Retrofitting Chick Tracts with the Clear Gospel

The little comic booklets known as "Chick Tracts" were originally designed and printed by Jack Chick, a Christian cartoonist. They remain immensely popular for personal evangelism, but they often suffer from one major issue: the gospel presentation isn't always clear.

For example, the classic invitation at the end of many tracts instructs the reader to "Be willing to turn from sin (repent)." If that simply means turning from the sin of unbelief to trust in Christ alone by faith, that's great. However, if it implies that a person must be willing to reform their lifestyle or stop sinning in order to earn or "prove" salvation, it becomes a works-based gospel—which explicitly contradicts Scripture: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).

To solve this problem, I designed "The Clear Gospel Sticker." By placing this sticker directly over the unclear gospel invitation on the back page of Chick tracts, I can retrofit these iconic vintage comics with a crystal-clear message of free grace! This way, I can still use Chick tracts to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31) without compromising the simplicity of the Good News.

Want Free Samples?

If you'd like to get your hands on some stickers or learn more about how to use them in your own outreach, you can e-mail me at: freegracer@gmail.com.

I'll send over all the details along with free, print-ready PDFs that you can use to print your own stickers at home or take to a local print shop. 

Let's strive to present the gospel clearly and completely so that it can truly be "the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom. 1:16).

Praise the Lord!

Martin Luther on the Difference Between Law and Gospel

Few concepts were more vital to Martin Luther than the distinction between the Law and the Gospel—a principle famously summarized by John Foxe, author of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, in the following words:

   

“Martin Luther...shall be found amongst many preachers and teachers of this our time, most chiefly worthy, not only of just commendation, but also to be compared with the chiefest: yea and so necessary for these times of the Church to be seen and read, that the poor mourning souls of the afflicted can not well want him [i.e., cannot easily do without him], and that for diverse purposes, especially for two principal causes.

First for true comfort and spiritual consolation to such weak minds as in cases of conscience are distressed, and wrestle in faith against the terror of Satan, of death, of damnation, against the power of the Law, and wrath of God; wherein I see very few or none (without comparison be it spoken) in these our days, to instruct more fruitfully, with like feeling and experience.     

Secondly, for discerning and discussing the difference between the Law and the Gospel, how these two parts are to be separated and distincted asunder as repugnant and contrary, and yet notwithstanding how they both stand together in Scripture and doctrine [i.e., that “the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,” Gal. 3:24], and yet in doctrine no repugnance. The knowledge whereof how requisite it is for all Christians to learn, the miserable lack thereof will soon declare. For where these two be not rightly parted, but confounded, what can follow there, but confusion of conscience, either leading to despair, or else to blind security, without any order in doctrine [if Law and Gospel are not distinguished], or true comfort of salvation? As by examples of time is soon seen, namely if we look into the later times of the Romish Church, where for want of right distinguishing between these two [i.e., between Law and Grace], great errors have risen; and no great marvel. For where the Gospel is taken for the Law, and the Law for the Gospel, and Christ received but only for a lawgiver: and where things go by works and law of deserving, what hope or assurance of salvation can be there, considering our works in their best kind be so imperfect and unprofitable? And what shall be said then of our naughty works? But especially what shall be said then to the mourning and lamenting sinner, who feeleth no good thing dwelling in him, but all wickedness? Shall he then despair, or how else will ye comfort him? For if Christ in His principal office be but a Teacher of the law and of works, and that be the chiefest thing to be required in a Christian, to work salvation by the law of working: where is then grace, mercy, promise, faith justifying, peace and rest of conscience, redemption from malediction of the law, if we be under the law still? Briefly, where is the new covenant of God made by His Son, if the old covenant made by Moses do yet remain? If it do not remain, then must there needs be a difference between the Law and the Gospel: between the old Testament and the new: between the law of works & the law of faith: between Moses and Christ, between the master and the servant: between Hagar and Sarah, and their two children. Now what difference this is, thou shalt not need, Christian Reader, by me to be instructed, having here the book of Martin Luther to read and peruse. Who as in his former Treatise before set forth upon the Epistle to the Galatians, so likewise in these his Commentaries upon the Psalms, doth so lively and at large discourse that matter, with many other things more, full of heavenly instruction and edification, that having him, though thou hadst no other expositor upon the holy Scripture, thou mayest have almost sufficient to make a perfect soldier against all the fiery darts of the tempting enemy. Again, having all other, and lacking this writer [Martin Luther], thou shouldest yet want something to the perfect practice and experience of a Christian Divine.”¹

Appendix 1:

Martin Luther's Commentary on Psalm 126:2

Luther expounds more on the difference between Law and Gospel in his commentary on Psalm 126:2, “Then shall our mouth be filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy. Then will they say among the heathen: The Lord hath done great things for them.” Commenting on this verse, Luther writes the following:

“This Psalm hath in it a singular majesty, and therefore the Prophet useth here many figurative or borrowed speeches. By laughter he signifieth the voice of the Gospel. For the Gospel should be to us nothing else but joy and gladness, especially if we compare it with the law. For the law terrifieth and killeth: whose use and office is, to break and to mollify the hard and stony hearts of the impenitent [i.e., the unrepentant], as Ezekiel saith. For they must be broken with this iron scepter (as it were) and beaten down to hell, as the Psalm[ist] prayeth: Let the wicked be turned into hell and all nations that forget God. For seeing they have a heart of iron, and as the Prophet saith, a brazen forehead, they must be terrified with the thundering of the law, that is, they must be brought to the fear of God’s judgment, and filled with the terror of death, as it happened to the people of Israel at the mount Sinai when the law was published by the voice of the Lord. But they that have a fleshy heart, that is to say, a soft and a tender heart, may not be killed with the law, but revived and raised up with another kind of doctrine, which the holy Ghost here calleth laughter and joy, that is to say, the Gospel. This is the right dividing of the word which S. Paul speaketh of, to preach and set forth to the impenitent [the unrepentant] and hard hearted, the threatening of the law, the wrath of God against sin, and the terrors of God’s judgment: but to the weak and broken hearted, the sweet comforts of the Gospel, that they which are secure and without fear [because they are proudly trusting in themselves], may now learn to fear the Lord: and they that are too much oppressed with fear [i.e., the brokenhearted or despairing ones], may be of good comfort and now begin to trust in the Lord. This difference between the law and the Gospel is well known, but by experience and practice it is not so well known. For our infirmity is such, that we are rather touched with the sense of sin and death, than with the laughter and joy, that is, the sweet comforts and joyful promises of the Gospel. For, to speak of myself and of mine own feeling, the redemption and life given by Christ doth not so much pierce my heart, as it is terrified with one word or one cogitation of sin and of the judgment of God. The cause whereof is, for that we cannot sufficiently learn this difference between the law and the Gospel. For although it be both written and taught, yet is it not so effectually felt in the heart: Else should it follow that terrified hearts should cast away all heaviness: for to them (as is said) pertaineth the voice of laughter and joy, and not the voice of terror and heaviness.”

“And here also we find Satan to be our deadly adversary, which most subtly disputeth with us touching the law, and useth such arguments as we cannot deny. For when he layeth unto us our sins, we are constrained to confess and acknowledge them, which albeit we cover them sometimes before men, our conscience as a thousand witnesses pronounceth against us, and will not suffer us to forget them or hide them. Whereof sometimes ariseth also a doubting or mistrust even of holy works: To speak nothing of those which are manifestly wicked. With these darts Satan pierceth and grievously woundeth the soft and tender heart, only because this distinction is not so well known by practice as it is by speculation. For if we had this practice indeed, we should rightly discern between the law and the Gospel, also between the disciples of the law and of the Gospel, and beat back Satan with this answer, that like a lying spirit he seeketh nothing else, but to blind and deceive the heart with falsehood and lies. For whereas hard and stony hearts be, those he doth not kill or terrify, but flattereth and filleth them with hope and fair promises: which do not pertain to such hearts. Contrariwise, whereas such tender and timorous hearts be, as are too much terrified already, and therefore should be confirmed and raised up with the promises of the Gospel, those hearts Satan most of all, not only goeth about further to afflict and terrify, but to beat them down also to utter discomfort. Wherefore the Christian man must learn and labour by feeling and practice to make this distinction in his heart, and say unto Satan: Away from me Satan with thy lies. When I am void of the fear of God, secure and hard hearted, then come and plead the law against me: then will I hear thee: for then that is the time to teach the law. But since thou comest now to me with the law, whereas my heart is terrified already with sin and death, I will not hear thee: for thy doctrine pertaineth not unto me, but laughter and joy: not terror and death.”

“So should Satan be answered when he goeth about to terrify us. But by experience we feel that when most need is, our heart is not able thus to answer, although we have heard these things before never so often. The cause is this: that albeit heaven be ours and wide open for us, yet such is our nature, and such is our infirmity, that all this cannot make us so joyful, as the gaping gulf and horror of hell doth terrify us: so that one cogitation of our sins doth more afflict us, than all the teaching and preaching of the merits of Christ can comfort us. Wherefore we must earnestly endeavor to learn this practice, or at the least to attain to some knowledge thereof, and raise up ourselves with these words: that the Gospel is nothing else but laughter and joy: which properly pertaineth to the captives, that is, to those that feel the captivity of sin and death, to the fleshy and tender hearts, terrified with the feeling of the wrath and judgment of God. These are the disciples in whose hearts should be planted laughter and joy, and which only should hear the voice of joy and gladness in the tabernacles of the righteous, and that by the authority of the holy Ghost: which this verse setteth forth. For it signifieth that this people was in Zion, and after the outward shew of the kingdom and priesthood, did mightily flourish. But if a man consider them according to the Spirit, he shall see them to be in miserable captivity, and then their tongue is full of heaviness and mourning, because their heart is terrified with the sense of sin and death. This is Moses’ tongue or Moses’ mouth, full of wormwood and of the bitterness of death: wherewith he ought to kill those only which are too lively and full of security [because they are vainly trusting in themselves]. But they which feel their captivity should have their mouths filled with laughter and joy, that is, the redemption and deliverance from sin and death, purchased by the blood of Christ, should be preached unto them. This is the sense and meaning of the holy Ghost, that the mouth of such should be filled with laughter, that is, their mouth should sound and shew forth nothing else but great gladness and those inestimable consolations of the Gospel, with voices of triumph and victory by Christ, overcoming Satan, destroying death and taking away our sins. This was first spoken unto the Jews: for this laughter was first offered to that people, then having the promises. Now he turneth to the Gentiles, whom he calleth to the partaking of this laughter.”

“Then shall they say among the Gentiles, &c. The Gentiles naturally hated and disdained the Jews, and could abide nothing less than their religion. Yet these Gentiles, saith he, when this laughter, this joy, shall be published and preached, shall marvel there at, and shall praise the great works of the Lord. Now, the Gentiles would not thus do, or esteem this work of God as a benefit, except they also should be partakers of the same. Therefore when the holy Ghost saith, that the Gentiles should publish, praise and magnify this benefit of the Jews deliverance out of captivity, he plainly signifieth withal, that they should be partakers of this deliverance, and that they likewise should extol and magnify this great mercy of God, this deliverance from sin and death. To this do almost all the Prophets bear witness. In the eighth of Zechariah it is said that out of all languages of the nations, men should take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, and say, We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you. Which place of Zechariah seemeth to be taken out of this Psalm. In the second of Isaiah likewise: All nations shall flow unto the Lord, and many people shall go and say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us his ways, & we will walk in His paths, etc. These things do make for our comfort, which are not of the seed of Abraham after the flesh. For albeit the promise was not made unto us, yet when it was accomplished we were made partakers thereof, but by the Jews notwithstanding, according to the word of the promise: In thy seed shall all nations be blessed. And salvation, saith Christ, cometh of the Jews. Thus do we Gentiles pertain to this redemption, although it was not due unto us, (for to us it was not promised) but came by the free mercy of God through this laughter and joy [of the Gospel], which the Prophet speaketh of, published & preached not only in Zion, but amongst the Gentiles also, which do enjoy all the good blessings and benefits of God together with his holy people, as it followeth.”²

The Gospel means "Good News," so it makes sense that it is truly a message of joy & gladness! It reminds me of what the apostle Paul says in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians: "Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter [i.e., not of the Law], but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:5-6, NASB).

"For the Gospel should be to us nothing else but joy and gladness, especially if we compare it with the law." —Martin Luther

There is a stanza from a famous hymn that well says:

"Run, John, run, the law commands

But gives us neither feet nor hands,

Far better news the gospel brings:

It bids us fly and gives us wings."

A variation of the same hymn gives this rendering:

"Run, John, and work, the law commands,

yet finds me neither feet nor hands,

But sweeter news the gospel brings,

it bids me fly and lends me wings!"

Amen!

By rightly dividing between the Law and the Gospel (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), we are freed from the heavy and hopeless burden of self-justification and are invited into the unmerited joy of Christ's finished work. May we ever rest in this glorious truth: that where the Law leaves us broken and helpless, the Gospel gives us wings to fly in the full assurance of God's free grace.

References: 

¹ John Foxe, “To The Christian Reader,” Martin Luther’s A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes (London: 1615), no page number, italics added. Editor’s note: The spelling of certain archaic words has been updated in order to conform to modern English spelling.

² Martin Luther, A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes (London: 1615), pp. 108-112, commentary on Psalm 126:2. Editor’s note: The aforementioned "Fifteene Psalmes" are Psalms 120-134.

The Story of the Thief on the Cross

The story is told in Luke's Gospel (Lk. 23:39-43) of the thief who was crucified on the cross next to Jesus. According to tradition, the man's name was Dismas. If I could use a play on words, many people may be inclined to dismiss the story of Dismas, for he was just a common thief! What can we possibly learn from a thief about getting to heaven? But for those who have "eyes to see and ears to hear," the story of Dismas holds a valuable lesson about how a person is saved. Many people think that in order to get to heaven, their good deeds must somehow outweigh their bad deeds. But the Bible tells us: "All our righteous deeds are like filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). The Bible says that we are all sinners; everyone is guilty of breaking God's Law (Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20). "There is none righteous, no not one" (Rom. 3:10). So we all stand guilty before God. And as a result, the Bible says that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). You see, Dismas is a picture of us. We may think we are better than wretched, thieving Dismas, but the Bible tells us otherwise!

And looking again at Dismas, we furthermore see his helpless condition and the utter impossibility of his good works outweighing his bad works. He was nailed to a cross! Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries affirms, "Could the thief walk an aisle? No, his feet were fastened to a cross. Could he raise his hand? No, his hands were tied or nailed to the cross. Could he be baptized? No, the cross would have floated. Did he promise Jesus anything? No. Did Jesus demand anything of him? No. Salvation by grace through faith means there is hope for a dying man, for someone who can do nothing for himself." The apostle Paul says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to God's mercy He saved us" (Titus 3:5). Paul makes a similar point in another letter, saying: "Where then is boasting, it is excluded!" (Rom. 3:27). And as Paul says in another place, "Naught have I to boast in except the cross of Christ!" (Gal. 6:14).

To this cross and to Him who hung on it, Dismas turned to look. This is key! As the hymn-writer has said, "There is life for a look at the Crucified One, there is life at this moment for thee!" The lyrics of this hymn harken back to the Old Testament account of Moses lifting up the bronze serpent in the wilderness, so that anyone who was bitten by the poisonous vipers could simply look to the bronze serpent and be healed. As it says in the book of Numbers chapter 21, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and it shall be that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, shall live.' So Moses made a bronze serpent, and put it on a pole; and so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived" (Num. 21:8-9). In the New Testament, the apostle Paul says: "Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (1 Cor. 10:11). The serpent on the pole is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ, bitten by the curse of sin (Gen. 3:15), dying for us. "He was bruised for our iniquities and the chastisement of our well-being fell upon Him, and by his wounds we are healed" (Isa. 53:5). This is the very heart of the gospel that Paul preached, as he declared, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, also see vv. 4-5).

In the Gospel of John, the Old Testament typology is explained to us. Jesus Himself explained it. When a Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Him by night, Jesus told Him, "You must be born again!" (Jn. 3:3). Like many today, Nicodemus was seeking answers. And listen to what Jesus said to him: Jesus pointed him back to the Old Testament, back to the story of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness so that whoever looked to it was healed! Jesus explained the meaning to Nicodemus in the following words, "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (Jn. 3:14-18, NASB).

This highlights the significance of Dismas turning to Jesus in faith. While the other thief turned away from Christ in unbelief, Dismas looked to Him and lived! In the Old Testament, God says: "Look unto Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other!" (Isa. 45:22, NKJV). Most English translations of this verse read, "Turn to Me and be saved!" But either way, it's the same idea. And this is exactly what Dismas did; he looked to Jesus, the Son of God, dying for him on that old rugged cross, and was saved! As the hymn says, "Look! Look! Look and live! Look to Him who was nailed to the tree!" As a result of Dismas' faith, Jesus gave to him this wonderful promise: "Most assuredly I say to you, Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Lk. 23:43). 

And so the way to heaven is explained to us. And actually it's not what most people think. Getting to heaven isn't about doing enough good works to earn salvation, nor is it about a person's good deeds outweighing their bad deeds. In fact, it's just the opposite! The Bible uses the story of Dismas, the story of a dying thief, to illustrate that salvation is free! Somehow a dying thief--a convicted criminal--got in! How is that possible? The Bible tells us: "But to him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). "For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace" (Rom. 4:16). The fact is, only grace explains the story of Dismas. And only grace explains how anyone is ever saved! As the Bible says, "For by grace are you saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves (that is, salvation is not of yourselves), it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). The truth is, Jesus did all the work necessary for our salvation and now He offers it to everyone as a free gift! "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). And so now the question is: "What think ye of Christ?" (Matthew 22:42). Do you see Him as your Savior from sin, death, and an eternity without God? Will you, like Dismas, look to Him dying there upon the cross for you? To every helpless and despairing heart, will you turn to Jesus, "the Son of Man...lifted up" (Jn. 3:14), and find joy and peace in believing? The Bible says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31).

In the earth a tomb was made, 

And on the cross our Lord was laid.

That for our sins the Lord should die, 

Upon the cross they raised Him high.

Above the cross the sign was used, 

"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."

The soldiers gambled at the cross, 

To win Christ's robe and gained but loss.

One thief just scoffed and turned away; 

No faith had he in Christ that day.

The other thief to Jesus turned: 

Believing he of heaven learned.

Into the Savior's precious side, 

A spear was driven when He died.

Upon this cross for you and me 

He died from sin to set us free!

Because He loves us with such love, 

He is my Savior from above.

_______

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31).

What's the Difference Between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace?

I've been explaining what "Lordship Salvation" is to my wife, and we've been watching some of Dr. Charlie Bing's videos on YouTube about it. After watching a 10-minute clip of Dr. Bing's sermon titled "Why Lordship Faith Misses the Mark for Salvation,"¹ my wife gave the following analysis of Lordship Salvation: "It seems like it's always tied into something that you have to do in order to be accepted by God." I think she really hit the nail on the head! She went on to add: "If we could have saved ourselves then we don't need Jesus."

I told my wife it reminds me of something my Dad often says: "There are only two religions in the world: Do and Done."² I'd say that Lordship Salvation is a "Do" religion (that is, you have to do endless things like submit everything, commit everything, forsake everything, promise everything, prove to people that you're good enough, and the list goes on and on), whereas Free Grace says it's all been done by Jesus on the cross (John 19:30; cf. Psa. 22:31: "He has done it!") – simply receive it as a free gift! The difference between Lordship Salvation and Free Grace is the difference between Do vs. Done!

The Example of the Thief on the Cross

Luke 23:39-43

"A thief on a cross can believe. What did the thief on the cross promise Jesus when he said, 'Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom'? And Jesus replied, 'Today you will be with Me in paradise.' Could the thief walk an aisle? No, his feet were fastened to a cross. Could he raise his hand? No, his hands were tied or nailed to the cross. Could he be baptized? No, the cross would have floated. Did he promise Jesus anything? No. Did Jesus demand anything of him? No. Salvation by grace through faith means there is hope for a dying man, for someone who can do nothing for himself." ³

References:

¹ Charlie Bing, "Why Lordship Faith Misses the Mark for Salvation" (GES Conference, 1999), YouTube.

² Dr. J. Vernon McGee affirms: "There are only two kinds of religion in the world....You can list every 'ism,' every cult, every religion...under one category. They all say, 'Do, do, do.' Only Christianity says, 'Done.' Christ has done it all." (McGee, On Eagles' Wings, p. 7.) Dr. H. A. Ironside made a similar statement. In his book The Only Two Religions, he writes: "There are only two religions in the world: The TRUE and the FALSE. All phases of false religion are alike. They all say: 'Something in my hand I bring.' The only difference between them being as to what the 'something' is. The TRUE religion says: 'Nothing in my hand I bring.'" (H. A. Ironside, The Only Two Religions, p. 5, emphasis his.)

³ Charlie Bing, "Why Lordship Faith Misses the Mark for Salvation," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1999): p. 32. For more information, see my article "'Lordship Salvation' Is Heresy, Says J. Vernon McGee," FGFS (November 27, 2019). 

The Old-Fashioned Gospel

"Remember your leaders, the men who spoke the word of God to you; look back upon the close of their career, and copy their faith." (Hebrews 13:7, Moffatt)

A Man from the Past

Let me begin by telling you about a man who probably needs no introduction.¹ He was an American Presbyterian pastor,² early fundamentalist leader, and writer of over fifty books including Many Infallible Proofs, The Heart of the Gospel, and Acts of the Holy Spirit. He preached over 13,000 sermons and gave Bible lectures as part of a transatlantic preaching ministry that made him famous in England and Scotland. He was a friend of D. L. Moody and spoke with him at the Northfield Conferences. He lectured at the Moody Bible Institute. He was a speaker at the Keswick Convention. He succeeded C. H. Spurgeon in the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. He was a friend of George Müller whose biography George Müller of Bristol he wrote. He was a consulting editor for the original Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, and friend of C. I. Scofield. He was a pioneer advocate of faith missions and the leading evangelical advocate of foreign missions in the late 19th century. He was a man whose most notable influence was due to his commitment to orthodoxy. When liberalism began sweeping through the mainline denominations, this individual joined other concerned Christian leaders in publishing "The Fundamentals," a series of essays designed to answer the critics of Christianity. Because of his apologetic abilities, he was invited to write five of the major articles. Since then, this man has often been called the "Father of Fundamentalism".³ Who is this man? His name is A. T. Pierson.

A Message for the Present

A. T. Pierson died June 3, 1911—now over a century since his passing. But "though he is dead, he still speaks" (Heb. 11:4). Notice how this champion of the faith defines the essence of the gospel in his article "The Resurrection of Our Lord."⁴ Expounding on 1 Corinthians 15:4, Pierson writes: "Christianity rests on four facts—the death, burial, rising, and appearing of Christ. This constitutes the essence of the Gospel. Upon a cross and an empty tomb our faith is built."⁵

Sadly, some modern-day Free Grace advocates of the Duluthian faction (1 Cor. 11:19) have itching ears for something new (cf. Jer. 6:16, NKJV; 2 Tim. 4:3, NET).⁶ They say that the old gospel is "incorrect" and "wrong"—even "heresy"!⁷ They promote a partial gospel and a new non-buried and never-seen savior.⁸ Tragically, their new no-burial gospel is a distortion of the biblical gospel and thus falls under the curse of God (Gal. 1:6-9, ESV; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4, NKJV). A lost and dying world doesn't need some new pop-theology, a sound-byte gospel, or a stripped-down message. Instead, they need the simple, straight-forward, and saving old-fashioned gospel of the Bible—the message that has been preached by the likes of A. T. Pierson and the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:1-5).⁹

ENDNOTES:

¹ Adapted from "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Wikipedia (accessed May 3, 2011).

² A Presbyterian who later became a Baptist! See the article by Pastor Clinton Macomber, "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Berean Bible Heritage Church website (accessed May 3, 2011).

³ See "Arthur Tappan Pierson," Wikipedia (accessed May 3, 2011).

⁴ Arthur T. Pierson, "HELPS AND HINTS, TEXTUAL AND TOPICAL," The Homiletic Review, Vol. 26 (July 1893): 72-73.

 

⁵ Ibid., 72, italics his.

⁶ See "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System," FGFS (Oct. 31, 2010).

⁷ See "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace," FGFS (April 12, 2011).

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ For further discussion see my article "Getting the Gospel Right," FGFS (Oct. 31, 2009): 27-28; cf. "Three Views on the Gospel of Grace". See the section titled "Proponents," under the heading "The Glorious Gospel".

Is the Grace Evangelical Society "Focused"—or Misfocused?

The flagship publication of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) bears a bold title: Grace in Focus. In recent years, leadership and proponents of GES have embraced the self-designated moniker "Focused Free Grace" to distinguish their position from traditional Free Grace theology. But is "Focused" a true descriptor, or is it merely a title held in name only?

A critical examination of their theological output suggests that a far more accurate moniker would be "Misfocused Free Grace." When a camera lens is misfocused, the primary subject grows blurry and distorted while peripheral details are blown out of proportion. In much the same way, the skewed perspectives promoted by the GES distort the core of the Christian faith, bringing unnecessary obscurity to what ought to be crystal clear.

The legacy of the GES demonstrates a misfocused perspective across a broad spectrum of critical doctrines:

1. A Misfocused Saving Message & Faith

• The Gospel vs. The Saving Message: GES has created an unbiblical wedge between "the gospel" and "the saving message," claiming the two are distinct.

• The Definition of Saving Faith: By requiring explicit, upfront belief in the doctrine of eternal security as a mandatory condition for initial justification, they have added a theological requirement that the text of Scripture does not demand for simple faith in Christ.

• Redefining "The Christ, the Son of God": In passages like John 20:30–31, the biblical title of Jesus as the promised Messiah and Son of God is reinterpreted to fit a narrow, system-driven definition rather than its rich Old Testament fulfillment.

2. Misfocused Lexical & Soteriological Definitions

• The Meaning of Repentance: Defining repentance merely as "harmony with God" shifts a foundational biblical concept away from its historical lexical meaning.

• Repentance and Salvation: By asserting that repentance is not a condition for receiving eternal life, they obscure how repentance (as a change of mind) and saving faith work together in biblical salvation.

3. Misfocused Eschatology & Kingdom Rewards

• Millennial Exclusion: Teaching that unfaithful Christians will experience "outer darkness" or be excluded from millennial joy and reign is an unscriptural doctrine that introduces a form of Protestant purgatory.

• Overcomers and Kingdom Inheritance: By strictly separating entry into the Kingdom from inheriting the Kingdom, and by restricting the title of "overcomer" to a elite tier of faithful believers, they distort the believer's underlying identity in Christ (1 John 5:4–5).

It's ironic that the Grace Evangelical Society labels its position "Focused Free Grace." Far from bringing clarity to the simple promise of eternal life, their position introduces unnecessary complexity and theological novelties.

This, unfortunately, is the legacy of the modern GES movement: not Free Grace in focus, but Free Grace severely misfocused.

Truth at a Glance: 1 Peter 2:16

"Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:16, ESV)

Does "Repent" Really Mean "Do Differently"? A Response to Free Grace International

Have you ever wondered what the word "repent" means in the Bible? If so, you're in good company—it's one of the most misunderstood words in Scripture! G. Michael Cocoris even wrote a book on the subject titled Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible. Related to this, Free Grace International (FGI) recently published a blog post featuring a YouTube video titled "What Does 'Repent' Mean in the Bible?" The video attempts to show that biblical repentance doesn't simply mean a "change of mind," but rather that it means to "do differently." It's a weak argument, but it has slick graphics so maybe we should just accept it for the video editing! (Just kidding, though that seems to be how some people evaluate theology.) 

In the comments section of the FGI blog post, Joe Conaghan and I responded to the video and showed how it fails to align with Scripture. Take a look, you'll be glad you did! As Proverbs 18:17 reminds us, "The one who states his case first seems right, until one comes and examines him." 

I should also point out that the presenter's reasoning in the video is actually self-refuting when he attempts to show that "repent" means "do differently." This is because he inadvertently shows that repentance corresponds to faith (compare Matt. 12:41 with Jonah 3:5), and faith is distinct from the works which should follow (Jonah 3:5ff; cf. Eph. 2:8-10).

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 Reference 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 Reference 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.