conclusion that the Pericope Adulterae has "very early" attestation in the NT manuscripts. And if so, why do scholars question its authenticity? That would support its authenticity!

The Original Placement

While some may find this surprising to hear, I'm not convinced that the Pericope Adulterae was originally in John's Gospel. In some NT manuscripts the story appears in Luke's Gospel. The reason I question if it was originally in John's Gospel is because of the relatively late date of when the Gospel of John was written (likely around 85-90 A.D.), and also because many of the Greek words in the Pericope Adulterae are otherwise non-Johannine, that is, they occur nowhere else in John's Gospel. Therefore I tend to think that it is more likely that the Pericope Adulterae was originally in Luke's Gospel. It is placed after Luke 21:38 in some NT manuscripts. Additionally, the placement of the story after Luke 21:38 seems perhaps to fit better contextually than where it occurs/is placed in John's Gospel. C. K. Barrett affirms concerning the Pericope Adulterae that "it closely resembles in form and style the synoptic narratives (especially the style of Luke; see the notes)." (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 491; cf. p. 492.) Barrett's analysis supports my view that the Pericope Adulterae was originally part of Luke's Gospel rather than John's Gospel.

Scrivener offers an interesting theory that I think has some merit, explaining how the Pericope Adulterae came to be in John's Gospel. Scrivener postulates that John likely added chapter 21 to his Gospel after it was already written and the copies were already being circulated, and in the same way the Apostle could have added John 7:53–8:11 after his Gospel was already written and in circulation. Regarding this, Scrivener writes: "If ch. 20.30, 31 shew signs of having been the original end of this Gospel, and ch. 21 be a later supplement by the Apostle's own hand, which I think with Dean Alford is evidently the case, why should not S. John have inserted in this second edition [...] this most edifying and eminently Christian narrative? The appended chapter (21) would thus be added at once to all copies of the Gospels then in circulation, [...] though a portion of them might well overlook [...] from obvious though mistaken motives, might hesitate to receive for general use or public reading the history of the woman taken in adultery." (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 3rd Edition, p. 610, ellipsis added. Note: I updated the Roman numerals to the current format.) What Scrivener says is, I'd say, entirely plausible, and would well explain why some of the earliest and best manuscripts don't contain John 7:53–8:11, yet others do. Scrivener's explanation also allows both sides in the textual criticism debate to "save face," because in such a scenario both sides are right! The Critical Text group is right by omitting the Pericope Adulterae since it wasn't in the very first manuscript of John's Gospel that he wrote and that was being circulated, and the Byzantine Majority text group is also right in this case, because the story of the woman caught in adultery was then added by John's own hand to the manuscript (or manuscripts) of his Gospel that were then in circulation and thus the added text is truly inspired! (John could have taken the story from another source and that would explain why many of the Greek words in the Pericope Adulterae are otherwise non-Johannine.) Concerning this, Scrivener goes on to conclude: "It must be in this way, if at all, that we can assign to the Evangelist ch. 7.53–8.11; on all intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs be abandoned: and such is the conclusion arrived at by all the critical editors." (Ibid.) I agree with Scrivener's purely linguistic assessment that the style of the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine; however, I differ with those who would abandon the passage, as Scrivener's "second edition" theory provides a legitimate apostolic pathway for its canonical authority. Like I said, the language of the Pericope Adulterae is clearly non-Johannine. So either John got it from another source and inserted it into his Gospel after it was already in circulation, or the story belongs in one of the Synoptic Gospels (either Matthew, Mark, or Luke), with Luke's Gospel being the most likely place where the story was originally until those "of slight faith" removed it "because the grace in dealing with the woman was unpalatable to legalists." (Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook [Chicago: Moody Press, 1967], p. 554.) So I think that either explanation is viable, and in fact possibly both are true!

So in my view, the three most likely scenarios regarding the original placement of the Pericope Adulterae are the following:

1) John got the Pericope Adulterae from another source (possibly one of the Synoptics) and included it in the 2nd edition of his Gospel after it was already in circulation. (John also could have added chapter 21 to his Gospel at this time as well.) This explains why many of the best NT manuscripts don't include the story of the woman caught in adultery, but others do. (Note: What Augustine says about the story being removed due to its scandalous nature can still be true and in no way does it falsify this scenario. It actually explains why the Pericope Adulterae was removed from some of the copies, and why John chapter 21 was not removed.)

2) The Pericope Adulterae was originally in one of the Synoptic Gospels (most likely Luke's Gospel), but it was then removed "very early" from some of the few manuscripts that were in existence/in circulation. This early removal of the Pericope Adulterae from some of the NT manuscripts was due to a legalist fear that the story might encourage immorality.

3) The Pericope Adulterae WAS originally in John's Gospel (and he included it as a story that he got from another source, likely one of the Synoptics or maybe even personally from one of the Synoptic writers in his interactions with them). The Pericope Adulterae was then removed from John's Gospel "very early" due to a prudish fear that it might encourage immorality.

The 2nd and 3rd scenarios, although plausible, seem to me the least likely of the three. Why? Because scenarios #2 and #3 would seem to cast unnecessary doubt on the general trustworthiness (or the characteristic trustworthiness) of the early uncial NT manuscripts that don't include the Pericope. In light of the general trustworthiness of the early NT manuscripts, it seems more likely that scenario #1 is the best, because in this case the early uncial manuscripts are preserving the first edition of John's Gospel, while the Byzantine NT manuscripts that include the story are preserving the second edition of John's Gospel (also written by his own hand). So in such a scenario as this, both groups are right! Scenario #1 is also consistent with the conclusion of many NT scholars that chapter 21 was added to John's Gospel at a later time, even by John's own hand. Scenario #1 also explains why the very earliest (and I believe the best) NT manuscripts don't contain the story, because it wasn't in the first edition of John's Gospel that was circulating.

I should also mention that John chapter 21 and the Pericope Adulterae could have been added by John at different times. This would also help explain why many of the earliest NT manuscripts contain John chapter 21 but not the Pericope. It's hard to determine because we don't know the exact timeline or sequence of when each section was added and to what NT manuscripts.

Conclusion

Whichever of these textual scenarios one adopts, the ultimate conclusion remains the same: the Pericope Adulterae is not a spurious, pious fiction, but a genuine, inspired record of the historical ministry and message of Jesus Christ. Whether it reached us as a second Johannine edition, an early Lukan narrative, or an authentic apostolic tradition preserved through early oral circulation, its presence in the canonical stream is unmistakable. Its brief disappearance from early manuscripts does not expose a flaw in text transmission, but rather highlights a tragic human tendency—the fear of scandalous, unconditional grace. In preserving John 7:53–8:11, God has ensured that His Church continues to bear witness to a Savior who stands between the self-righteous accuser and the helpless sinner, offering full, unearned pardon through His amazing grace.

A Guide to the Best Free Grace Study Bibles

The following Study Bibles are some of the best Free Grace and Free Grace–friendly options I've found:

1. The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

First Edition: 1908 

Revised Editions: 1917, 1929, 1934, 1964, 1982, with full layout redesigns in recent years.

Publisher: Zondervan

Compiled and edited by Dr. Frank Charles Thompson.

Details: This Study Bible features over 100,000 cross-references covering more than 8,000 topics. 

Comments: The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible is my personal favorite! The vast amount of "chain-references" allow the reader to see what the Bible itself says about a topic instead of some editor's commentary on it. For the record, my top three favorite Study Bibles are: 1) The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, 2) The Ryrie Study Bible, and 3) The Scofield Reference Bible. 

2. The Scofield Reference Bible

First Edition: 1909

Revised Edition: 1917

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Edited by C. I. Scofield, along with an editorial committee of grace-oriented Bible scholars 

Comments: The Old Scofield Study Bible is hard to beat. My only critique is that it doesn't have as many notes and cross-references as The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible and The Ryrie Study Bible. That's the only reason (or at least the main reason) why I rank The Scofield Reference Bible as my third favorite behind the other two.

3. The New Scofield Study Bible

Publication Year: 1967

Details: An extensive revision of Scofield's original notes using updated English and modern marginal references, overseen by a committee of evangelical scholars. The New Scofield Study Bible has 700+ new footnotes and 15,000 additional cross-references compared to the older Scofield Bible.

Publisher: Oxford University Press

General Editor: E. Schuyler English

4. Thru The Bible's KJV Reference Bible

Publication Year: 1976

Updated Editions: Late 1980s thru today

Details: Features Dr. J. Vernon McGee's Guidelines for Understanding the Scriptures, as well as Dr. McGee's Notes and Outlines for each book. The text is printed in large 14-point font for easy reading.

Publisher: Thomas Nelson

Compiled by J. Vernon McGee and available on the Thru The Bible website.

5. The Ryrie Study Bible

First Edition: 1978

Expanded Edition: 1994 and 1995

Details: Released in 1994 for KJV and NIV (followed by the NASB updated edition in 1995), this expanded version added over 2,000 new study notes, expanded book introductions, updated charts/timeline diagrams, and enhanced cross-references while retaining Dr. Ryrie's signature dispensational and Free Grace-friendly framework.

Publisher: Moody Publishers

Edited by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie

6. The Nelson Study Bible

Publication Year: 1997

Publisher: Thomas Nelson Publishers

General Editor: Dr. Earl Radmacher

7. The NKJV Study Bible

Publication Year: 1997 / 2007

Details: Originally published in 1997 under the title The Nelson Study Bible, it was rebranded and formally retitled The NKJV Study Bible in 2007 (with a 2nd edition in 2008).

Publisher: Thomas Nelson

Edited by Dr. Earl Radmacher alongside Ronald B. Allen and H. Wayne House.

8. The Scofield Study Bible III

Publication Year: 2002

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Details: Updated formatting, added cross-references, and expanded historical/archaeological notes while maintaining Scofield's classic theological framework.

9. The Life Principles Study Bible

First Edition: 2005

Second Edition: 2019 / 2020

Publisher: Thomas Nelson Publishers

Details: Compiled by Dr. Charles F. Stanley, focusing heavily on devotional application, his "30 Life Principles," and practical Christian-living notes. Available across major translations including KJV, NKJV, NASB, & NIV.

10. The Jeremiah Study Bible

First Released: 2013 (NKJV edition by Worthy Publishing)

Subsequent Translation Releases: NIV edition in 2014 and ESV edition in 2019

Compiled by Dr. David Jeremiah

11. The Swindoll Study Bible

Publication Year: 2017

Publisher: Tyndale House Publishers

Compiled by Dr. Charles R. Swindoll

12. The Free Grace Study Bible

Publication Year: Currently in Progress

Details: An ongoing translation and study project featuring the Free Grace Translation and notes, prioritized around strict formal equivalence and grammatical precision without text-critical adjustments.

The Noble Army of "Heretics" | by Bill Jackson

THE NOBLE ARMY OF "HERETICS" 

by Bill Jackson. 

Brief account of Church History that answers the question, "Where were the Christians before the Reformation?" Click on the picture to read the html version of the book.

"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." Acts 24:14, KJV.

The Grammar of Grace: The Meaning of "Repent" in the English Bible

The following is excerpted from A. C. Partridge's book English Biblical Translation, specifically where he discusses the crucial importance and fundamental meaning of the English word "repent". Partridge writes:

"The Bible was the testing-ground of translators almost from its written beginnings; for Hebraic traditions and culture soon passed to the Greek, North African and Roman world. In the rights and wrongs of translation began the earliest dissensions of the Christian Church. 

 

Not only the principles of religion, but the doctrinal differences of the creeds turn on the meaning of crucial words and phrases in the original texts; and the texts themselves have been difficult to establish. Thus in Matthew III, 2 the Greek New Testament has metanoeite, meaning 'change your mind' or 'repent'; this Jerome rendered penitentiam agite, 'do penance', in which he was followed by Wyclif. Erasmus saw the ambiguity and suggested for his Latin version ad mentem redite ['come to your senses' or 'return to your right mind'] or resipiscite, 'reconsider'. The significance of this change provided Luther with a reasonable ground for his reform movement."¹

Like the Reformers, let's return to the Greek text of Scripture and reclaim the true biblical meaning of "Repent": change your mind!

Reference: 

¹ A. C. Partridge, English Biblical Translation (London: Andre Deutsch Limited, 1973), p. 3, brackets added.

A Free Grace Review of D. M. Panton's "The Truth on Purgatory"

Although D. M. Panton rightly decries the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory as unscriptural, he goes too far in his own interpretation—and indeed errs—when he asserts that Christians must undergo divine purging in the afterlife. What follows is a critical evaluation of Panton's thesis.¹

Panton conflates 1 Timothy 5:24 with Hebrews 9:27 simply because both passages contain the word "judgment." He argues that both refer to judgment in the afterlife, applying this to Christians specifically at the Judgment Seat of Christ (the Bema). That the Scriptures affirm a Bema Seat Judgment for believers is beyond dispute. However, Panton isolates 1 Timothy 5:24 from its immediate pastoral context—which addresses local church oversight in the present life—and misapplies it to the Bema. The foundation for his "Protestant Purgatory" framework is thus flawed from the outset; it relies on eisogesis (improper Bible interpretation) rather than exegesis, that is, deriving doctrine from a proper understanding of the text.

Furthermore, Panton misapplies Christ's words in Luke 12:47 to Church-age believers. The context of Luke 12 addresses Christ's Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation, not the Rapture of the Church.² While general principles apply across dispensations, ignoring the immediate dispensational context leads to severe theological missteps. Adherents of this non-traditional "outer darkness" or post-mortem chastisement position create an internal inconsistency within their system by superimposing Tribulation-era warning passages onto the Church, illustrating a fundamental flaw in their hermeneutic.

In his analysis of 2 Corinthians 5:10, Panton reads his thesis directly into Paul's statement that all must appear before the Bema to receive what was done in the body, "whether it be good or bad." Panton adds the commentary that "a believer's unconfessed and unabandoned sins appear there for chastisement." Yet this directly contradicts God's promise regarding the New Covenant: "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:17). If this holds true for Israel, how much more for the Bride of Christ? As Paul writes, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1:7).

The "bad" (Greek phaulos) works in 2 Corinthians 5:10 are not unatoned sins, but worthless works evaluated in contrast to rewardable ones (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15). They represent fleshly or misdirected efforts (outwardly good works that were performed in the energy of the flesh), not sins requiring punitive retribution. At the Bema, the issue is service and rewards, not moral guilt. In ancient Greece, the Bema was the elevated platform where victorious Olympic athletes received their rewards—the exact imagery Paul draws upon. The Bema Seat of Christ is for reward, not punishment; thus, the opposite of receiving a crown is forfeiting the crown—not suffering chastisement. The believer's sin-debt was paid in full at Calvary (Jn. 19:30).

Ultimately, Panton's framework functionally treats Christ's atonement as incomplete regarding post-conversion sins. By teaching that Christ's blood merely provides the "basis" for further after-death purging through chastisement, Panton effectively compromises the finished work of Christ. Such a view stands in direct denial of Hebrews 1:3, which explicitly asserts that Christ "by Himself purged our sins" (Heb. 1:3).³ Scripturally, Christ's death is not merely necessary—it is entirely sufficient (Heb. 10:10-18). The blessed truth of Scripture is that Jesus fully bore our judicial punishment on the cross: "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed" (Isa. 53:5). To introduce a "second purging" after death diminishes the cross and misinterprets earthly pruning passages such as John 15:2, which refer to divine discipline in this life (cf. Heb. 12:5-6; Rev. 3:19), not punitive purging in the next.

ENDNOTES:

¹ D. M. Panton, "The Truth on Purgatory," The Millennial Kingdom website (originally published in The Dawn magazine, Vols. 13-14, c. 1937).

² John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH: Dunham Publishing Company, 1959), pp. 271–272.

³ Although Panton acknowledges Hebrews 1:3, he attempts to bypass its clear force by claiming that it merely provides the basis for cleansing—the necessary effect of which is that believers must ultimately purge their own sins through post-mortem suffering.

Zane Hodges Admitted His “Gospel” Was Crossless

It was there all along. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before. Hodges’ “crossless” gospel: hidden in plain sight.

What do I mean? What I mean is that Hodges publicly stated that in his view, “the gospel” does not include the cross. What! Really? Yes, and actually it’s worse than that, because he didn’t believe “the gospel” includes the resurrection either.

I documented this in my article “Zane Hodges vs. Paul on the Gospel”¹, specifically when Hodges said:

“the facts surrounding the gospel message–such as the death and resurrection of Christ–are important facts for what they tell us about the reasons for trusting Christ. But believing these facts doesn’t save anyone. People are only saved when they believe that Jesus gives them eternal life the moment they believe in Him for that.”²

That statement shows that Hodges’ view of “the gospel” did not include the cross or the resurrection.

How so, you ask? Because notice carefully that Hodges doesn’t say these are the facts “of” the gospel message, but the facts “surrounding” it. By definition, what surrounds an object is not the object itself. Hodges has structurally relegated the cross and the resurrection to a place outside the boundaries of the gospel message.

CROSSLESS!

Thus, all this “pearl-clutching” and hand-wringing and quite frankly just whining on the part of crossless gospel advocates about how the label “crossless gospel” is a “pejorative misnomer” is proven false by Zane Hodges himself.

Someone might object by saying that Hodges made other statements about how Paul’s gospel included the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Yes indeed! But in light of Hodges’ statement quoted above, it just shows that Hodges’ gospel is different from Paul’s gospel! That’s exactly what I pointed out in my article “Zane Hodges vs. Paul on the Gospel”. Thus, Hodges’ own words bear witness against him and highlight how he preached “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9, NKJV).

Bob Wilkin also made it evident that his “gospel” is crossless when he said: “Jesus made it clear that the only condition [for salvation] is being convinced that He guarantees eternal life to all who believe in Him. Add anything to that and you have a different gospel.”³

Thus, the gospel preached by Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin–which they told us excludes the cross–is by their own admission “a different gospel”!

ENDNOTES

¹ Jonathan Perreault, “Zane Hodges vs. Paul on the Gospel” (FGFS, November 23, 2023).

² Zane Hodges, “How To Lead People To Christ, Part 2,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2001), p. 11.

³ Bob Wilkin, “Saving Faith in Focus,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 1998), p. 45, emphasis his. 

The Myth of "Hell-Free" Evangelism: How Bob Wilkin Misreads John 3

There is a growing tendency in some theological circles to sanitize the New Testament and present a gospel completely stripped of the reality of judgment. A fascinating critique of this mindset recently appeared on the Roll To Disbelieve website. In an article titled "The Evangelism Dialogues: The heresy of love," the author analyzes how a certain Free Grace ministry manages to completely miss the plain text of Scripture. The following is excerpted from that article:

Well, everyone, I’ve finally found the definitive, surreally-otherworldly evangelical narrative about evangelism. We can stop looking. I’ve found it. I’ve found the worst dialogue ever constructed by an evangelical. It’s so weird that I half-suspect that it might be some Poe’s Law invention meant to make evangelicals look insectoid space aliens who are completely out of touch with humanity. [...]

Everyone, meet Grace Evangelical Society (GES)

Founded in 1986, Grace Evangelical Society (GES) performs evangelism. For the most part, they do this through free podcasts, webpages, and e-books. Evangelical donations pay for it all. Bob Wilkin founded GES. He lives in Texas and is easily 60 or 70 years old. [...]

[Explaining his favorite approach to evangelism], he writes:

Well, maybe I should turn to Scripture to see how the Lord and His Apostles convinced people that they needed salvation.

But wait! The Lord and His Apostles did not do that. At least not all the time. Often, they just presented the promise of eternal life to the one who believes in Jesus.

[Wilkin] supports this claim [that he evangelizes like Jesus supposedly did by just telling people about the promise of eternal life] with a Bible story he calls “Nic at Nite.” It’s in John 3 and concerns Nicodemus, a high-ranking Pharisee who visited Jesus at night. (I do like that nickname!) Jesus didn’t tell Nicodemus he was a sinner, or threaten him with Hell—or so Wilkin thinks. Here’s how Nicodemus’ conversation begins, and what Jesus tells him immediately:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

The rest of that encounter involves Jesus explaining a bit more about what “born again” means, but it does indeed end with threats of Hell—or at least, what passed for Hell at the time of John 3’s writing:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Perish of what, pray tell? Eternal life as opposed to what, I ask? Save us from what, exactly? Condemn us to what, precisely?

Hell, of course. Convert or face Hell.

And here’s the amazing part:

Like most evangelism-minded evangelicals, Wilkin probably doesn’t even notice these threats. He thinks he’s escaped the entire Problem of Hell by stressing “eternal life,” but the entire point of Hell is its nature of eternal death, the terrifying opposite of Heaven.

This isn’t the only Bible story he describes, either. He also misses the threats [of Hell] implicit in John 4. And in Paul’s exhortations in Acts 13, and in Paul’s words to his jailer in Acts 16. [...]

In the Gospels, Nicodemus learned he must be “born again” —or he’ll face condemnation, death, and perishing. Likewise, the woman at the well in John 4 learned that if she rejected Jesus’ “living water,” she would miss out on “eternal life.” And if she made that grievous mistake, she faced eternal death.

* * *

Editorial Commentary

The excerpted critic highlights a massive blind spot that often occurs when theological systems try to water down or sanitize the text by preaching a feel-good message meant to tickle people's ears (cf. Rom. 16:18; Gal. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). But when we examine the underlying Greek in John 3:16-18, the alternative to "eternal life" is impossible to ignore. In explaining the gospel to Nicodemus, Jesus uses definitive terms such as "perish" (Jn. 3:16, Grk. ἀπόληται, from ἀπόλλυμι), "saved" (John 3:17, Grk. σωθῇ, from σῴζω), and "condemn"/"condemned" (Jn. 3:17-18, Grk. κρίνῃ/κρίνεται, from κρίνω). Grammatically and contextually, the promise of eternal life is explicitly contrasted against the reality of eternal destruction. You cannot logically preach salvation and eternal life without acknowledging what the unbeliever is being rescued from.

Interestingly, the words "perish" and "saved" in John 3:16-17 are the very same Greek root words that the Apostle Paul uses in 1 Cor. 1:18-21 when he explains his saving gospel message! (Cf. 1 Cor. 4:15, NKJV, where Paul speaks of being "begotten...through the gospel"; and 1 Pet. 1:23-25, NKJV, which connects the gospel to being "born again".) The apostle Paul says that his gospel is "the message preached to save those who believe." Save from what, you ask? Hell, of course! Have you believed it? If not, do so today! "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2, NKJV).

Why This KJV-Only Handout Is Wrong

I came across this KJV-Only handout yesterday while doing some work with my Dad in his office. I looked up some of the Bible verses mentioned in the handout, and sure enough, they are indeed missing from "modern versions" such as the NIV. But does this prove that modern versions are "a perversion"? Only if you think that God originally wrote the Bible in the King James Version. Which of course is not the case. Even KJV-Only folks aren't so naïve as to think that God wrote the Bible in King James English! (Maybe some do, but that would only highlight that they are ignorant and uneducated, which they are, though some more than others.) 

But of course we know that God wrote the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. And so that's the key to understanding why this little handout is completely false. Because the real question is, what do the original manuscripts say? The original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. And the key point to understand is that the King James Bible (written in 1611) is based on later medieval Greek manuscripts that added those verses! 

Notice the irony: KJV-Only folks condemn the "modern" Bible translations, when in fact the King James Bible is based on "modern" Greek manuscripts! It seems that most KJV-Only folks and those they dupe are ignorant of this key fact, and thus many are deceived by the lie of KJV-Onlyism. And it is a lie. It is a blatant lie because the KJV-Onlyists who promulgate that error are hiding the truth that the King James Bible is actually the version that is based on "modern" manuscripts! 

The cry of the Protestant Reformation was "ad fontes" — to the sources! They did not at all mean the King James Bible, which did not even exist at the time. Rather, by "the sources" the Reformers meant the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, which were then being rediscovered and translated by men such as Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, and William Tyndale.

My plea to those who are considering KJV-Onlyism or who are questioning it, is to remind them of the historical facts. Facts which the KJV-Only charlatans who prey on the ignorance of the masses distort to their own discredit. Be warned! KJV-Onlyism is an inaccurate and anachronistic view of history that is based on dogmatism and a lack of biblical scholarship, not the Bible!

Here is the truth:

VERSES ADDED IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE

"Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar." (Proverbs 30:6, NASB)

You are encouraged to look in your King James Bible to see if these verses are there. If your KJV Bible includes even one of these verses, it is a perversion, and you need a non-KJV Bible!

The following Bible verses have been added to God's Word by the "modern" New Testament manuscripts from which the King James Bible is translated:

Matthew 17:21

Matthew 18:11

Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16 

Mark 9:44 

Mark 9:46 

Mark 11:26 

Mark 15:28 

Mark 16:9-20 

Luke 17:36 

Luke 23:17 

John 5:4 

Acts 8:37 

Acts 15:34 

Acts 24:7 

Acts 28:29 

Rom. 16:24

The Great Gospel Heist: Whatever Happened To The Good News?

By B.A. Richardson

Copyright © 2026 by Brad Richardson.
2nd Edition.

All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except for brief quotations in reviews or articles.

Unless otherwise indicated all Scripture references are taken from the King James Version of the Bible.

Contents

Contents

Introduction

The Gospel Defined

The Gospel Defrauded

The Gospel Defended

Confusion Over What It Means To Believe

The Gospel And Assurance

Simple Salvation Metaphors

Conclusion

About The Author

Introduction

On March 18, 1990 the greatest heist of physical property in American history occurred. Two men disguised as police officers responded to a fake disturbance call at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum which is located in Boston, Massachusetts.

Once the two imposters gained entry into the building they quickly over-powered the museum guards and spent the next hour identifying and stealing 13 irreplaceable works of art.

They got away with stealing works by Rembrandt, Degas, Monet, and Flinck. The value of the stolen paintings surpassed 580 million dollars!

To this day the museum leaves the empty picture frames on display to give a visual testimony to the enormity of this crime. No one has been brought to justice since this theft occurred 31 years ago.

Ironically, the thieves lacked a thorough knowledge of the value of the museum contents and could have increased the value of their haul considerably if they had done their homework. They left undisturbed a Rembrandt that was valued at over $200 million. Nonetheless, the damage was considerable.

The Boston museum heist was epic as far as physical earthly property was concerned but there is a heist in the spiritual realm that makes the Boston crime look like child’s play.

The greatest promise and offer ever given by God to sinners has been stolen. The gospel has been stolen from most churches, seminaries and Bible colleges. The heist has been carried off by men who have not taken but instead have “added” to the requirements for receiving the gift of eternal life, aka the good news. They have greatly muddied the waters concerning the crystal clear answer to the question “What must I do to be saved?” Or put another way, “What must I do to gain eternal life?”

The Apostle Paul proclaimed a message of reconciliation between man and God. It was so radically transforming that he called it “my gospel” in Romans 2:16 and the “gospel of the grace of God” in Acts 20:24.

His gospel was very simple and it described how anyone could gain forgiveness and eternal life just by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for eternal life. By simply trusting in Christ’s saving work, sinners can experience the good news of salvation offered so freely.

Like the Boston crime where men disguised as agents of the law stole the precious contents of the Stewart museum, so too have men disguised as agents of the cross stolen the promise of forgiveness and heaven by altering ever so subtly Paul’s gospel.

This book seeks to lay out the greatest heist in history and to do it in layman's terms. If you have never experienced the deliriously good news of the gospel, then the following pages may help you to understand why.

The Gospel Defined

Ask people on the street what the word “gospel” means and you will get a wide range of different definitions. Some would say that the gospel is the Bible itself, others will tell you that the word refers to one of the first four books of the New Testament.

The truth is that there are many uses of the word gospel in the New Testament. In fact, there are several different gospels that are presented to different groups of people.

The word gospel simply means good tidings or good news. There is a particular passage of Scripture that I want to direct your attention to and it’s found in First Corinthians, chapter 15 and verses 1-8.

1. Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
4. And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;
5. And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve;
6. After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7. After that, He was seen of James, then of all the apostles.
8. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

You don’t have to be a seminary trained theologian to know that the Apostle Paul was the great messenger to the gentiles and the most prolific writer in the New Testament. His “gospel” was delivered to him by direct revelation from God; he didn’t learn it from another. See Galatians 1:12.

It was different from anything ever taught before. In fact, it was a mystery revealed to Paul, and he referred to this message as “my gospel.” See Romans 16:25.

The passage above that I shared from First Corinthians 15 says that this gospel is the one that saves, in verse two. It must be received, verse one, and this reception is accomplished by belief, verse two.

What is it that we must believe in order to be saved? It is the simple message that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, He rose again and His resurrection had numerous eye witnesses; it is a historical fact.

That’s it, all of it. That is the gospel in eight verses. By believing that Jesus Christ died for “your” sins, was buried, and rose again, you can have eternal life and the complete forgiveness of sins. This condition is referred to in this passage and others as being “saved.”

It’s simple, isn’t it? Profoundly simple! And it’s why Paul warned against anyone who would tamper with this simplicity. See Second Corinthians 11:3, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

Just as Eve was tricked by the serpent in the garden, so today there are evil men, false teachers, and deceivers who are tricking multitudes of listeners to doubt that the gospel is a simple message.

I recently was sharing the good news with a friend of mine. When I told him that eternal life and forgiveness were his for the taking if he would simply believe it he responded by saying “I don’t think we are going to get off that easy.”

What makes his response even more tragic is that he has grown up in the church and continues to attend regularly. Evidently, there has been a gospel heist at the church he attends. His eyes remain blinded to the simplicity of Christ’s offer.

The Gospel Defrauded

Let me stress again that the only requirement that is demanded from sinful men is that they “believe” this good news to be true for their own lives. It requires nothing more, no work of any kind. Romans 4:5 says, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

I hope you got two important facts from that verse. First, God justifies (declares righteous) those who “work not” but only believe. Second, God justifies “ungodly” people. Many folks think they have to clean up their act before God could save them. They are wrong; God receives people just where they are in life.

I stress this point because this is precisely where the modern-day church has slipped in their despicable additions into the simple promise of the gospel. While most of the church will attest to the fact that we must believe in Jesus Christ and His work on the cross, they will then subtly add an additional requirement and in some cases, several additional requirements. Here is a list of some of those requirements...

• Turning from sin
• Being willing to turn from sin 
• Being sorry for sin
• Submitting to the Lordship of Christ 
• Total surrender of our life to God 
• Total commitment of our life to God 
• Baptism
• Tithing
• Church membership 
• Reciting a “sinners prayer” 
• Inviting Jesus into your heart 
• Coming to the altar

And the list could go on and on. I think you get the point.

You will not find these additions on most church websites on their “beliefs” page. They won’t divulge those specifics on their “about” page. They keep their “statements of faith” and “what we believe” pages pretty vague. You must attend several of their services and listen closely to their teachings to discover their devilish additions to the good news.

It is not just a problem with local churches but it is far more systematic. Take for example one of the largest protestant denominations in the world. They proudly proclaim their beliefs and practices are in sync with a statement of faith that they formulated decades ago.

Here is a summary of what their statement of faith (sometimes referred to as a “doctrinal statement”) says about salvation...

Under the section titled “Salvation” they have a statement concerning justification: Justification is God's acquittal of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. It sounds good at first reading but there is a slight addition, the requirement to repent, which they define as a “turning from sin.” I don’t know about you but I find the idea of “believing” to be a very doable request. I believe in a lot of things. I also understand the meaning of “believe” to be persuaded that a proposition is true. I do not find the request to “turn from sin” to be very doable at all. Before you call me a heretic or a false teacher, let me explain.

When I hear a preacher, church, or denomination asking me to turn from sin, I am immediately filled with questions. What do you mean by “turn from”? Does “turn from sin” mean to quit sinning? How many sins am I to turn from, 50%, 75%, 90%, all of them? How long am I supposed to turn from these sins, the rest of my earthly life? Does turning from sin mean to cease from all sin? What happens when I stop turning from sin? It’s easy to see that the notion of turning from sins is really a silly request because it’s something that no human being has ever done with the exception of One, the Lord Jesus Christ! In fact, He never turned from sin because He never sinned!

The Apostle Paul described himself in Romans chapter seven as a “wretched man” because he did things he didn’t want to do, and left undone things he knew he should do. We are all sinners and will remain sinners until the day we die. It is unbiblical and impossible to turn from sins to gain eternal life. The gospel asks us simply to believe in the person and work of Jesus to be saved or justified. Thanks be to God that he asked us to do something that can actually be done!

Additionally, in the same “statement of faith” they say that salvation comes by “commitment of the whole person to Him as Lord and Savior.” What in the world does that even look like? When would I even know when this seemingly incredible standard has been met? What happens when I don’t commit myself to God? What would be the obvious signs that I am not 100% committed? What happens if I fall out of a state of “total commitment”? The doubts and questions would never end.

So the simple gospel message of belief in Christ has now morphed into believing, turning from sin, and committing your entire person to Him. That results in three steps, but only the first step is Biblical, simple, and attainable.

So one of the largest Protestant denominations has effectively changed the terms of salvation. They have stolen the good news by adding man-made requirements to God’s simple gift.

Sadly, they are not alone and I will give more examples later in this book.

Remember that Paul wrote that men are saved by receiving or believing the good news of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and resurrection. He further indicated that God’s grace extends only to those who “worketh not.” It's obvious that “turning from sin” and “committing our entire person to God” are works and will continue to be works the rest of our life.

Because they are works, they make grace ineffective and the gift of eternal life unattainable. Wages are the reward of work, but the gift of God is the result of grace. Don’t let your “works of righteousness” cost you Heaven itself! Remember, the Bible calls our works of righteousness “filthy rags”! See Isaiah 64:6.

So, you may be thinking: “Are there churches that get the gospel right”? Are there institutions that get the good news right? The answer is yes.

Here is a spectacularly accurate belief statement by the Dallas Theological Seminary. This paragraph comes from Article VII, “Salvation Only Through Christ”:

We believe that the new birth of the believer comes only through faith in Christ and that repentance is a vital part of believing, and is in no way, in itself, a separate and independent condition of salvation; nor are any other acts, such as confession, baptism, prayer, or faithful service, to be added to believing as a condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:29; Acts 13:39; 16:31; Rom. 1:16–17; 3:22, 26; 4:5; 10:4; Gal. 3:22).

It’s interesting that Dallas Theological Seminary views repentance as part of believing, not a separate act of “turning from sin.”

The Greek word translated most often into the English “repentance” is metanoia and it simply means a change of mind. Dallas Seminary gets this right. You must change your mind about Christ, yourself and your sin in order to believe solely in Christ for salvation. Unfortunately, most of the Protestant world believes the word “repent” means to turn from sin; they are in serious error on this point. The Dallas statement says no other acts are to be added to believing as a condition of salvation. I salute them for this clear description of the gospel. Read their entire statement of faith, you will be blessed.

Here is a clear statement from Burleson Bible Church in Burleson, Texas. Why can’t more churches proclaim the good news with this kind of clarity?

The Condition for Salvation. We believe that all human beings are sinners, and as such are separated from God and in need of salvation (Rom. 3:23; 5:12). We believe that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace provided for all in the saving work of Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2), and any who simply and only believe in His saving work, not in their own good works, effort, or merit, will receive the gift of eternal life (Rom. 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9).

Did you catch that: only those who “simply and only” believe in His saving work?

The Free Grace Alliance is equally clear in their definition of the gospel and its terms.

The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification. Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.

There are churches and organizations that get the message right but they are in the minority. That is a sad thought, isn’t it? The greatest gift in the history of this world has been hijacked by adding requirements that God did not intend to be added to His precious gift.

The gospel is the good news that anyone who simply believes in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus has forgiveness and eternal life. It is for those who “simply and only believe in His saving work”! That is the gospel, the good news indeed.

The gospel is about what has already been done, not about what you must do. And I will use the word the Free Grace Alliance used by asking this question: Are you “persuaded” that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has delivered you from sin and granted you eternal life?

I hope that is the case in your own life!

The Gospel Defended

We have already seen that the Apostle Paul delivered the gospel for our dispensation, or era. He called it “his gospel” and it is also referred to as the “gospel of grace.”

Paul was very zealous in his defense of the simple gospel that saves any man, woman, boy, or girl who simply believes in Jesus as their Savior. This is why Paul so strongly denounced anyone who would add to or take away from this simple message.

He strongly stated his defense of this message in Galatians chapter one, verses 6-9. Here is that passage of Scripture...

6. I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.

7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8. But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

We know the gospel that Paul preached and he warned anyone whether human or angelic against meddling with his gospel.

The word accursed means to be “condemned to Hell.” That is a very strong warning. Add anything to the gospel of grace and you can go to Hell. Don’t add anything at all. It’s faith alone.

It’s interesting and alarming that the great heist of the gospel began during the Apostle Paul’s lifetime and sadly it has continued right up to our present time.

So are there churches, preachers, seminaries, and organizations today that are accursed? The answer is a resounding yes.

I have already pointed out how one of the largest Protestant denominations has so cobbled up the gospel that they would have a person believe that it takes more than faith in the gospel to be saved; they say it also takes turning from sin and commitment of the whole person to God.

No wonder there are so many who follow these false formulas who lack any real assurance that they’ve been saved! But are there others who preach another gospel? Yes, there certainly are multitudes.

I’m not going to give a list of false teachers in this work. You can do a Google search and find a lot of information. Just do a simple search such as “lordship salvation teachers”. However, I would like to give you my thoughts on why we have strayed so far from the simple gospel. I will do that in the next chapter.

Confusion Over What It Means To Believe

In the 16th chapter of the book of Acts we find the story of the incredible escape from jail of the Apostle Paul and his assistant, Silas. God sent a powerful earthquake which loosened the chains on these two men and opened the doors of the jail. The terrified Roman jailer who was guarding these prisoners ran up to Paul and Silas and asked one of the greatest questions in the Bible. In verse 30 he asks: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas answer this man’s question quickly and succinctly in verse 31 by saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

Paul and Silas proclaimed the good news to this man with one sentence and one requirement: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Greek word translated into English as “believe” is the Greek word pisteuo. The vast majority of times that pisteuo is used, it is translated simply as “believe.”

So what does “believe” mean? It means to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to place confidence in, or to trust in. If you are persuaded that the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus on your behalf are sufficient to forgive you of sin and secure your eternal life in Heaven then you are a BELIEVER, a child of God and you are destined for Heaven!

Here is what the Bible scholar Dr. John Robbins had to say about this matter...

“Belief, that is to say, faith (there is only one word in the New Testament for belief, pistis) and trust are the same; they are synonyms. If you believe what a person says, you trust him. If you trust a person, you believe what he says. If you have faith in him, you believe what he says and trust his words.” Source

Let’s put it another way. If you are “trusting” in the person and work of Christ “alone” to be your ticket to eternal life and forgiveness of sin then you are a BELIEVER.

It is really not that difficult; but thanks to theologians who have complicated God’s plan, the simple idea of believing has evolved into a work. According to many in the church today, Paul and Silas should have told this Roman jailer to totally commit himself to Jesus and to turn from his sins and surrender to Jesus. Thankfully, Paul and Silas correctly responded to this frightened man with a “one step solution” – believe on Jesus!

Another classic text in the Gospels is found in John 11:25-26. Here is the passage as it reads in the King James Version...

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

In this passage, Jesus has just arrived at the cemetery in the small town of Bethany. His close friend Lazarus died four days prior to His arrival and Jesus is visiting with Lazarus’ sister, Martha. Jesus declares to her that her brother will live again because He (Jesus) is the resurrection and the life. Then Jesus asks her for a response and it is the only response that anyone should and can make, and that is to believe. Notice that Jesus uses “believeth” in verse 25 and “believest” in verse 26. Both words are translated from the Greek word pisteuo.

Again, let me emphasize that of the 248 times that pisteuo appears in the Greek it is translated into the English as “believe” 239 times. Only one time is it translated “to be committed unto.” I hope you can grasp the importance of that fact. While so much of the church wants our belief to be a work of commitment, the Bible only uses that meaning one time in the New Testament. The overwhelming meaning of pisteuo is to be persuaded or convinced of a truth. The Gospel is a declaration of good news to be persuaded of, not commands to be obeyed. It is not good news to hear that you must turn from sin or completely commit your entire person to God. Those are huge challenges that will be met with failure. But to simply be persuaded that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life is a joyous invitation.

So how do these modern-day “scholars” mess up a simple concept like believing? Let’s examine a three-part Latin definition that liberals, Arminians, and Calvinists have used to make the act of believing into a complicated work. They use a three-part Latin definition of the simple word for believe and magically transform this simple act of the will into a work of the flesh.

The first element is Noticia which refers to the intellectual content of faith. Faith must believe in something; it has to have a subject. This aspect of Biblical faith is true. We can have faith in George Washington but believing in Washington will not secure forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

The second word is Assensus or assent. This element is the state of persuasion that a proposition is true. This is exactly in line with the Biblical concept of belief.

The third word is Fiducia. This is the element of faith that some of these scholars label as trust. Fiducia comes from the word faith or faithfulness. Some of these scholars say an element of “commitment” is necessary on the part of the believer. This Latin idea of fiducia (which they call trust) is where the Bible would disagree with them. Belief and trust are synonymous from a Biblical perspective. Again, I could care less what the Latin definitions of belief are; I’m only concerned with the Bible’s definition of belief. If I believe in someone then I trust them.

Now the problem with these three Latin elements is that the Bible was not delivered to us in Latin. The New Testament was given to us in Greek, not Latin. The Greek meaning of pisteuo is most closely aligned with their Latin element, Assensus. Pisteuo or belief is assent to a proposition. Those who desire to make believing more than assent will run to this Latin trifecta, and Fiducia in particular, in order to promote their distorted views. The Gospel is not about my commitment to Christ, but Christ’s commitment to me. And of that truth I am persuaded...assensus!

There is no shortage of theology books written by Calvinists and Arminians that expound on the wizardry of these Latin concepts. I would encourage you not to chase such ungrounded teachings. Instead, I would encourage you to take the Apostle Paul and the Lord Jesus at their word and know with certainty that the only requirement for salvation on man’s part is to believe.

The Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians chapter two, verse three, told us that the coming day of the Lord would be preceded by a great falling away (apostasia) or apostasy. An apostasy is an abandonment of true doctrine for any heinous false religious teaching. I believe that the precious truth that the gift of eternal life received by faith which has now been twisted into a reward to those who totally commit themselves, is in fact that great apostasy that Paul predicted. We are living in perilous times when the church, universities, seminaries, and denominations have hijacked the good news. The Gospel is declarative not imperative. It is good news to be believed, not a list of demands to be obeyed.

Another source of confusion concerning the Gospel is the failure of men to correctly separate teachings on salvation from teachings on discipleship.

To be clear, salvation comes by simple faith in the person and work of Jesus. Discipleship is another matter altogether. Discipleship requires discipline and commitment. Phrases like taking up the cross, counting the cost, following Christ, and forsaking family (and many more) all depict the work aspect of becoming a disciple. But salvation is a gift received by faith...alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9 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.

One final hurdle to understanding Biblical belief in all its simplicity has been the erroneous teaching of Calvinists concerning “perseverance.” The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints can mean different things to different people. The typical Calvinist will generally take this doctrine to mean that if a person has truly believed in Christ as Savior then he will persevere in good works and belief for the rest of his life. Hence they really need a definition of belief in which faith becomes a “working faith.” Some will even say that a faith that doesn’t work doesn’t save.

I once became ensnared in Calvinistic teachings until I became more concerned about what the Bible taught than what men teach. I am now a firm believer in the “perseverance of the Savior.” God is the only One who truly perseveres. We are sinners, disloyal, unfaithful, and frail. The Scriptures support this version of perseverance. Notice what 2 Timothy 2:13 says…If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

The Gospel And Assurance

There are no hard statistics on this but my experience as a pastor has led me to believe that many Christians lack assurance of their salvation. However, if these same believers properly understand the Gospel then they should have assurance that they are God’s children and on their way to a place called Heaven.

On the other hand, if you have a concept of faith that must persevere and “hold on” to be valid, then you will probably never have assurance of salvation.

God wants us to know we are saved and He has told us this explicitly in His Word. Note what the Apostle John had to say in I John 5:11-13...

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

Did you see the connection between “believe” and “know”? If we believe on the name of the Son of God, we can “know” that we have eternal life. That is pretty simple, isn’t it? I can tell you that I know I have eternal life because I believe in Christ. Because I believe; not because I persevere, turn from sin, do good works, go to church, tithe, pray, or any of a multitude of man-created requirements. My job is to believe and Christ’s promise is to save.

Several years ago my wife and I visited a Baptist church near our home town. We were looking for a church home and the pastor of this church offered to come to our house and visit us. The night the pastor and his wife arrived at our house we had a pretty good visit about the church and then the conversation turned to our own beliefs. Toward the end of our visit, I asked the pastor a question that I have asked many others and it went like this... “Pastor, what do you base your assurance of salvation upon?” The question seemed to catch him off guard. He looked up toward the ceiling, then back down to the floor. Finally, he answered by saying… “I guess I would need to take a hard look at my life and take an inventory of how I am living.”

In effect, what the pastor was saying was that he based his assurance on his performance. Let me just say that if you are basing your assurance of salvation on your own works, faithfulness, or performance, then you may never have real certainty that you are in good standing with God.

Why do I make such a claim? Because your performance or faithfulness will never be good enough to please God. The only thing that pleases God is faith in His dear Son. Jesus lived a perfect and sinless life and then died as a substitute sacrifice for you and me. He is the only One who could ever appease the wrath of God.

I base my assurance on the finished work of Jesus. I do not have any confidence in my so-called Christian life. C.I. Scofield once said, “Law condemns the best person; grace justifies the worst.”

I agree with the hymnist who wrote, “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.” My hope is not built on any of my so-called merits, faithfulness, ministry, dedication, commitment, or any other filthy righteous act. My hope rests in the person and work of the Son of God.

Simple Salvation Metaphors

In John the third chapter we have the most famous verse in the Bible, v.16...

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Jesus was having a spiritual discussion with a man named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. John 3:16 is sublime because of its simplicity that everlasting life goes to those who believe in Jesus! What many people don’t know is that Jesus used an O.T. story to prove to Nicodemus just how simple it is to believe in Him.

Jesus recounted the story of how the Israelites, while wandering in the wilderness following their exodus from Egypt, came under the attack of venomous snakes in the desert. God told Moses to make a serpent out of bronze and mount it on a staff. God further instructed Moses to lift the serpent into the air and when the people simply looked on the bronze serpent for relief, they were spared from the vipers.

Jesus then likened Himself to the bronze serpent. Whereas just one look at the bronze serpent saved the children of Israel, so too just one look of faith unto Jesus can save the vilest sinner. Just one momentary act of faith can bring eternal blessings.

These two verses precede the famous 16th verse: John 3:14-15 says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Just one look can change your future and change your eternity. That is the good news that has been stripped from modern-day distortions of the gospel.

The Apostle John wasn’t done illustrating how simple this faith can be. In the fourth chapter, Jesus was visiting with the “woman at the well” and told her that He was the issuer of water that springs up to eternal life and just one drink of that water would cause one to never thirst again.

Again, in the sixth chapter, Jesus illustrated the simplicity of believing when He compared believing in Him to eating and drinking.

It’s not difficult at all. It’s freely available to anyone who simply looks, drinks, or eats in faith. The angel says in the final chapter of the book of Revelation, chapter 22, verse 17...

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

Conclusion

To this day, the empty picture frames still hang in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. They are a constant reminder of the heinous theft of some of the most valuable paintings in the world. Those pictureless frames are a reminder of the sinfulness of men and the crimes they commit.

Likewise, religious organizations today present a perverted gospel that is not really the gospel and certainly not good news. The distorted and confusing messages brought forth from pulpits today offer no hope, no forgiveness, and no eternal life. Their false gospels have been stripped of the treasure of the really good news that Jesus saves people who simply believe in Him. Only the message of simple faith in the person and work of Jesus offers salvation to the seeking soul.

At a cemetery in Bethany over two thousand years ago, Jesus told Martha that He is the resurrection and the life and asked her “Do you believe this?”

Dear Reader, do you believe this?

If, after reading this e-book you have come to believe in Jesus as Savior I would love to know. Send me an email at freegracegospel@gmail.com.

About The Author

Brad Richardson is a retired Baptist pastor. He is married with two children and six grand-children. He maintains the evangelistic blogs How To Be Forgiven and Rapture Journal.