Martin Luther's Gospel of Free Grace

"By Christ alone we obtain remission of sins: Therefore only faith whereby Christ is apprehended, justifieth us." —Martin Luther

*  *  *

Below is Martin Luther's commentary on Psalm 130, verses 3 and 4, excerpted from his Commentary Upon the Fifteen Psalms.¹ In this work (a sequel to his Commentary on Galatians), Luther staunchly affirms the gospel of God's free grace in Christ Jesus, based completely on the work and merits of Christ alone. Luther's commentary on these verses is transcribed word-for-word from Henry Bull's 1615 English translation of the original Latin. The spelling of certain archaic words has been updated to conform to modern English spelling.

Luther's Commentary on Psalm 130:3 & 4

Verse 3. If thou Lord will straightly mark what is done amiss, O Lord who may abide it?

     This verse in our divinity is well known, neither do I see how either our adversaries, or Satan himself can avoid it. For what can they say? Or what have we here that may move us any way to doubt? As for David, it is witnessed of him that he was a man after God's own heart: and indeed he is a singular example to all posterity in all kind of godliness. For although, through the murder of Urias and his adultery with Barsabe [Bathsheba] he is not without reproach, yet how great was his humility when the prophet reproved him, and how fervent was his faith when he raised him up again? Behold moreover his singular patience in affliction, his careful and continual travail for the amplifying and advancing of the kingdom of God, of the true service and worship of God. What should I say more? David hath not many fellows [comparable to him], whether ye consider his life and his faith, or the witness pronounced of him by the Lord himself: and yet he notwithstanding so excellent and so holy a man is compelled plainly to confess his imperfection, saying: If thou Lord will straightly mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? Is not this then absolutely to deny all the righteousness, purity and holiness of men, what so ever they be? Likewise in the 32nd Psalm thus he speaketh even of those whom he calleth godly and holy: for pardon and forgiveness of their sins. Where are they then that so highly extoll the righteousness of works, seeing that David himself in the sight of God simply renounceth and rejecteth his works and all manner of righteousness, and only desireth that the Lord would not straightly [i.e., strictly] mark his iniquities? [pp. 230-231]

     But indeed our adversaries talk now somewhat more moderately in this matter than heretofore they have done. For they do not now deny that faith justifieth, but yet they say that that faith which justifieth must be furnished with charity. Thus like pies [magpies] and parrots they chatter and prate [about things] that they themselves do not understand. But furnish faith howsoever ye list [desire, wish, like], yet is this a general sentence: If thou Lord will straightly mark what is done amiss, O Lord, who may abide it? Surely no man living. For if any man had been able to abide it, then David, no doubt, had been able, being so holy a man, so perfect in the word of the Lord, so often and so many ways exercised & tried with afflictions, to confirm and stablish him in faith and in the fear of the Lord. For I do not think that amongst all the Papists there is any one so impudent, that will not think himself far inferior to David: and yet David saith, that righteousness cometh not by works. For, saith he: If thou will mark what is done amiss, no man shall be able to abide it, or to stand in thy sight, O Lord.

     Wherefore let no man trust that by his own merits or righteousness he shall be able to stand against the terror of death and the judgment of God. Neither do I suppose that amongst our adversaries there is any such as dare presume to enter into the judgment of God trusting upon his own righteousness: and yet they teach, command and exhort others so to do. But we teach a contrary doctrine, leading the Church from this false truth, to a trust and confidence in the merit and death of Christ, and for this cause they condemn us as heretics. Is not this extreme malice? They will not do [it] themselves yet they teach others to do. For when death cometh, they dare not trust to their own merits, and yet will they force others so to do, or most cruelly condemn them for heretics. Thus we are taught by the experience of all such as are not utterly void of understanding, that no man living, overcometh by his own works or righteousness in God's sight: and yet the whole nature of man, when it is not under temptation, still looketh unto works, and seeketh means how it may by them please God. But here is set forth unto us a simple and a plain doctrine: If thou Lord will mark what is done amiss, none shall be able to abide it. Who would desire then to enter into judgment, that he may be overcome, condemned and cast away for ever?

     This is therefore the sum and effect of [it] all together, that we all (David, Peter, Paul, &c.) were born, that we are, that we live and we die sinners. But this is our glory, our health and safety, that when by the Gospel we be instructed of the mercy of God and merit of Christ, we leap over the bounds of the law and out of our own works, as it were into another world, and into a new light, and coming unto God with boldness, we say: O Lord, we cannot contend with thee in judgment, we cannot dispute with thee as touching our righteousness or unrighteousness: but if thou will mark our iniquities, if thou in judgment will demand whether we be righteous, then must we needs perish. Wherefore we appeal from they judgment, unto the throne of thy mercy. If we have done any thing well, it was thy free gift alone. Look upon us therefore with the eyes of thy mercy, and not with the eyes of the justice of thy judgment: for if thou do not pardon our iniquities, and close thine eyes that thou behold them not, we shall not be saved, &c.

     This light of doctrine we see that David followed even in the darkness of the law. But our case is now much better, for as much as we see these things clearly set before our eyes in the New Testament. For what teach we else at this day, but that we are saved by faith alone in the death and blood of Christ? That by the merit of Christ only, our sins are covered and taken away, according to that saying: Blessed are they whose sins are forgiven. Forgiveness of sins then is that heaven under the which we dwell through our trust and confidence in the merit of Christ. For he that believeth, shall not be condemned, but shall pass from death to eternal life. David addeth here no express mention of Christ, and yet because he hopeth for mercy, therefore he looketh straight to this mercy seat that afterwards should more clearly be revealed in the New Testament. For ye see that he signifieth no less, but if God should mark his iniquities, he must needs despair. For without remission of sins or knowledge of grace, what have we to rest upon? What safety may we find? They therefore that put not their trust therein alone, that by the death of Christ their sins are taken away, & God's eyes closed that he will not see their sins, must needs perish. For this only do the Scriptures set forth, that our life resteth wholly and alonely in the remission of sins, & in that the Lord will not see our sins, but in mercy covereth them, and will not remember them or lay them to our charge: So that we must acknowledge and confess, that we know nothing but the righteousness of Christ. Not that we should not now work and bring forth the fruits of an holy life: not that there is no sin in us, or that God doth not hate the same: but because God saith and promiseth that he will not mark our transgressions, because we believe in Christ & put our trust in him. This shield whosoever holdeth out for his defense, and hideth himself under it, them God accepteth as his children, because they have a Saviour: but they that have not, are driven to despair. For what can all their works, their merits, their righteousness do, seeing David saith: If thou mark our iniquities, O Lord, who shall be able to stand in thy sight? In this verse therefore consisteth altogether that, which hereafter followeth. [p. 233]

Verse 4. But mercy is with thee, that thou mayest be feared.

     This mercy thou shalt not find in Moses, in the law or in the works of the law, not in Monkery [i.e., anything associated with Monks or with monastic life], not in a straight & painful life, not in alms deeds, &c. Briefly, this mercy thou shalt find no where, because it is no where, but with the Lord. Mercy therefore is not our merit or our righteousness, but it is the free pardon of our sins by Christ alone. Which mercy, although thou shouldest afflict and punish thy self in a Monastery a thousand years, or do never so many, so perfect or so holy works, thou shalt never find, as the conscience which even in a straight and holy life feeleth desperation, doth sufficiently witness. But herein alone the conscience findeth rest and comfort, when altogether naked and without any addition of her own worthiness, it committeth itself to the naked and bare mercy of God, and saith: O Lord, I have thy promise that righteouness cometh of mercy alone, which righteousness is nothing else but thy free pardon, that is to say, that thou will not mark our iniquities.

     I commend therefore unto you this definition of righteousness which David here setteth forth, that to mark sin, is to condemn. Again, not to mark sin, is to justify or pronounce a man righteous. And this is true righteousness indeed, when sins are not marked, but pardoned and not imputed. Likewise in another place also he defineth a blessed man: and Paul alledgeth the same definition very aptly: Blessed is the man (saith he) to whom God imputeth not his sin. He saith not: Blessed is the man which hath no sin, but unto whom the Lord doth not impute that sin which he hath, as here also he saith: When sins are not marked. These testimonies must be diligently collected and noted, that we may see how that this doctrine is founded upon the holy Scriptures, and that all the confidence and trust that man can have in the righteousness of works or of the law, is utterly cut off in the judgment of God.

     For this doctrine maketh all men alike, and before God leaveth no difference. For if by imputation only we be righteous, it followeth that not only we be all sinners, but that also there is no difference between the learned and unlearned, the wise and the simple, the married and unmarried, the Prince & the plowman, &c. For this difference of degrees in the judgment of God availeth nothing: but this only availeth before God, that our sins be forgiven. Wherefore if this doctrine had been heretofore diligently taught, all Monkery [i.e., anything associated with Monks or with monastic life] and such other monstrous kinds of life had not been brought into the Church, which the foolish people have believed to be more holy than others. For whatsoever kind of life a man be in, this is the condition of us all, that we have need of forgiveness of sins, as Paul teacheth in the Acts, where he showeth that God suffered the manners of our fathers, like as a good husband suffereth and beareth with the manners of his wife, the master of his schoolers, the Prince of his subjects. Now, if this civil life have need of such discretion and moderation, that men should not be always extreme and rigorous in dealing one towards another, how much more need have we, that God should bear with us in this our great weakness and corruption? If God should deal sharply with us, then should our transgressions daily and continually move him to mark straitly [i.e., strictly], and sharply to punish us. But he will not mark our iniquities. This he requireth, that we believe in Christ. Then will he bear with us, then will he wink at our weakness, and pardon our transgressions, yea in respect of our faith in Christ, he will accept us as righteous. [p. 235]

     Thus David turned himself from desperation, to an assured hope and trust in God's mercy. For when we look to our sins, it cannot be but we must needs be vexed and fall to desperation. But we must not fasten our eyes upon our sins only, but must look unto the Mercy seat: So that, albeit we can not deny but that we are sinners, yet the remission of sins we may not deny. And why is the remission of sins promised, if sinners may not enjoy the same? Moreover, in that David speaketh of mercy, he confesseth that he is a sinner, and that mercy doth properly pertain unto him. But thou will say: Sins make a man unworthy to receive mercy at God's hands: therefore let David, Paul & Peter hope for mercy, as they which are holy and worthy to receive mercy, &c. Such cogitations flee thou, [which are] even as a poison and destruction of thy soul, and think rather on this wise: Because I am a sinner, therefore remission of sins pertaineth unto me. Wherefore I will not despair, I will not suffer my self to be swallowed up with heaviness: but I will turn unto the Lord, who hath promised mercy, who also hath commanded that I should trust and believe in him.

     Thus David setteth forth in this verse the sum and effect of all true Christian doctrine, and that Sun which giveth light unto the Church. For while this doctrine standeth, the Church shall stand & flourish. But when this doctrine faileth, the Church must needs fail and fall to ruin. This doctrine I do so often and so diligently repeat, for that Satan desireth & seeketh nothing so much as to pluck the knowledge thereof out of all men's hearts. And this is the special cause of all the troubles which he stirreth up either publicly or privately. We see what mischief he hath brought into the Church by schisms and factions, not only in that men contending and striving for new matters have almost forgotten this article: but many also [are] offended through dissentions & discord, begin now to loathe and condemn the same. It is therefore the part of a faithful Pastor not to suffer himself by such offences to be removed from this article [i.e., David's statement about God's mercy]: but with an invincible constancy and continual travail to set forth and advance the same. Moreover, how often cometh it to pass, that in those also which are cast down with the beholding and consideration of the law & their own sins, this article of the forgiveness of sins, is either lost or else in great danger? David therefore in this Psalm setteth forth (as hereafter we shall hear) not only his own experience, but also exhortations and promises, whereby it may appear that he carefully travailed for the preservation of this doctrine. And indeed the greatness of the danger ought to stir up a careful diligence in this behalf, and daily to increase the same in us. For where this doctrine is lost, the mind is overwhelmed with all kinds of temptations.

     So when in the Papacy this article was lost, what was so monstrous, that was not gladly heard and received of all men? The impudence of the Monks and all the religious rabble was so great, that (I am ashamed to speak it) there was not, in a manner, so much as the crack of their foul paunch [protruding belly], but they would have men to reverence it. But contrariwise, where this knowledge is retained and this doctrine preached, all heresies may easily be overthrown. And hereof the Papacy is a notable example, which by the preaching and publishing of this one point of doctrine is now vanquished and banished out of men's hearts. For although you reprove the life of the Papists, and speak against their whoredom, covetousness, tyranny and such like enormities never so much, and by the evil works of the law detect their impiety, yet shall you nothing prevail: For all this the Pope doth not stick to confess [i.e., does not hesitate to confess, or has no sham about admitting], as indeed he can never deny his manifest abominations. But, saith he, although our life be defiled with sin, yet our doctrine and our kingdom not withstanding is holy.

     In like manner the devil, in the law and works cannot be convicted. For he can therein so handle himself, that he will easily break out, as it were through a spider's web, and lose nothing of all his power. But then is he overcome indeed, when the doctrine of faith is diligently and truly taught, and that the Papists have not only lost, but also have defaced with their filthy doctrine and opinions, both Christ and the true manner of justification. If we stick to this anchor-hold, both the Pope and Satan shall be put to flight. For if their doctrine be once convicted as false and erroneous, they have nothing to defend themselves withal [with at all]. Wherefore, endeavor yourselves with all diligence, that this doctrine may be of you both well known and surely stablished in your hearts. And let none be so arrogant as to think, that he hath attained the full and perfect knowledge of heavenly wisdom. For so long as Satan, the world and our own reason can do any thing, we shall never be perfect in this knowledge: And because we are as it were soldiers placed in the forefront of the battle, therefore we are in danger of many perils: which to withstand, it is not in the power or wisdom of man.

     The sum and effect therefore of all these words: Because there is mercy with thee, is this, that God will not deal with us according to the law, because we likewise should not deal with him according to the law, but say with the Publican: Lord be merciful unto me a sinner. They that go beyond these bounds of grace, and leaving this rich and ample grace, will dispute of the law and works, calling to account what they have done and what they have left undone, the further they go, the deeper they plunge themselves in hell. I say not this without good cause. I see what happened to good Bernard, whom if you examine well, you shall find him contrary to himself. For when he treateth of faith with an inward feeling, he teacheth Christ purely, he stirreth up men's hearts to the love of Christ effectually, and setteth forth his benefits sincerely, then smelleth he of nothing else but roses and honey. But contrariwise, when he disputeth out of the law or of the law, then reasoneth he no otherwise, than if he were some Turk [that is, a Muslim] or Jew [i.e., a Pharisee], which either knoweth not Christ, or plainly denieth him. So is it likewise with all others that take upon them the office of teaching and preaching: For when they speak with an inward feeling and practice, and are not carried away with disputations and contentions, they teach Christ purely. But when they enter into the discourse of the law, they so dispute as if there were no Christ which had instituted the law, yea, which with his own blood had purchased the remission of sins. This do we also find to be most true when we fall in matters of the law and men's traditions. Wherefore we must stand fast in this Paradise or heaven of grace, and seek no further, that we may remain in this simple confession of David: With thee there is mercy.

     But why doth he add moreover: That thou mayest be feared? Forsooth [i.e., Indeed] to set forth unto us what they are against whom he fighteth, and to give a further light to the former sentence by setting forth the contrary: As if he should say: I have learned by experience O Lord, why there is mercy with thee, and why of right thou mayest challenge this title unto thyself, that thou art merciful and forgivest sins. For in that thou shuttest all under mercy, and leavest nothing to the merits and works of men, therefore thou art feared. But if all things were not shut up under thy mercy, or that we could take away sins by our own power, no man would fear thee, but the whole world would proudly condemn thee. For daily experience doth witness, that wheresoever this knowledge of the free mercy of God is not, there men walk in the presumption of their own merits. Behold the religious man, but especially the Minorite [friar] (which kind of men I have always abhorred above others for their intolerable pride:) he because he hath a rule and a law whereunto he must frame his life, liveth without all true fear of God, and walketh in great security. Very few there be which come to the true knowledge of sin, or have any feeling of desperation. For they that feel desperation, are glad to hear, that there is mercy with the Lord. But these men do persecute this doctrine of mercy, free grace, and forgiveness of sins, with fire and sword. For the nature of the law is this, that it maketh men proud, presumptuous and contemners [i.e., despisers, mockers, or rejecters] of grace, as Paul notably setteth forth in the Jews, Rom. 2. Thou art called a Jew, and resteth in the law, and gloriest in God, &c. They that are such are not moved with the authority of the Apostles, nor with the miracles of Christ raising up the dead to life, but are as unsensible as stones. For in this security they are not only ignorant what this propitiation and this mercy is, but also they persecute the same. Such therefore do commit a double sin, more grievous than the Publicans: and our Saviour Christ saith well of them: Harlots and Publicans shall enter before you into the kingdom of heaven. For they are easily persuaded, that they are sinners, and that they have need of the free mercy of God and forgiveness of sins. But contrariwise, Annas, Caiaphas and the other Pharisees, when they hear these things do laugh and grin there at, and cannot abide to be taught of any.

     Now for as much as pertaineth unto them both, the Lord hath decreed, that righteousness should not be esteemed according to our works, but simply according to mercy and the remission of sins. For if righteousness should come of works or of the law, then either desperation must needs follow, if the law be not perfectly observed, or else presumption if it be observed. In desperation there is greater fear than should be: in presumption there is no fear at all. Therefore the mean [that is, the middle ground or the safe center] between them both is this, that God shutteth up all under mercy. Notwithstanding he taketh not away the law: For without the law this life cannot continue. In what a miserable state should the commonwealth be, if murders, adulteries and robberies should be committed and permitted without punishment or execution of the law? Moreover, the works and exercises of the godly must be guided and ordered by the word of God. For this purpose God will have the law to continue, and accounteth it for an holy obedience in those that do believe. But as touching sin, he commandeth that we should cast away all trust & confidence in the law, and put our trust only in the mercy of God set forth unto us in Christ Jesus crucified for our sins. By this means presumption is taken away, and fear remaineth: not such a fear as is in the desperate, but such as we see in good and well nurtured children towards their parents. No Monk therefore shall be saved because of his order or straight [i.e., strict] life. I likewise shall not be saved because I preach Christ with careful diligence and faithful endeavour. The Prince is not saved because he faithfully governeth and defendeth his subjects. But as touching the Monk, you may easily prove this to be true. For that kind of life is altogether contrary to the word of God. But to teach and instruct the Churches, to govern the commonwealth, are indeed most holy and excellent works, and yet are they the works of the law, which of themselves bring either desperation or presumption. Wherefore, though these works be never so perfect and holy, yet is there no salvation but in this alone, that there is mercy with the Lord, that he may be feared.

     Wherefore God hath justly shut up all under sin, that he may have mercy upon all. For if you leave anything to the nature of man, whereby he may deserve the favor of God, no man will fear or worship God: but all men will come unto God as the Monks do with their abstinence, prayer, obedience and such like. But by this means God is lost, and the idol of man's heart is worshipped instead of God. For while the Monk thinketh to please God with his hempen girdle (wherewith he ought rather to be hanged up upon a tree [Gal. 3:13; Rom. 6:6], then girded [1 Pet. 1:13 KJV]:) while he thinketh, by the observation of other traditions to please God, doth he not depart from the true God, and set his own imaginations in the stead of God, while he is persuaded that God thinketh the same that he imagineth? Of the righteousness of the law therefore followeth plain idolatry, which imagineth a strange God, and loseth the true God. For the true God is propitiation and mercy through Christ. But such as glory in their works, would make their works propitiatory and available to deserve grace. Wherefore God rejecteth all works, and setteth forth his naked and bare mercy, that he may be feared, and not condemned of the presumptuous, hereby taking away all cause of presumption.

     Let us learn then out of this verse or this general proposition, that when the doctrine of the remission of sins, of grace or propitiation is lost, it followeth that instead thereof idolatry must needs reign. For take away grace, and the fear of God also, as the Prophet saith, must needs follow. And what is it else to fear God, but to reverence and to worship God? Also to acknowledge that he is full of mercy and goodness, and therefore to obey him? This God did I lose when I was a Monk, and walked in the confidence of mine own righteousness. For by experience I am able to prove, that of the most perfect righteousness of the law, there can nothing else follow, but either desperation, which is more seldom, or presumption, which is more common. For the nature of man and the devil cannot beware, but they must needs presume.

     Thou will say then: Shall we not keep the law? Shall we not do good works? Yes verily, we are bound to do them. For God therefore hath a Church in the world, therefore hath he ordained commonwealths, societies and families, that in no place there should be wanting occasion of well doing. But who is he, that when he hath done these things to the uttermost of his power, seeth not how much impurity and uncleanness remaineth, especially if he should bring his works forth into the sight and presence of God? Wherefore our redemption consisteth wholly and alonely in the mercy of God, which we apprehend by faith in Christ. And we which through works are unprofitable servants, through grace which is given by Jesus Christ, are made children, Joh. 1. So the true fear, true worship, true reverence, yea and the true knowledge of God resteth only in mercy, in that we assuredly trust that God through Christ is merciful unto us. To this service of God, desperation and presumption are more contrary, than fire and water. But because the law bringeth either desperation or presumption, therefore it followeth that by the law there is neither righteousness nor true worship of God. Notwithstanding the law contained in the ten commandments must be kept. For he that ruleth must rule with diligence, and he that is subject must obey. There is amongst men a difference of degrees and persons. Notwithstanding all do owe a reverence and obedience unto God, and with faithful diligence must do what in them lieth [i.e., as much as they are able]. But because these are works of the law, we are by them no better than servants, and for them we receive a reward of promise and covenant. But by grace we are made children & heirs of the kingdom. The works then that follow, do not make us heirs and children, but are done of heirs and children, as a witness of thanksgiving and obedience.

     Wherefore I commend unto you these consequences, that where no mercy is, there is no God: Also, where no God is, there is no mercy. Likewise, where is no mercy, there is no fear or worship of God: Yea there remaineth nothing but idolatry and the righteousness of works. These things, whiles the law and nature do rule and reign, cannot otherwise be. Wherefore all Popery, all Mahomatism [that is, following the prophet Muhammad, i.e., Islam], Judaism & Monkery, with such like, whatsoever, which doth not know and understand this propitiation and this mercy, is nothing before God but plain Idolatry, albeit in show it seemeth never so glorious. For without the mercy seat there can be no fear of God, but mere presumption.

     Christian doctrine therefore doth not deny good works, as our adversaries falsely and maliciously report of us: but it teacheth that God will not straightly mark our iniquities, but this he requireth, that we believe, and trust in his mercy, because there is mercy with him that he may be feared and continue our God. Who so ever then do believe that God is merciful and forgiveth sins for Christ's sake, do yield a reasonable service unto God, they strive not with God about the law, works and righteousness, but casting away all trust and confidence in themselves, do fear him because of his mercy, and so are made children, which do receive the holy Ghost and begin to do the law [which is written on their hearts, Heb. 10:16]. Of this doctrine the practices and exhortations do now follow.

Reference:

¹ Martin Luther, A Commentarie Upon the Fifteene Psalmes (London: 1615), translated out of the Latin by Henry Bull, pp. 230-242, brackets and bold added. Note: The "Fifteene Psalmes" are Psalms 120-134. 

Appendix 1:

16th-Century Word Meanings

againe = again 

almes = alms

alonely = only, solely 

amisse = amiss 

battell = battle

common wealth = commonwealth 

condemne = condemn 

divinitie = divinity 

fayleth = faileth 

feare = fear

forsooth = indeed, truly, in truth

generall = general 

godlinesse = godliness

heretik = heretic 

heretofore = up to now 

himselfe = himself 

humilitie = humility 

idolatrie = idolatry 

in deede = indeed 

in steede = instead 

loth = loathe 

lyeth = lieth 

marke = mark 

meere = mere 

mercie = mercy 

mercyseate = mercy seat 

merite = merit 

neede = need 

onely = only

other = others (depending on context) 

owne = own 

painfull = painful 

panch = paunch (protruding belly) 

Paule = Paul 

posteritie = posterity 

poyson = poison 

publikely = publicly 

rable = rabble 

reigne = reign 

righteousnesse = righteousness 

ruine = ruin 

selfe = self 

sheweth = showeth/shows 

sinnes = sins 

souldiers = soldiers

strait = straight

straitly = strictly

streightly = straightly, strictly 

summe = sum 

Sunne = Sun 

tentation = temptation 

tentations = temptations 

then = than (depending on context)

togither = together

travell = travail 

whiles = while

wilt = will 

witnesse = witness 

workes = works 

worthinesse = worthiness 

yeares = years

Etc.

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

Addendum:

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.