Getting Jesus in Focus

A Biblical Response to the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) 

Regarding "the Saving Message"

by Jonathan Perreault

Preface

This article provides a biblical and critical examination of the GES Gospel—what they call “the saving message”—in order to determine how it aligns with the saving message as presented by the Apostles in the New Testament, as well as by Jesus Himself. I ask those who share my desire for biblical fidelity to seriously consider what I say, and I'm confident that the Lord will give understanding in these matters. This article is not intended to be a deep theological treatise, but rather "by setting forth the truth plainly, we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2, NIV).

Introduction

John 6:47 is the favorite proof-text of the Grace Evangelical Society which they use (and abuse) in their attempt to show that “the saving message” in the New Testament is nothing more than “Believe in Jesus for eternal life.” But is this really what John 6:47 teaches? A closer examination of this and other Scriptures is the focus of my article.

* * *

The Bane of Syncretism

Does an unsaved man who "has never heard about Christianity in his life"[1] automatically believe in the right "Jesus" if he reads and believes John 6:47 without any other context? To think that he does seems not only naïve but also factually incorrect, as any seasoned missionary will attest. One of the biggest problems on the mission field is syncretism, or the amalgamation of false and even pagan concepts with biblical truth. And lest someone think that there is only one concept of the biblical "Jesus," think again!

Which Biblical Jesus?

Did you know that there are at least three different people named "Jesus" in the Bible? If you did, you are probably ahead of most. Let's list them:

A) True Jesus (Jn. 14:6)

B) Another Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4)

C) Jesus who is called Justus (Col. 4:11)

So here we have at least three different people named "Jesus"—all from the Bible! And if we add to the list all the "false Christs" (Matt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22) whom Jesus specifically warns us about—the list starts to get quite long, does it not?

Will the Right Jesus Please Stand Up!

So which "Jesus" is the right Jesus? Some Free Grace people might say, "Well, of course the Jesus in John's Gospel is the right Jesus." Yes, but John 6:47 by itself does not automatically distinguish or differentiate the right "Jesus" from "another Jesus," because even Jesus said that there are "false Christs" who will deceive many (Matt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22; cf. Matt. 24:4-5; Mk. 13:5-6; Lk. 21:8). Remember, Satan loves to quote the Bible (cf. Matt. 4:5-6; Luke 4:1-13). But he takes it out of context or in some other way twists it and distorts its true meaning. My point is that it's assuming quite a lot to suppose that someone who "has never heard about Christianity in his life" (so says Zane Hodges) will automatically believe in the right "Jesus"! How are we to know for sure if the unsaved person is actually believing in the correct "Jesus" for eternal life? Surely a Mormon, for example, is not believing in the true Jesus. Mormons believe that "Jesus" is the step-brother of Lucifer! Are people saved if they believe in their false idea of "Jesus" when they hear John 6:47? I hope that every Bible-believing Christian would answer "No," since the Mormon conception of "Jesus" is actually not the true Jesus but rather is, as the Apostle Paul says, "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4). This shows that there must be more information in order to specify the right "Jesus".

And in reference to the Apostle Paul, he says that his gospel—"the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1)—was "promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures" (Rom. 1:2). Thus Paul's gospel is not "according to the Book of Mormon," for example. And furthermore, Paul preached "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23). This also narrows down the identity of "Jesus," doesn't it? Paul did not preach just any "Jesus," but rather, he specifically preached "Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23, NIV). Why would Paul preach a message that was a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles if it wasn't essential? Surely Paul would not intentionally put a stumbling block in the path of those whom he desired to bring to Christ! The answer of course, is because Christ and Him crucified is "the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). In the context of 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5, Paul is talking about salvation in the sense of eternal salvation, i.e., to be saved from "perishing" (reference 1 Cor. 1:18), just as Jesus said in John 3:16. The only difference is that Paul lived after the Cross, did he not? And now after the Cross, that fact is also necessary to believe because God says so in His Word (see 1 Cor. 1:17-24; cf. Gal. 1:11-12). Isn't that reason enough? Thus the GES folks who think that the saving message is Christ uncrucified, or as they put it, "believe in Jesus for eternal life" (without any necessity of believing specifically in "Christ crucified") fail to adequately explain these passages. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor. 1:17-18 that the gospel (which he calls "the word of the cross") is not just helpful information, but rather the saving message itself, "the message preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21).

What About the Gospel of John?

Someone might ask, "But isn't John 3:16 the saving message?" In response I would ask: Did Paul preach John 3:16? Most people might not realize this, but John 3:16 (as part of John’s Gospel) wasn't even written until many years after Paul died! That's not to say that John 3:16 isn't important. But it's only part of the message. (A very important part, but still only part of the message.) The truth is, what Jesus says in John 3:16 is only about 5% of the information that He shared with Nicodemus in the third chapter of John’s Gospel. Something else that Jesus said to Nicodemus is, "You must be born again" (Jn. 3:3). How is a person born again? What does the Bible say? Because John chapter 3 isn't the only place in the Bible that talks about being born again. In 1 Corinthians 4:15, the apostle Paul says to the Corinthians—his spiritual children in the Christian faith—"I have begotten you through the gospel." Thus according to Paul, it is "the gospel" by which a person is born again! What is the gospel? Again, hear Paul. He clarifies the specific content of the gospel in the very same epistle when he writes: "I want to remind you of the gospel...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen…" (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Does this contradict the Gospel of John? Not at all. In 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul says that all the apostles preached the very same message of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. And similarly, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia (Gal. 2:1-9), Paul says that he submitted his gospel to the three reputed pillars (Peter, James, and John), and they added nothing to his message. They were "all on the same page" so to speak, about the gospel. Remember, the early church didn't even have what we know today as "The Gospel of John." (It wasn't written until John was an old man, probably in, say, 70-90 A.D.) But the early church did have the gospel! In declaring the gospel, Paul says that he was just passing along the message as he had received it (1 Cor. 15:3). And so it's incorrect to think of John's Gospel as "the be all and end all" in evangelism or that it's the only place to look for the saving message, because The Gospel of John didn't even exist for the first, say, 50 years of the church! But "the gospel" did! The gospel message was the core message of faith passed down from the very beginnings of the church.[2] According to Clement of Alexandria as related by the church historian Eusebius, John wrote his Gospel when he was well advanced in age, long after the first three Gospels had already been written. In regard to this, Eusebius writes: "The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first....But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement."[3] And so John’s Gospel was written relatively late compared to the other three Gospels. But long before the Apostle John wrote his Gospel, he and all the other apostles were preaching the Good News of “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23), "the message preached to save those who believe" (v. 21). Oh how we need to get back to the apostolic gospel! D. L. Moody was right on target when he said, "I believe that the nearer we keep to the apostles' way of presenting the gospel, the more success we will have."[4]

Finding the Apostle Paul's Gospel

What "Jesus" did Paul preach? What was "the saving message" according to him? What was his gospel? Because Paul clearly stated that the Corinthians were "begotten" (i.e., "born again") through his gospel (see 1 Cor. 4:15). So what exactly was Paul's gospel message? Isn't that the question we should be asking? Especially when we remember that Paul says he submitted his gospel to Peter, James, and John (see Gal. 2:1-9), and they all agreed with him! Paul says they gave him "the right hand of fellowship" (Gal. 2:9). Furthermore, as I mentioned, Paul says that his gospel is the same message that all the apostles preached (see 1 Cor. 15:11). So either all the apostles were sorely mistaken, and we should just go out and start our own religion, or they were preaching the right message and the right Jesus! I, for one, affirm the latter. The apostles obviously preached the right gospel and the right Jesus. So now the question becomes, what is the apostolic gospel? What is the gospel message that Paul and all the apostles preached? Guess what? Paul tells us exactly what his gospel is! Isn't that great? We don't have to wonder anymore! (Why did we ever?) We don't have to be confused anymore! (Why were we ever?) In fact, Paul's gospel is so crystal clear that it could hardly be clearer! Paul tells us in specific detail, even building up to it so the importance of it is not lost on us (see 1 Cor. 15:1-2), what his gospel is. And Paul explains the gospel using four key verbs (see 1 Cor. 15:3-5). We might view them as the structural pillars of a building. Some people explain the gospel using two main pillars (or points), and that's fine. But personally, I’d want to have four pillars holding up my roof rather than just two! But regardless of whether we outline the gospel in two points or four points, here are the facts of the gospel according to the apostle Paul: 1) "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 2) "and that He was buried," 3) "and that He was raised on the third day," 4) "and that He was seen..." (1 Cor. 15:3-5). This is the gospel message that was preached by the apostles and with which they won mighty victories!

Unfortunately the apostolic gospel has gotten quite dusty today. Many "evangelicals" don't preach it as the simple "Good News" it is. Often, they distort it. Sadly, they even deride it. It is too historical for them. Too factually wooden. Too real. But the Good News of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances—together with the apostolic explanation of those great facts, is the biblical gospel and the only true gospel (see 1 Cor. 15:3-5; cf. Isa. 53:5-10; Psa. 22:1-22, 40:1-3; Acts 2:22-32, 13:26-41). And that is the very message by which the Corinthians were "begotten" (1 Cor. 4:15)—by which they were "born again"! Think of it: the pagan Corinthians became "born again" Christians by believing the gospel message of "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23). For them, it was not "believe in Jesus for eternal life" but rather "Christ crucified"! Thus, for those Free Grace people who espouse "believe in Jesus for eternal life" as a saving message, maybe it's time to change your beliefs when they don't line up with the Bible. Unless there is more than one saving message? But that's impossible, since Paul himself said that if anyone comes along and preaches "any other gospel," let him be accursed (see Gal. 1:6-9, KJV). So here we have two choices: either the saving message is Christ uncrucified, i.e. "believe in Jesus for eternal life" (the GES Gospel) or the saving message is "Christ crucified" ("the Glorious Gospel") as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 1:23 (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). Those two messages cannot both be valid, because there is only one true gospel and those two messages are clearly fundamentally different in terms of their content. Namely, one includes “the message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18, NKJV) while the other does not. W. Graham Scroggie correctly observes: "A gospel without the Cross is not the Christian gospel, and, indeed, is no gospel at all. Paul summarizes the true gospel when he says that 'Christ died for our sins . . . and was buried, and rose again the third day . . . and was seen . . . ' (I Cor. xv. 3-5)."[5] It has rightly been said: "A cross-less gospel is no gospel at all."[6] So which is it? Will you accept the Bible's statement of the saving message from the lips of Paul himself, or will you cling to the "washed up"[7] gospel of Zane Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario" that has been disproven for years? The choice is clear. It's time to get back to the Bible! It's time to get back to the biblical gospel that was preached by the apostle Paul and by all the other apostles as well, which is the core message of "Christ crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23). As the old hymn says, "There is life for a look at the Crucified One, there is life at this moment for thee"! As the Free Grace theologian William R. Newell has said, "Paul's preaching was not, as is so much today, general disquisition on some subject, but definite statements about the crucified One, as he himself so insistently tells us in 1 Corinthians 15.3-5."[8] Newell goes on to say: "This story of Christ's dying for our sins, buried, raised, manifested, is the great wire along which runs God's mighty current of saving power. Beware lest you be putting up some little wire of your own, unconnected with the Divine throne, and therefore non-saving to those to whom you speak."[9]

What About the Deity of Christ?

Sadly, the GES does not affirm that the deity of Jesus is essential to believe for salvation, hence their "saving message" doesn't include it. Whereas the traditional Free Grace view–based on the clear teaching of God's Word–is that the deity of Jesus is essential to believe for salvation. Jesus Himself said, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). The title "I AM" (cf. Jn. 8:58-59) is an unmistakable reference to Exodus 3:14, when God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." I see the deity of Jesus set forth in the 1 Corinthians 15 passage in at least three ways:

1. In the TITLE "the Christ" (1 Cor. 15:3) – In 1 Corinthians 15:3 the apostle Paul uses Jesus' divine title as a name, saying: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures..." (1 Cor. 15:3). The appellation "the Christ" (or "Christ") is Jesus' divine title (see Matt. 16:16; John 20:31) and indicates His deity. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:3, the New Testament scholar Gordon Fee affirms that here Paul "uses the divine title as a name."[10]

2. In the TESTIMONY "that He was raised" (1 Cor. 15:4) – In 1 Corinthians 15:4 the apostle Paul goes on to say that Christ "was buried, and that He was raised"—that is, raised from the dead. In the book of Romans, Paul further explains that Jesus "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4).

3. In the TIME ELEMENT "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) – In 1 Corinthians 15:4 the apostle Paul further states that Christ "was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..." (1 Cor. 15:4). The reference to Christ’s resurrection specifically "on the third day" is an indication of Jesus' deity because it fulfills Jesus' own statement that "something greater than Jonah is here" (Matt. 12:41). Similarly, Jesus' resurrection on the third day indicates that "something greater than the temple is here" (Matt. 12:6; cf. Jn. 2:19-22). In other words, Jesus is more than a man–He is the Christ, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament Scriptures!

And so we see that 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the gospel in a nutshell, and the deity of Jesus is set forth in Paul's gospel in several ways. These are kernels of truth to be sure, but the truth is set forth nonetheless.

The GES Is Reinterpreting the Gospel

What are the defining moments in a person's life? We usually think of when someone did a great feat or some heroic act. In the sports world, we think of the moment—or moments—when a champion's legacy was cemented. This is exactly what Jesus did when he conquered sin, death, and the grave! This is indeed Good News! Thus it can be said that Paul's gospel defines Christ in terms of His person and saving work. The gospel defines who Christ is and what He did. And this is specifically according to "the holy Scriptures" (Rom. 1:1-2, 10:8, 15-16; cf. Isa. 53:1-12), as opposed to some other holy book or belief system. The biblical gospel portrays Christ as the one who died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and appeared to His disciples (Isa. 53:1-12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-5). And that is the "Christ" whom each lost person must trust to be saved (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:23, 15:3; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). It's all quite simple, actually. It mainly tends to get complicated when false teachers (I say that lovingly! See Eph. 4:15; 1 Tim. 1:5) distort the clear teaching of God's Word. Sadly, the GES teachers have perverted the truth, and hence those who follow them are led astray. What God said concerning Israel in the Old Testament is unfortunately true of some in the church as well: "For those who guide this people are leading them astray; and those who are guided by them are brought to confusion" (Isa. 9:16, NASB). False teaching also leads to schisms (cf. Rom. 16:17). That's why Paul said to the Corinthians, "There must be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident" (1 Cor. 11:19). Suffice it to say that the GES Gospel is not only disproved, it's disapproved. It's ironic that the GES talks so much about the Judgment Seat of Christ, in light of the fact that their gospel—what they call "the saving message"—is actually disapproved. And thus all who want to be pleasing to the Lord should "come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. And touch not the unclean thing, and I will accept you, and I will be a Father unto you" (2 Cor. 6:17-18).[11] For those of us who want to enjoy fellowship with the Lord, we must separate from false doctrine. Because as the apostle Paul said, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9).

"The Deserted Island Scenario" Revisited

Have you ever seen a movie that is part two of the original? I'm sure we all have. If Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario" from his 2000 journal article is Part 1, let's return to the island and see if we can't rescue the stranded man.[12] Think of this as The Deserted Island Scenario II. Let's evangelize the marooned person using Hodges' method. For example, using Hodges' model of ripping Bible verses out of context, an unsaved person could come across a scrap of paper containing portions of text from Colossians 4:11a and some other Bible verse—let's say 1 Timothy 1:16b. So the only readable portions are: "Jesus [Col. 4:11a, NKJV]...believe on Him for everlasting life [1 Tim. 1:16b, NKJV]." When an unsaved person believes these Bible verses (!) and places their faith in this "Jesus" (!) for "everlasting life," according to the logic of the GES view, he's saved right? The man believed in "Jesus," didn't he? It's the biblical "Jesus," isn't it? The words that the man read are straight out of the Bible! Yet in reality, the unsaved man believed in "Jesus who is called Justus" (Col. 4:11), not the Jesus who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6). Thus according to Jesus Himself, the marooned islander would not be saved, even though he believed in someone named "Jesus"—because it wasn't the right Jesus! Concerning Him, the Bible says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12, Webster's translation). This illustrates the fact that since there is more than one biblical “Jesus,” the hearer must be presented with enough information in order to distinguish the difference, so the would-be convert does not mistakenly trust in a merely human “Jesus” or “another Jesus” (2 Cor. 11:4), neither of whom can save. In other words, a lost person must have enough information in order to identify the right “Jesus”.

This exposes the fallacy of the GES view. Their saving message of "Believe in Jesus for eternal life" is not specific enough to tell a person who "Jesus" really is. Because as I have just pointed out, the Bible itself mentions more than one Jesus! Not even considering any other belief system and whatever false conception of Jesus a person might have, but just looking at the Bible it's evident that there isn't just one individual named "Jesus". That's why I asked the question earlier in the article, "Which Biblical Jesus?" And it's not just an issue of mistaken identity or semantics because the apostle Paul says there is "another Jesus" (1 Cor. 11:4) that is not the true Jesus. We could call this false Jesus, "Pseudo Jesus". And believing in Pseudo Jesus will result in pseudo salvation! Because only the right Jesus saves (see Acts 4:12). Thus the issue is one of real importance, because it is the difference between Heaven or Hell! So my point is that according to the GES Gospel, the marooned islander is considered saved because he supposedly "believed in Jesus for eternal life." The glaring problem of course, is that he believed in the wrong Jesus! The man actually believed in "Jesus who is called Justus" (Col. 4:11), not Jesus of Nazareth. Both Jesuses are biblical in the sense that both are mentioned in the Bible, but only one of them can offer real salvation. And that is the whole point. It is not enough to tell a lost person to simply believe in a nondescript (or mostly nondescript) and vacuous "Jesus" for eternal life, because more information is needed in order to specify the right Jesus as opposed to "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4).

Clarifying the "Jesus Justus" Illustration

Someone might ask, "Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus who is called Justus offers eternal life to the one who simply believes in him for it?"[13] But notice I didn't say "Jesus who is called Justus offers eternal life." I said that according to Hodges' Deserted Island Scenario, if a marooned islander finds a few scraps of paper from the Bible that have washed ashore and the only readable portions are "Jesus [Col. 4:11a, NKJV]...believe on Him for everlasting life [1 Tim. 1:16b, NKJV]," then this "Jesus" would be in reference to "Jesus who is called Justus," not Jesus of Nazareth! Yet this "Jesus who is called Justus" is nonetheless a biblical "Jesus" in the sense that he is a "Jesus" who is mentioned in the Bible! But obviously this "Jesus who is called Justus" is far different from He who said, "Come unto Me, all ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). Therefore, this proves that simply believing in someone from the Bible with the name "Jesus" is not necessarily the same as believing in the Jesus who has the power to save a person from their sins and guarantees their eternal destiny. To be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone normally mistakes Jesus Justus for Christ. Rather, the illustration demonstrates a vital logical principle: that the bare name "Jesus" by itself is not a sufficient identifier. Because "Jesus who is also called Justus" was a sinner (see Romans 3:10). Thus, this is a clear example of a sinful "Jesus" mentioned in the Bible![14] But although this "Jesus" is straight out of the Bible, it would do no good to trust in him for eternal life—which someone could mistakenly do if they have no context other than "Believe in Jesus [?] for eternal life."

And actually, trusting in such a pseudo-savior would be a real hindrance to a person getting saved. It would lull the would-be convert into a false sense of security, making him think he's already saved because he trusted in someone named "Jesus" for eternal life. When in reality the person remains lost in his sins, having never trusted in the true Savior. Thus, simply because someone is believing in a "Jesus" from the Bible doesn't necessarily mean it's the right Jesus. It could be a pseudo-Jesus. It could be a sinful Jesus. It could be "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4). While a fragmented piece of paper might seem like an extreme example, this is precisely how syncretism operates in reality. When a person from a non-Christian background hears only a name and a promise without the structural framework of the cross, their own mind acts as the "cut-and-paste" tool—marrying the biblical name "Jesus" to a completely foreign, sinful, or mythological concept of a savior. So this just shows that the GES reasoning is false when they say: "If they're reading from the pages of scripture, or hearing about the Jesus of scripture, then they are believing in the right historical Jesus."[15] That is false, based on the fact that the Bible itself refers to more than one "Jesus" (John 20:30-31; 1 Cor. 11:4; Col. 4:11), only one of which is the true Savior (Acts 4:12). The point is that a bare reference to "Jesus" (even one who promises "eternal life," cf. Matt. 24:24; Mk. 13:22) is insufficient by itself to identify the right "Jesus".

Believing in the Wrong "Jesus"

But there is another point to be made in regard to when Zane Hodges says, "But the simple fact remains that no one has ever believed in Jesus of Nazareth for the gift of eternal life, who did not get it!"[16] In response to Hodges' statement, I would ask: "How do you know that?" Because if someone believed in the wrong "Jesus" who was also from "Nazareth," would he or she receive eternal life? Obviously only one "Jesus" is the "guarantor of eternal life"! For example, what if there was another person named "Jesus" who also lived (or lives) in a city called "Nazareth"? That's not out of the realm of possibility. The name "Jesus" was (and is) a very common name! This just highlights the fact that the GES way of thinking is flawed. In other words, one of the problems with Hodges' "name it and claim it" message is that it only begs the question: "Who is Jesus?" Hodges would answer "Jesus of Nazareth," but unfortunately that information is not contained in John 6:47, nor is that information included in the vast majority of Bible verses which the GES claims is "the saving message". And even when a Bible verse does specify "Jesus of Nazareth," there still could be another person named "Jesus" who was also "from Nazareth." The apostle Paul spoke of "another Jesus whom we have not preached" (2 Cor. 11:4). In fact, Jesus Himself said to watch out for "false Christs" (Matt. 24:24). If people simply believe in "the name of Jesus"[17] for eternal life, could they not be trusting in "another Jesus" (a merely human Jesus, for example)—one that the apostles didn't preach? This is indeed possible, especially when it is remembered that Satan, "the father of lies" (Jn. 8:44), also promises eternal life (see Gen. 3:4). So the name "Jesus" and promise of "eternal life" cannot be the only determining factors in recognizing the right Jesus, the One who is the Savior of the world.

Why Clarify If It's Automatic?

If something is already clear, it doesn't need further clarification. Likewise, if identifying the right Jesus were automatic—meaning it's already clear who He is—it would require no extra information. I want to apply these concepts to the GES Gospel. Let's return again to Hodges' previous statement, because I want to look at it in more detail and from a slightly different angle. Hodges said: "But the simple fact remains that no one has ever believed in Jesus of Nazareth for the gift of eternal life, who did not get it!" Notice here that Hodges is adding the phrase "of Nazareth" to his saving message. This is an unwitting admission on Hodges' part, because it shows that he instinctively knows that his saving message does not provide sufficient information in order for a lost person to be saved. Because when an unsaved person hears and believes John 6:47, they are not necessarily believing in Jesus "of Nazareth" (that's Hodges' statement, not mine) because that information is not contained in John 6:47. If the name "Jesus" and the promise of "eternal life" are the only determining factors in recognizing the real Jesus, then why does Hodges feel the need to explain the name further by adding "of Nazareth"? The answer, of course, is that even Hodges realizes that the name "Jesus" can refer to virtually anyone! The fact that Hodges added the qualifying phrase "of Nazareth" to the name "Jesus" proves this fact clearly. Even in Scripture (!) there is an example of another "Jesus" besides the one referred to by Hodges (cf. my comments above). In Colossians 4:11, for example, there is a "Jesus who is called Justus" (NKJV). That's clearly a different "Jesus" than the "Jesus of Nazareth" whom Hodges is describing. This example shows that it is not valid to say "if [unsaved people are] reading from the pages of scripture, or hearing about the Jesus of scripture, then they are believing in the right historical Jesus."[18] That statement is not true, because there is more than one person named "Jesus" in Scripture! And if we are going to start ripping Bible verses out of context as Hodges did in his "Deserted Island Scenario," then it would be especially easy to get the true Jesus confused with someone else by the same name—especially if it is another "Jesus" from the Bible.

Another Guarantor of Eternal Life?

Not only is there more than one "Jesus" described on the pages of Scripture (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4; Col. 4:11), but there are also "false Christs" (Matt. 24:24) who will deceive many. Thus, it is not true to say "There is no other Jesus making that promise [of eternal life] on the pages of scripture."[19] Remember, Hodges defines the term "Christ" to mean "guarantor of eternal life." Thus, to be consistent he would have to admit that a "false Christ" is a false guarantor of eternal life! A false promiser of eternal life. Jesus warns: "See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many." (Matt. 24:4-5). So the name "Jesus" and promise of "eternal life" (which Satan also promises in Gen. 3:4, although falsely; cf. Matt. 24:24) cannot be the only determining factors in recognizing the right Jesus.

Satan Can Quote Scripture Too

And here's another reason why it's not true that just because a lost person is hearing about "the Jesus of Scripture" they are thus automatically believing in the right "Jesus": because Satan also quotes Scripture! Just read the N.T. and you will find him quoting Scripture.[20] But the problem of course, is that he distorts it. He uses it for his own purposes. He deceives people with it. Satan is a deceiver (2 Cor. 11:1-4; Rev. 12:9). When he tempted Jesus in the Gospels, although he quoted from Psalm 91:11-12 (see Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:9-11), he intentionally twisted its meaning. Just compare what Satan says to Jesus in Matthew 4:6 and Luke 4:10-11 with what Psalm 91 actually says and you'll notice that Satan left out Psalm 91:11b: "to guard you in all your ways." That single omission changes the entire meaning of the verse, because in Psalm 91, "in all your ways" refers to living in obedience to God's will, not acting with reckless presumption as the Devil was tempting Jesus to do by suggesting that He jump off the pinnacle of the temple! This just highlights the fact that taking Bible verses out of context and building a doctrine on it is fraught with error.

Saved By A Lack of Knowledge?

Yet this is the thinking of the Grace Evangelical Society in regard to "the saving message" (cf. Hodges' Deserted Island Scenario). They rip John 6:47 out of context and build a doctrine on it. Whereas in the Old Testament, God says: "My people [the nation of Israel] are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). God doesn't say, "My people are saved by lack of knowledge." Yet that is the implicit premise of Hodges' "saving message," because he is attempting to find the "barest minimum"[21] amount of information necessary in order for a person to get saved. This explains Hodges' statement after presenting his infamous "Deserted Island Scenario," when he rather nonchalantly remarked, "I suspect that there are some grace people who would say that this man is not saved because he doesn't know enough."[22] Yes, obviously! And the reason why some grace people would say that is precisely because the man literally doesn't know enough. According to the Bible, salvation is based on a person receiving "the message of truth, the gospel" (Eph. 1:13), in contrast to having a lack of knowledge about it. Paul says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10:17). In context, Paul is specifically referring to people hearing the gospel message (see Rom. 10:8, 15-16; cf. Isa. 53:1-12), not merely the name "Jesus" and a promise of "eternal life". It is the gospel message that is the truth by which a person is saved (see Eph. 1:12-13). As James Moffatt has stated: "For Paul, the gospel is the saving message."[23]

Examining the GES Proof Texts

Here I will analyze four key GES proof-texts and show how they don't support the GES minimalist view of "the saving message". The four texts that I will look at are: John 5:24, John 6:47, John 11:25-27, and John 20:30-31.

John 5:24 – "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." Does John 5:24 contain the GES "saving message"? John 5:24 doesn't even contain the name "Jesus," (!) which is an essential element of the GES Gospel according to Hodges. Here is his exact statement: "It is the name of Jesus that brings salvation whenever anyone believes in that name as his or her sure hope of eternal well-being."[24] So if John 5:24 doesn't contain that name, how can it be a "saving message"? A GES person might respond by saying that the person speaking is in fact the right Jesus. But my point is that such an appeal contradicts their own premise that their minimalist "saving message" is by itself and without any other context sufficient information in order for a person to correctly identify who "Jesus" is. And thus if a GES person says that the surrounding context of John 5:24 identifies who is speaking in verse 24, such an argument falsifies their own position that the "saving message" by itself provides sufficient information. And even if the hearer somehow knows who is speaking, the content of John 5:24 apart from the biblical context is still not sufficient to differentiate "Jesus" from "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4) who might also promise his would-be converts some sort of "eternal life"—as Satan did when he told Eve in the Garden of Eden: "You shall not die" (Gen. 3:4).

John 6:47 – "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Again, this Bible verse doesn't contain "the name of Jesus" either. So how can it be a saving message? It fails to meet Hodges' own criteria of what is necessary for a person to believe for salvation. And if a GES proponent replies and says that the words "in Me" in John 6:47 are functionally equivalent to "the name of Jesus," I would respond by pointing out two things: (1) the words "in Me" in John 6:47 are not in the oldest (and I believe also the most reliable) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Those words only appear in the more recent Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, thus they are of questionable origin as to whether they are even original or not. The words “in Me” could have been added by a scribe to "clarify" the text. So essentially, the oldest Greek manuscripts of John 6:47 read: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes has everlasting life." Okay, "believes" what? Or "believes" who? As the Free Grace scholar Dr. Charlie Bing has correctly stated, "It will do no good to call people to believe in something empty."[25] Fred Lybrand makes a similar point, specifically in regard to the GES interpretation of John 6:47. Commenting on the GES Gospel and specifically on Hodges' reliance on the disputed text of John 6:47, Lybrand has well said: "If any of the popular versions of the English Bible (except the New King James Version) are used, then the man cannot get saved, according to Hodges's view. This should be seen as a glaring problem. Why would God allow the most important essential verse explaining the gospel (according to Zane) to have a text-critical problem that destroys all hope for the man on the island? Forgive my tone, but it is a glaring problem that Zane based his WHOLE argument on a DISPUTED VERSE in the Bible. This isn’t an argument from silence, but rather an argument from absence."[26] This brings me to my second point: (2) Even if we allow for the phrase "in Me" to be viewed as somehow equivalent to "the name of Jesus" (which it technically isn't), John 6:47 still doesn't specify what "Jesus" is promising eternal life. This goes back to my previous point about syncretism. Believing in "the name of Jesus" and the promise of "eternal life" without any other context is problematic because those words merely become placeholders for whatever misconceptions a lost person might have about who they might think "Jesus" is—such as a pagan god, a false deity, or in the western culture, the "Jesus" of Mormonism!

John 11:25-27 – "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' She said to Him, 'Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.'" But doesn't Jesus' statement explicitly disprove Hodges' minimalist saving message by reason of the fact that Jesus specifically includes the fact of His resurrection as something to be believed?! Jesus doesn't merely say, "I am the life," i.e. eternal life, but He says "I am the resurrection and the life....Do you believe this?" I would like to see how proponents of the GES Gospel get around that clear statement of Jesus. Also note that "the resurrection" and "the life" are two distinct things. Murray J. Harris affirms: “The terms the resurrection (5:29) and the life (some witnesses omit the life—Metzger 199) are not virtually synonymous, with [as someone might suppose] ‘the life’ adding no new meaning but simply elucidating what is meant by ‘resurrection’ (so Schnackenburg 2:331). Rather, the two words are complementary.”[27] Interestingly, John Niemelä (a GES apologist) admits that in light of the grammatical structure of Jesus’ following question to Martha in John 11:26, “Do you believe this?” (NKJV), both these items are necessary to believe! Niemelä writes: “The neuter form of the word this in 26b shows that Jesus did not just ask if she believed that He is the resurrection or just whether she believed that He is the life. Rather, He asked if she believed that He is both the resurrector and the life-giver.”[28] And in response to someone who might object that the present tense "I am" in 11:25 cannot possibly refer to Jesus' own future resurrection, Stier (I believe) correctly states that the present reality "does not exhaust its meaning,...still less does it exhaust the depths of this great testimony as intended for all future faith in the speaker of these sublime words."[29] Stier proceeds to explain the sense of Jesus' statement that He is "the resurrection and the life," saying: "He that believeth on Me—this is His meaning—shall receive at once, in and through this faith, in Me, a life which death cannot invade and destroy; just as, and because, it will be demonstrated that I am the life by My conflict with death and victorious resurrection."[30] F. F. Bruce concurs that Jesus’ statement “I am the resurrection” (Jn. 11:25) refers not merely to resurrection in general, but specifically to His own resurrection. Bruce writes: “This is more than an announcement of the general resurrection on the last day; this looks forward to Jesus’ own rising from the dead and affirms that believers in him, being united to him by faith, will share his risen life even though they experience bodily death.”[31]

Actually, Jesus' statement to Martha in John 11:25 is perfectly consistent with Paul's preaching in Acts 17 of these same basic facts. And the response of the listeners also shows that they needed more information because they were confused as to the true identity of who Paul was preaching. As to this, Acts 17:18 says that "some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him [i.e., with Paul]. And some were saying, 'What would this idle babler wish to say?' Others, 'He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,'—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection."[32] The phrase in Acts 17:18, "the resurrection," signifies Jesus’ own resurrection (cf. NLT, "his resurrection"), as NT scholars affirm.[33] And so we see at least two things here: (1) Paul's saving message included Jesus' resurrection (2) The unsaved were confused about the identity of "Jesus" because they did not have enough information in order to correctly identify Him as the Christ, the Son of God.

John 20:30-31 – "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." Clearly the apostle John is giving context to who "Jesus" is, by saying that he wrote his Gospel for the purpose of identifying Jesus as the Christ. So again, this seems to disprove the minimalist saving message that is touted by the Grace Evangelical Society, in that John's statement here proves my point that a lost person needs to be given enough information and context in order to arrive at the correct identity of "Jesus". The GES folks will no doubt respond by saying that the added information is helpful but not absolutely necessary. In response to that I would say that clearly it is necessary to believe in, for example, Jesus' deity, not only because this is the plain meaning of "the Christ, the Son of God" in John 20:31 (i.e. "the Son of God" = God the Son, cf. Matt. 16:16), but also because Jesus Himself made this clear earlier in John's Gospel when He said, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (Jn. 8:24). When Jesus said that they must believe that He is the "I AM" (cf. Jn. 8:58-59), it is an unmistakable reference to Exodus 3:14, where God tells Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." So John 20:30-31 requires a lost person to believe more than the minimalist GES "saving message," is my point.[34]

Concluding Thoughts

My aim in writing this paper is to help people see that "the saving message" of the Grace Evangelical Society is not specific enough to correctly define who "Jesus" is and what He promises. More information is needed in order to prevent someone from believing in the wrong "Jesus" for "eternal life" (which Satan also promises, see Gen. 3:4; cf. Matt. 24:24). Out of context, the name "Jesus" and the promise of "eternal life" merely become placeholders waiting to be filled by the unsaved hearers’ own "vain imaginations" (Rom. 1:21, KJV) or “futile speculations” (NASB). And as someone has well said, "Belief and trust in a Jesus of the imagination does not save!"[35]

In an attempt to make the gospel simple, the GES has gone to an unbiblical extreme. They have stripped the saving message of its saving power: "Christ crucified" (see 1 Cor. 1:17-2:5). This is truly a tragedy! My hope and prayer is that "perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:25b-26, NASB).

In the New Testament, the apostles did not merely tell sinners to believe in a name. They proclaimed Christ crucified, buried, risen, and seen. That is the gospel through which God has saved multitudes throughout church history, and it remains the power of God unto salvation today.

References:

[1] Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000), p. 4.

[2] New Testament scholar F. F. Bruce affirms: "Paul was but repeating what he had received from those who were in Christ before him when he delivered to the people of Corinth 'as of first importance' the good news of Christ's death, burial, and variously attested resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 3 ff." (Bruce, "When is a Gospel Not a Gospel?" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 45.2 [March 1963]: p. 324. Note: The reference to 1 Cor. 15:3ff is cited in the footnotes. Cf. James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, pp. 102-103. The Christian apologist Lee Strobel explains from Paul’s writings how this creed from 1 Corinthians 15 goes back to the very beginnings of the church. Concerning this, Strobel says: "Another one is 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 3 and following, that contains the essence of Christianity: that Jesus died. Why? 'for our sins,' 'that He was buried,' 'that He was resurrected on the third day,' and then it mentions specific eye-witnesses whose lives were transformed by encountering the resurrected Jesus. This creed has been dated back by scholars from a wide range of theological belief, to as early as 24 to 36 months after the life of Jesus, and the beliefs that make up that creed go right back to the cross itself. Friends, we don't have some huge expanse of time during which a mortal Jesus was mythologized into being the Son of God. Right back at the beginning, we have historical records that confirm, in the most exalted terms, that Jesus Christ is divine. Remember what I said about A. N. Sherwin-White, 'The passage of two generations of time is not even enough for legend to grow up and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.' We don't have the passage of two generations of time. We have a news flash from ancient history!" (Strobel, "The Case for Christ from Early Recorded Accounts," YouTube, timestamp: 5:31-6:35 minutes.)

[3] Eusebius, Church History, Book 6, Chapter 14, sections 6 and 7, ellipsis added.

[4] D. L. Moody, Pleasure and Profit in Bible Study (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1895), p. 74.

[5] W. Graham Scroggie, Know Your Bible: A Guide To The Gospels (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1948, 1967), p. 548, ellipsis his.

[6] Abdu H. Murray, Apocalypse Later (Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 2009), p. 111. Dr. Henry Morris likewise affirms: "A gospel without the cross and empty tomb has no power." (Henry Morris, "The Gospel We Are Called to Preach," Acts & Facts [April 2020], p. 22.) Caldwell has well said: "Christianity without the cross is false Christianity, and a gospel without the cross is a false gospel. John Stott says it well when he says, 'There is then, it is safe to say, no Christianity without the cross. If the cross is not central to our religion, ours is not the religion of Jesus.' If we are giving people hope in the name of Jesus, without the cross, we are giving people false hope. And this is surely one of the greatest acts of cruelty." (John Caldwell, Radical Church: A Call to Rediscover the Radical Roots of the Christian Faith, p. 128.)

[7] Zane Hodges, "The Spirit of Antichrist: Decoupling Jesus from the Christ," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2007), p. 41.

[8] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 20, emphasis his.

[9] Ibid., p. 21.

[10] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT), p. 724.

[11] Commenting on 2 Corinthians 6:17, the Plymouth Brethren author and biblical scholar William Kelly aptly writes: "The apologist for ecclesiastical antinomianism [i.e., church compromise, where Christians tolerate false doctrine under the guise of grace] argues that the apostle is actually speaking of heathen impurity. Granted: it was the unclean thing there and then; but he was led by the Spirit to write with such breadth and depth as to cover everything that defiles. Is it meant that uncleanness is now consecrated or ignored? Is it denied that evil is most of all evil when coupled with the name of the Lord Jesus? Is not such an association the deceit, power, and triumph of the wicked one? To cleanse ourselves from every pollution is our clear and habitual duty as God's temple and family." (Kelly, Notes on the Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, p. 145.) Commenting on the same text, Charles Ryrie affirms: "Personal separation involves not being unequally yoked (v. 14); not loving the world (1 John 2:15-17), though using it (1 Cor. 7:31); not having fellowship with sinning brethren (1 Cor. 5:11); and, on the positive side, exhibiting Christlikeness." (Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, Expanded Edition [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], p. 1854, brackets added.) Note: On 1 Cor. 5:11, also see: Matt. 18:15-17; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:12, 11:19; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Titus 3:10-11.

[12] For my specific rebuttal to Hodges' "Deserted Island Scenario" and also a similar scenario that was proposed by another non-traditional Free Grace teacher, see my series of articles titled "The Dangers of the Deserted Island Scenarios, Parts 1-10" (FGFS, Sept. 11, 2012). 

https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2012/09/some-have-suffered-shipwreck-parts-1-10.html/.

[13] D. Boring, comment on Zane Hodges, "Zane Hodges Comments on the Practice of Requiring the Doctrinal Assent to Christ's Deity as a Condition of Eternal Life" (March 30, 2012), Free Grace Theology blog. April 16, 2012, 4:34 p.m. Note: In addition to italics, the original comment was also in bold print.

https://free-grace.blogspot.com/2012/03/zane-hodges-comments-on-practice-of.html/. 

[14] Another reference to a sinful "Jesus" might be found in Paul's writings, when as a warning to the Corinthian believers he says: "if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!" (2 Cor. 11:4, NKJV).

[15] D. Boring, comment on Zane Hodges, "Zane Hodges Comments on the Practice of Requiring the Doctrinal Assent to Christ's Deity as a Condition of Eternal Life" (March 30, 2012), Free Grace Theology blog. April 14, 2012, 9:10 p.m. 

https://free-grace.blogspot.com/2012/03/zane-hodges-comments-on-practice-of.html/.

[16] Zane Hodges, "Email Correspondence of Antonio da Rosa with Zane C. Hodges," in "Zane Hodges Comments on the Practice of Requiring the Doctrinal Assent to Christ's Deity as a Condition of Eternal Life" (March 30, 2012), Free Grace Theology blog. 

https://free-grace.blogspot.com/2012/03/zane-hodges-comments-on-practice-of.html/.

[17] This is the claim of Zane Hodges. For example, he says: "It is the name of Jesus that brings salvation whenever anyone believes in that name as his or her sure hope of eternal well-being." (Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Autumn 2000], p. 5.)

[18] D. Boring, comment on Zane Hodges, "Zane Hodges Comments on the Practice of Requiring the Doctrinal Assent to Christ's Deity as a Condition of Eternal Life" (March 30, 2012), Free Grace Theology blog. April 14, 2012, 9:10 p.m. 

https://free-grace.blogspot.com/2012/03/zane-hodges-comments-on-practice-of.html/.

[19] D. Boring, comment on Zane Hodges, "Zane Hodges Comments on the Practice of Requiring the Doctrinal Assent to Christ's Deity as a Condition of Eternal Life" (March 30, 2012), Free Grace Theology blog. April 15, 2012, 8:44 p.m. 

https://free-grace.blogspot.com/2012/03/zane-hodges-comments-on-practice-of.html/.

[20] Cf. "Satan Goes To Church," pilgrimtractsociety.org.

[21] Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000), p. 5.

[22] Ibid., p. 4.

[23] James Moffatt, "The Formation of the New Testament," in The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 856.

[24] Zane Hodges, "How To Lead People To Christ, Part 1: The Content of Our Message," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Autumn 2000), p. 5.

[25] Charlie Bing, "The Condition for Salvation in John's Gospel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 1996), p. 34.

[26] Fred Lybrand, "GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter," p. 21, emphasis his. Note: In the original article the word "except" was misspelled "accept". I corrected it to the current spelling.

[27] Murray J. Harris, John, EGGNT, p. 213. Note: I transcribed the Greek words in Harris' original statement into English. Commenting on the same statement of Jesus in John 11:25, F. F. Bruce similarly states: "It seems that the two statements made by Jesus after his claim to be the resurrection and the life, while parallel, are not synonymous." (Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 244.)

[28] John H. Niemelä, "The Cross in John’s Gospel," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2003), p. 24, italics his.

[29] Rudolf Stier, The Words of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 6, p. 27, ellipsis added.

[30] Ibid., p. 30, emphasis his.

[31] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, p. 244.

[32] Commenting on Acts 17:18, Albert Barnes writes: "And the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus, and through him the resurrection of the dead." (Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: Acts, p. 258.)

[33] Meyer observes: "Paul doubtless announced who would raise the dead." (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook on the New Testament, The Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II, p. 109, emphasis his.) R. J. Knowling in The Expositor's Greek Testament affirms: "[Paul's] address itself shows that the Apostle spoke of the resurrection of Jesus as affording a pledge of a general resurrection." (Knowling, W. R. Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. II, p. 368, brackets added.)

[34] For more information, see my article "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior: A Study in the Gospel of John" (November 2007).

[35] jazzycat, comment on Jonathan Moorehead, "Is This Heresy?," theocentriblog (May 20, 2008). May 20, 2008, 9:20 p.m. 

https://web.archive.org/web/20111122105348/http://jmoorhead.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-this-heresy.html/.

A "News Flash" from Ancient History: Lee Strobel on 1 Corinthians 15

There's a classic sermon by Lee Strobel on YouTube that I've always liked. It's a sermon titled "The Case for Christ from Early Recorded Accounts". An earlier video of it (from 2007) had over 11,000 views. That link is no longer active, but thankfully the sermon has been reposted by another channel so the video can still be found on YouTube if you search for it. And although the sermon was preached a number of years ago, it's still as true today as ever! 

The entire sermon is well worth watching, but the excerpt that I've transcribed is from the part where Strobel is highlighting from the Apostle Paul's writings those texts which clearly affirm the deity of Jesus. One of those texts is 1 Corinthians 15! Here's what Strobel says in regard to 1 Corinthians 15:3ff and what he describes as "the essence of Christianity": 

"Another one is 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verses 3 and following, that contains the essence of Christianity: that Jesus died. Why? 'for our sins,' 'that He was buried,' 'that He was resurrected on the third day,' and then it mentions specific eye-witnesses whose lives were transformed by encountering the resurrected Jesus. This creed has been dated back by scholars from a wide range of theological belief, to as early as 24 to 36 months after the life of Jesus, and the beliefs that make up that creed go right back to the cross itself. Friends, we don't have some huge expanse of time during which a mortal Jesus was mythologized into being the Son of God. Right back at the beginning, we have historical records that confirm, in the most exalted terms, that Jesus Christ is divine. Remember what I said about A. N. Sherwin-White, 'The passage of two generations of time is not even enough for legend to grow up and wipe out a solid core of historical truth.' We don't have the passage of two generations of time. We have a news flash from ancient history!"¹

Reference:

¹ Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ from Early Recorded Accounts" (YouTube, timestamp: 5:31-6:35 minutes).

Death Is Swallowed Up in Victory!

The phone rang today. It was dad. He handed the phone over to my mom—which he often does, so I didn't think anything unusual. But then she said dad has cancer. My heart sank. I don't know how to process it exactly. 

Dad was is good spirits in spite of it. He used the cancer diagnosis as a witnessing opportunity to tell his doctor (a Mormon) that he is sure of his eternal destiny.  It reminds me of what the apostle Paul says in Philippians 4:4, "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!" 

Unlike many people, dad has assurance of his salvation. And that's also my consolation as well. Knowing that whatever happens, our eternal destiny is secure and sure. Praise the Lord! 

God has blessed my dad with a long life—he just turned 81 (cf. Psa. 90:10)—but of course I still want to see him healed. Whatever happens, God is still in control. And He is still good. 

As Christians, we need not fear death. To us, death is:

1. A shadow that cannot hurt us!
   (Psalm 23:4)
   
   
2. A step into the arms of Jesus! 
   (Phil. 1:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:8)
   
   
3. A servant ushering us into the presence of God!
   (1 Cor. 3:21-22)
   
   
4. A slain foe!
   (1 Cor. 15:54-55; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 2:14-15)

As we continued talking, I suggested a natural supplement to my dad that might help with his cancer. He thanked me but said, "Right now I'm under doctor's care." After I got off the phone, I thought to myself how true that is! My dad is in the hands of the Great Physician, Jesus Christ! And the wonderful truth is, that's the secure reality for every single believer (see Jn. 10:28). What's more, we're also in the loving hands of our gracious heavenly Father (see Jn. 10:29). Therefore "whether we live or die, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:8).

The Gospel Illustrated

Here's the reveal on the new gospel tract cover that ChatGPT designed for my "God's Home Run" gospel tract! Instead of Sports Illustrated, it's The Gospel Illustrated. 

I wrote the "God's Home Run" gospel tract back in 2013, but I never did have a cover for it. Now thanks to artificial intelligence (AI), I do! 

The tract is based on Romans 1:16, which says that the gospel is "the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes..." (Rom. 1:16, NKJV). 

Have you believed it? If not, do so today!

The Five Points of Free Grace

Most of us have probably heard of "The Five Points of Calvinism"—the so-called TULIP acronym—but have you heard of "The Five Points of Free Grace"? If you haven't, don't feel bad. It didn't exist until recently—at least as far as I know. What are the "5 Points of Free Grace"? Good question! To date, several variations have been proposed. Daniel Weierbach of C4C Apologetics came up with the LOTUS acronym, which stands for (are you ready for a mouthful?):

L = Liable Depravity

O = Occupational Election

T = Total (or Tiered) Atonement

U = Unlimited (or Undeserved) Grace

S = Security of the Saints

Shawn Lazar of Free Grace International popularized the LOTUS acronym when he wrote a book on it titled The Five Points of Free Grace, using Weierbach's exact breakdown and terminology. Lazar's endorsement gave the LOTUS acronym a massive signal boost. While I wouldn't say that I agree with Lazar on every nuance of Free Grace Theology, I agree with much of what he says in terms of his theological perspective in contrast to Calvinism. 

But the potential problem that I see with the LOTUS acronym is that his five points are just too abstruse (meaning unnecessarily complicated for the average person). To the point that it's almost esoteric! In other words, it is the very opposite of plain. Whereas the apostle Paul said that his aim was to set forth the truth "plainly" (2 Cor. 4:2, NIV). This is where I think the LOTUS unfortunately wilts. Because in explaining each of its five points, Lazar uses theological vocabulary that most people have never heard of, much less that they use in everyday speech. For example, I myself don't even know what is meant by "Tiered Atonement"! This kind of theologically complex and even arcane language makes it much more difficult for people to understand, and even more difficult to explain. Hence the meaning of his acronym is largely unintelligible to the average person. And so, as far as understanding the meaning of "LOTUS," the barrier to entry is quite high. Its meaning is reserved for the theological elite, which is maybe who Lazar was writing for anyway. So all that to say, the idea is a good one but it needs to be simplified in a way that the majority of people can more easily understand. 

Personally, I don't think that "Occupational Election" is the best descriptor either, because not all Free Grace people subscribe to the view that God's election is only to service, not salvation. For example, I believe that God's election is also for salvation but it is according to His foreknowledge (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1-2) and it incorporates a person's will and individual choice into His choice (see Jn. 6:40). In other words, God's election is not determinative because He has willed "to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21). Thus the saying is true: "God chooses to save those who choose to believe." 

But my overall thought is that each of the five points needs to be more easily understandable. As J. Vernon McGee has said in his quaint way: "Put the cookies on the bottom shelf." McGee also was fond of pointing out that Jesus said "Feed my sheep," not "Feed my giraffes"! And that's why I like the GRACE acronym better as a way of describing the so-called "Five Points of Free Grace". Not only because the word "grace" is straight out of the Bible, but also because it's part of the "Free Grace" label itself! Thus it's easy to remember: "The Five Points of Free Grace" are G.R.A.C.E.—what could be simpler? Thus, instead of conforming the five points to a flower in order to imitate Calvin's TULIP, let's conform the five points to God's GRACE and imitate the Bible! Isn't that a better approach?

I want to make sure that I give credit where credit is due. I didn't come up with the GRACE acronym. It was apparently first proposed by Marcia and Ken Hornok in a comment over at Free Grace International, and I like the idea a lot! Here is what they said:

"It would be helpful for FG organizations to have an acronym, comparable to TULIP. Say, for example, GRACE:

G = GRACE GIFT – By God's Grace and Jesus Christ’s Provision through His death and resurrection, the free gift of eternal life is offered to all the world.

R = RESPONSE OF FAITH – Faith means believing that what God has said, He will do. This has been the means of justification from Adam on. A person can show that response in a variety of ways.

A = ASSURANCE OF SALVATION – A person's response of faith results in their knowing for sure that their sins are forgiven and they have eternal life that can never be lost.

C = CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION – Scriptures must be understood in context and interpreted first by what the original wording meant to the original readers. This is best done by learning what it says in the original languages.

E = ETERNAL REWARDS – the justified sinner becomes a sanctified saint through walking by means of the Holy Spirit, obeying God's Word, and intimacy with God. God rewards such sacrifice and service by the privilege of reigning with Christ in the future eternal kingdom.

Perhaps this needs tweaked, and of course biblical references supplied, but the FG organizations I'm familiar with would agree that these 5 elements are primary and (I hope) irrefutable."[1]

I do agree that the acronym needs to be "tweaked"—but it's a great starting point! Personally, I'd suggest fine-tuning point #1—the "G," because using the word "grace" in both the acronym itself as well as in the description is a bit redundant. But explaining the "G" in GRACE simply as "GIFT" is perfectly fine. Or maybe "GIFT OF GOD" might be a slight improvement, as it is more descriptive and also pairs well with the two following points which are explained in a similar way. Thus the first three points would be: G = GIFT OF GOD, R = RESPONSE OF FAITH, and A = ASSURANCE OF SALVATION. The point is, "The Five Points of Free Grace" is still a work in progress.

And if we do use LOTUS, I suggest using a simplified version of it. For example, we could say:

L = Loved By God (cf. Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8, etc.)

O = Only Believe (i.e., faith alone in Christ alone) 

T = To Whosoever Will (i.e., To All Who Will, or Total Accessibility)

U = Unlimited Atonement 

S = Salvation By Grace

Soli Deo Gloria! To God alone be the glory!

ENDNOTE:

[1] Marcia and Ken Hornok, comment on Shawn Lazar, "The Spectrum of Free Grace Theology," Free Grace International (March 23, 2023), https://freegrace.in/the-spectrum-of-free-grace-theology/. In a reply, Lazar wrote: "I like the direction that the acronym is going."

Augustine on God's "Drawing" in John 6:44

Here is an excerpt from Augustine's Tractates on the Gospel of John (Tractate 26, Section 4), where he provides his famous commentary on John 6:44: 

"Thence also He says here, if you turn your attention to it, 'No man comes to me except he whom the Father shall draw.' Do not think that you are drawn against your will. The mind is drawn also by love. Nor ought we to be afraid, lest perchance we be censured in regard to this evangelic word of the Holy Scriptures by men who weigh words, but are far removed from things, most of all from divine things; and lest it be said to us, 'How can I believe with the will if I am drawn?' I say it is not enough to be drawn by the will; you are drawn even by delight. What is it to be drawn by delight? 'Delight yourself in the Lord, and He shall give you the desires of your heart.'¹ There is a pleasure of the heart to which that bread of heaven is sweet. Moreover, if it was right in the poet to say, 'Every man is drawn by his own pleasure,'²—not necessity, but pleasure; not obligation, but delight—how much more boldly ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ when he delights in the truth, when he delights in blessedness, delights in righteousness, delights in everlasting life, all which Christ is? Or is it the case that, while the senses of the body have their pleasures, the mind is left without pleasures of its own? If the mind has no pleasures of its own, how is it said, 'The sons of men shall trust under the cover of Your wings: they shall be well satisfied with the fullness of Your house; and You shall give them drink from the river of Your pleasure. For with You is the fountain of life; and in Your light shall we see light'?³ Give me a man that loves, and he feels what I say. Give me one that longs, one that hungers, one that is travelling in this wilderness, and thirsting and panting after the fountain of his eternal home; give such, and he knows what I say. But if I speak to the cold and indifferent, he knows not what I say. Such were those who murmured among themselves. 'He whom the Father shall draw,' says He, 'comes unto me.'"

*  *  *

Editor's Note: This translation is from The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. A New Translation. Edited by the Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D. Vol. X. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John. 2 Vols., Vol. I (Edinburgh: 1873), pp. 369-370, italics added.

References:

¹ Psalm 37:4.

² Trahit sua quemque voluptas.—Virgil. Eclogue II.

³ Psalm 36:7-9.

The Fiery Furnace

What is the fiery furnace all about? In the Bible, in the book of Daniel chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had three Hebrews by the names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego tied up and thrown into a fiery furnace after they refused to worship a golden image the king had set up. The furnace was so hot that the intense heat killed the king’s soldiers who threw the three men into the furnace! But the three men who were thrown into the fiery furnace were not burned and not even one of the hairs on their heads was harmed! In the Old Testament book of Isaiah it is written: “When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched, nor will the flame burn you. For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior” (Isaiah 43:2-3).

As King Nebuchadnezzar looked into the furnace at the three men not being burned, he saw a fourth person and claimed His form was like the Son of God! Who is the Son of God? Jesus Christ is the Son of God who protected Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the flames of the fiery furnace because they trusted in Him! In the book of Acts it says: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Humanity needs to trust Jesus Christ to be saved from the Lake of Fire just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego trusted Him to be saved from the fiery furnace. Revelation 20:15 says that “if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” How do we get our names written in the book of life? We have to realize we are sinners, “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). We have to believe the good news that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised the third day, and appeared to many witnesses (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-5).

In the Gospel of John it is written: “Whoever believes in the Son (Jesus Christ) has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them” (John 3:36). So believe on Jesus Christ to be saved from the fiery furnace of the Lake of Fire today!

by Peter Hann

How Do We Interpret John 6:44?

A Free Grace Review of Daniel Weierbach's Sermon "Illuminating John 6:44"

by Jonathan Perreault

"No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44

Preface

The reason I'm writing this review is because last week in the comments section for one of my blog posts, a reader linked me to the YouTube video of Pastor Weierbach's sermon and said "Let me know what you think." Here's what I think!

Introduction

Pastor Weierbach's sermon "Illuminating John 6:44" runs about 45 minutes. Though it's not a massive time commitment, the sermon is a bit technical and some might say that at times Weierbach "gets in the weeds" (so to speak) trying to explain his view. The PowerPoint overheads definitely helped to keep my attention. Yet even with the PowerPoint slides, the sermon was still somewhat tedious to watch—mainly because it was so theologically dense and also fairly complex. Many people would probably call it "boring" because it was basically a teaching lecture on a rather abstract and dry theological topic. Even as someone who is deeply passionate about theology, I found my attention drifting! If a self-proclaimed theology nerd like me struggled to stay focused, it's probably safe to say it moves a bit slow. But since I wanted to review the sermon, I ended up watching it 2-3 times in order to make sure that I had a good grasp of the information and also so that I could better understand where Weierbach was coming from and why he said what he said. I also took about 10 pages of notes! Needless to say, it has been a time-consuming process. But I enjoy doing it, and I hope and pray that this review will be a blessing and a help to those who read it. After all, that's one of the reasons this blog exists. I say all that as background information so no one thinks I'm just "shooting from the hip" or I don't know what I'm talking about. I feel that I have a good grasp of the sermon and the main points that were made.

Pastor Weierbach (who I'll mostly refer to as "Pastor W" for the sake of brevity) begins by saying that John 6:44 is "one of the most abused texts of Scripture." But after watching the sermon, one is apt to wonder if Weierbach's own view also falls into this category! Weierbach is no doubt referring to the fact that John 6:44 is a favorite proof-text used by Calvinists to support their twisted theology of "meticulous determinism," i.e., that God causes all things to happen and that everything happens because He explicitly makes it happen—even all the evil that exists. For example, Calvinists say that God wanted the holocaust to happen and therefore He caused it. Calvinists teach that every evil thing that has ever been done is because God wanted it to happen and made it happen—even things like rape and incest! This is the (false) god of Calvinism, and Pastor W rightly points out how such determinism is patently unbiblical.

Strengths of Pastor W's Interpretation

I will begin by sharing what I consider to be the strengths of Pastor W's sermon and his interpretation of John 6:44. The strengths are:

Strength #1: The sermon attempts to provide a Free Grace interpretation of John 6:44 in contrast to Calvinism. Pastor W begins by giving the typical Calvinistic interpretation of the verse and showing how that view is based on philosophy, not the Bible. In other words, the Calvinist approaches and/or reads John 6:44 with a set of theological presuppositions (i.e., the five-points of Calvinism). Those presuppositions are not in the text, but rather are imposed onto the text. Pastor W does a good job pointing this out at the beginning of his sermon.

Strength #2: The sermon provides a brief explanation of how Calvinists interpret John 6:44, along with a short survey of how Free Grace expositors interpret it. Pastor W references Dr. Charlie Bing's GraceNotes article "How God Draws People to Salvation" (GraceNotes, Number 75), and Shawn Lazar's book Chosen to Serve (Grace Evangelical Society, 2017). Pastor W gives a brief summary of the aforementioned Free Grace interpretations of John 6:44, and says that in his view those explanations are good, "but they miss the mark a little bit." Unfortunately Pastor W does not specify exactly what he disagrees with in those Free Grace interpretations, leaving that point unsaid.

Strength #3: The sermon attempts to interpret John 6:44 contextually, historically, and grammatically. However, I would say that Pastor W goes to the extreme here, because he advises that we interpret John 6:44 exclusively in reference to Old Testament Jewish believers, which he compares to Romans 10:9-10. While I see his point, such a ultra-narrow or limited interpretation seems to contradict the inclusive language that Jesus uses in the immediate context: "the world" (Jn. 6:33), "all" (Jn. 6:37), "all" (Jn. 6:39), "everyone" (Jn. 6:40), "no one" (Jn. 6:44), "all" (Jn. 6:45), "everyone" (Jn. 6:45), "any man" (Jn. 6:46), and "anyone" (Jn. 6:51). The fact that John 6:47 is the key verse of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) also argues against Pastor W's view that the passage is exclusively dealing with and pertaining to only the Jews of Jesus' day. Of course, the GES could be using John 6:47 out of context. But as I pointed out, the language Jesus uses in the immediate context seems to have a broader application than one limited exclusively to the Jews of that time period. Indeed, what Jesus says in the passage is consistent with His many appeals to believe in Him that are recorded all through John's Gospel! Thus, Pastor W's view seems to be a rather forced and unnatural attempt to "pigeon hole" John 6:37-45 as exclusively "Jewish," when that could be said of almost John's entire Gospel! (Since virtually all of John's Gospel deals with the earthly ministry of Jesus prior to His death, burial, and resurrection.) And Bible-believing Christians use John's Gospel in modern-day evangelism all the time—to Jews and non-Jews alike! Of course, the same could be said in regard to Romans 10:9-10. But my point is that it seems forced (and inconsistent) to view John 6:37-45 so narrowly. To put it another way, I don't think that Pastor W is "comparing apples with apples" when he compares John 6:37-45 with Romans 10:9-10. It seems like it is somewhat of a double standard or special pleading to zero in on John 6:37-45 out of John's entire Gospel and say that this particular passage is exclusively Jewish and "has nothing to do with the church age" (so says Pastor W) when it's doubtful that he applies that same standard to the rest of John's Gospel. Indeed, one wonders how Pastor W interprets what Jesus said to the Jewish Pharisee named Nicodemus in John 3:16?! Does that have "nothing to do with the church age" either? Granted, it occurred prior to the cross. But the one condition for salvation is, and always has been, the same: faith alone! "Look and Live"! Pastor W even uses that exact phrase to describe salvation in the present church-age! So he appears to be inconsistent in his interpretation of John's Gospel, particularly the parts of it that are supposedly strictly "Jewish". Indeed, John 1:11-12 seems to expand the invitation to those outside of the Jewish religion and culture. John 1:11-12 says of Jesus that "He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him. But to all who did receive Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe on His name." Amen!

Strength #4: The sermon provides a good contextual analysis and explanation of the word "draw" (Gr. helkō, also spelled helkuō), showing that it does not automatically nor necessarily mean "drag" as Calvinists teach. I would say that this is by far the strongest aspect of Pastor W's sermon. He basically does a complete word study on the Greek word helkō, going back even to how the word is used in the Old Testament Septuagint or LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) to prove that the Greek word does not inherently mean "drag" as the Calvinists twist it to mean, but rather it simply (and predominantly) means "woo" or "draw". The context helps to determine the meaning of the word. That is, the surrounding text clarifies the specific sense in which the Greek word helkō is being used.

Review of Pastor W's 5 Main Points

Pastor W outlines his sermon in five basic points, which he describes as: "Five (5) main points we must realize to fully understand John 6:44" (timestamp: 21:05). He explains by saying: "There is five main points to my argument as far as to be able to prove what I believe John 6:44 is talking about." Notice here that Pastor W admits that these 5 points are necessary in order to "prove" his view of John 6:44. This will be important to keep in mind, and I will talk more about this later (see below under "Summary"). Here is my review of Pastor W's 5 main points:

Main Point #1. Pastor W's first main point is: "John 6 is about the Father drawing, not the Son or the Holy Spirit." Pastor W restates the point, saying: "John 6 is about the Father drawing, not the Spirit, not the Son." But the text doesn't say "not the Spirit, not the Son." Therefore, we must be very careful not to read into the text something that it doesn't say. For example, in Genesis 1:2 the text specifically mentions the Spirit as involved in creation (cf. Job 33:4; Psa. 104:30). Are we therefore to conclude that the Father and Son were not involved? Such a conclusion would be false, because other Scriptures reveal that the Father and the Son were also involved in the creation of the world and in the creation of the universe (cf. Isa. 64:8; Mal. 2:10; Jn. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16-18; Heb. 1:1-2; Rev. 4:11, etc.). The same can be said in regard to Christ's resurrection. Some Bible verses say Jesus raised Himself (Jn. 2:19-21, 10:17-18). Other verses describe the Father as raising Jesus (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 1:1), and still others say the Holy Spirit raised Him (Rom. 8:11). We need to be careful not to go beyond what is written: "Do not go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). And so while Pastor W rightly points out that there is "a distinction in persons" between God the Father and God the Son, I would say yes, but there is also a unity! All three members of the Godhead work together in perfect harmony.

Main Point #2. Pastor W's second main point is: "John 6 is present tense ministry, not a future tense." He further explains by saying, "the Father is only said to be drawing people during Jesus' [earthly] ministry." Pastor W says that the Father is not drawing people during the present ministry of Jesus. But where does the Bible say this? Pastor W says that the Father only draws people in the Gospels: "If you were to read the Scriptures and try and do a search for this phraseology as far as the Father drawing, you will only find this terminology used in the Gospels." But Pastor W's statement is not completely accurate. The truth is, in the New Testament, the Greek word helkō ("draw") is only used of the Father's "drawing" in John 6:44! I specified "in the New Testament" because in the Greek translation of Jeremiah 31:3 (LXX = 38:3) in the Septuagint, it uses the Greek word helkō to describe God the Father drawing His covenant people Israel. Pastor W's PowerPoint slide even references this when he displays a screenshot of the lexical entry of the Greek word helkō from Bauer's Lexicon (see timestamp 14:30, cf. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1st English edition, p. 251, s.v. ἕλκω, definition 1.b.). 

But in the New Testament, that specific Greek word is not used with reference to the Father in any of the Synoptic Gospels! This highlights the fallacy of Pastor W's logic. Because Pastor W says that "you will only find this terminology [of God the Father 'drawing' people] used in the Gospels," yet the Greek word helkō isn't found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Yet Pastor W argues that the Father is still drawing people during that time, based on Jesus' statement in John 6:44. Pastor W will no doubt respond by emphasizing that the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover the same time period as the Gospel of John in terms of Jesus' earthly ministry. But I would respond by saying that the Greek word helkō is nonetheless absent from those Gospels. So my point is that even though the word helkō ("draw") is absent from the Synoptics, the concept of God's drawing is not absent! And that's also my point in regard to the Father's "drawing" as it pertains to the rest of the New Testament. The Bible never says (!) that God only draws people during Jesus' earthly ministry. That is Pastor W's assumption. And that assumption is based on the flawed logic that "this phraseology as far as the Father drawing, you will only find this terminology used in the Gospels." No, you will only find that phraseology used in John 6:44! Not even "in the Gospels." The truth is: when the Greek word helkō is used in the theological sense of God the Father "drawing" people to salvation, that use of the word is only found in John 6:44. In other words, John 6:44 is the only verse in the entire Greek New Testament where the word helkō is used to describe the Father "drawing" people to salvation. 

But does this mean that the concept of the Father's "drawing" is absent everywhere else? Of course not! But that is Pastor W's reasoning in regard to the Father's "drawing" outside of the Gospels. But here he is not only incorrect (see Jer. 31:3, LXX = 38:3), but also inconsistent. Because if he were consistent, he would have to say that since the specific terminology of the Father's "drawing" is not found anywhere in the Synoptic Gospels, the Father is therefore not "drawing" people in the Synoptic Gospels. But Pastor W doesn't say that. Instead, he says that God the Father is drawing people in the Synoptic Gospels (presumably because those books of the Bible cover the same time period as the Gospel of John, in terms of Jesus' earthly ministry). And so Pastor W implicitly admits that although the exact phraseology of the Father's "drawing" is nowhere to be found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke (i.e., nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels), yet the concept of the Father's "drawing" is nonetheless present. And that is my point related to the rest of the New Testament. Although the specific word helkō ("draw") isn't used of the Father's "drawing" people to salvation except in John 6:44, yet the concept is still evident throughout the New Testament. 

How does God the Father "draw" people to Himself? That is, to salvation? He clearly uses different means! Notice the following 7 ways that God uses to draw people to Himself. (Note: In the following list, I equate God's drawing with His calling. I believe that God's drawing/calling can be resisted. In other words, I disagree with the Calvinistic doctrine of "Irresistible Grace.")

How God Draws People to Salvation

1. Through Jesus' death on the cross (Jn. 12:32)

2. Through His love (Jer. 31:3; Hosea 11:4; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 2:4)

3. Through the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:7-11)

4. Through general revelation/creation (Rom. 1:20)

5. Through His Word (Psa. 138:2; Jn. 6:45; Rom. 10:17)

6. Through internal conscience (Eccl. 3:11; Rom. 2:11-16)

7. Through people and circumstances (Acts 8:26-39, 10:1-11:18; cf. Heb. 1:14)

Main Point #3. Pastor W's third main point is: "John 6:64-65 is often overlooked regarding the present tense ministry." What does he mean by this? Pastor W says that "here Jesus tells us why He even said [what He did in] verse 44." Pastor W then dogmatically states: "The Father is not drawing unbelievers during the present ministry of Jesus Christ." But where does the Bible say this? Pastor W doesn't really prove this point; he merely says, "I will make that case momentarily as well." When Pastor W says that he will "make that case momentarily as well," he seems to be referring to what he says in his main point #5: specifically his view that God the Father doesn't give anything to Jesus after His earthly ministry. Pastor W's specific statement is: "after Jesus' DBR [i.e., His death, burial, and resurrection], nothing else is said to have been 'given' by the Father to the Son...this terminology is only used during this transitional period from Law to Grace (OT to NT)" (see timestamp: 35:06, ellipsis and emphasis his). But that statement is actually false in light of Revelation 1:1. See my thoughts on Main Point #5 for more information.

Is it true that "The Father is not drawing unbelievers during the present ministry of Jesus"? Jesus' own words would appear to disprove Pastor W's statement! Because in John 6:40 Jesus says: "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." Notice that Jesus doesn't say "it is the will of My Father that 'the elect' who see the Son and believe in Him will have eternal life," nor does Jesus say that "it is My Father's will that 'Old Testament Jewish believers' who see the Son and believe in Him will have eternal life," but Jesus says that "everyone" who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life (see Jn. 6:40). Apparently Pastor W interprets John 6:40 as being in reference to only Old Testament Jewish believers. But I don't see anything in the immediate context to justify such a limited interpretation. In fact, I see quite the opposite! Jesus could hardly have been clearer that there is a universal opportunity to be saved! Jesus' statement in John 6:40 is perfectly consistent with other Bible verses in the New Testament which describe God's invitation to salvation as universal in scope and not limited to a select few: "the world" (Jn. 3:16-17), "everyone" (Acts 10:43, 13:39), "all men" (1 Tim. 4:10), "all" (2 Pet. 3:9), "the whole world" (1 Jn. 2:2), and "whosoever will" (Rev. 22:17). Incidentally, Revelation 22:17 also shows that the Son and the Spirit work together in perfect harmony specifically as it pertains to the salvation of the world (cf. Jn. 3:14-17, 12:32, 16:8-11). Obviously the same could be said of the Father and the Son (cf. Jn. 3:16-17, 6:32-33).

How then are we to interpret John 6:64-65? Not as the Calvinists in the sense of unconditional election and double predestination and irresistible grace, but rather in light of what Jesus says in John 6:40 in regard to the fact that it is the Father's will that "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life." In other words, God chooses to save those who choose to believe. It is the Father's will to incorporate the human will in the salvation process. When I say the "salvation process," I'm referring to everything leading up to the point in time when a person trusts in Christ and receives eternal life. This pre-conversion timeline leading up to the moment of faith would include the Father's drawing them to Himself using various means (Jn. 6:44), the Son drawing them to Himself using various means (Jn. 12:32), and the Holy Spirit's ministry of convicting them "of sin, righteousness, and judgment" using various means (Jn. 16:8-11). All three members of the Holy Trinity work together in perfect harmony to accomplish this goal of bringing lost sinners into God's family. That is how I understand John 6:64-65 as it relates to John 6:37-45. What about John 6:45? How are we to interpret it? In John 6:45 Jesus is quoting Isaiah 54:13, which says: "All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children." Everett F. Harrison insightfully observes: "Here Christ quoted Isa 54:13. If the all be emphasized, it removes any element of restriction that may seem to lurk in the idea of drawing as stated in Jn 6:44." (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1087, bold his.) A good cross reference to help understand what Jesus is talking about in John 6:45 is what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 10:17, "So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." In other words, God uses His Word to draw people to salvation!

Main Point #4. Pastor W's fourth main point is: "John 10, 15, 17 help identify who Jesus is referring to [in John 6:44]." Pastor W asks, "how does Jesus speak about these same people?" Pastor W then hopscotches through John's Gospel to these various proof-texts, trying to illustrate/prove his point. (I picture Pastor W on a pogo stick, jumping around to these various sections of John's Gospel!) I would agree with Pastor W that in John 10:14-16, Jesus is not referring to the elect and non-elect but rather to the Jews and Gentiles. But Pastor W's point in regard to John 10:1-16 seems to be that when Jesus says "My sheep hear My voice," those sheep are Old Testament believers who (according to Pastor W) were already saved before coming to Christ. But such an interpretation seems forced. The text doesn't say the sheep were saved prior to coming to Christ. And while I don't disagree that there were Old Testament believers who were saved prior to Christ's earthly ministry and who indeed did recognize Christ as the promised Messiah when He came (e.g. Simeon and Anna in Luke 2:22-38), my point is that John 10:1-16 should not be interpreted in such a limited sense or even in that sense at all. Personally, I wouldn't say that John 10:1-16 even refers to that. As I said, that interpretation seems forced.

In regard to John 15, I agree with Pastor W that the election in John 15:16 is to service, not salvation. But Pastor W's point in regard to John 15 is that those who reject God the Father will likewise reject His Son (see Jn. 15:23). Pastor W then flips the logic and reasons that those who believe in God the Father will likewise believe in His Son. I would ask, what Bible-believing Christian disagrees with that? That doesn't prove his point in regard to those in John 6:44 as far as when they got saved and if they were already saved prior to coming to Christ. I agree that there were Old Testament Jewish believers who were saved prior to Jesus being revealed as the Messiah. In other words, Pastor W is correct that there were indeed Old Testament Jewish believers alive during that time. (Who disputes that? As I noted, Simeon and Anna are two examples.) But that fact in no way requires the interpretation that John 6:37-45 refers to them. In light of the context, it is far more likely that John 6:37-45 refers to unbelievers (whom God in His omniscience foreknows will get saved) who respond to the Father's drawing for the first time and believe in Christ for salvation and are converted then and there. This interpretation seems much more likely in light of the specific language that Jesus uses, particularly what He says in John 6:40.

After briefly discussing a few statements by Jesus from John 15 (vv. 14-27), Pastor W next discusses several of Jesus' statements from John 17. Although Pastor W's view is interesting to consider, I would specifically disagree with his interpretation of John 17:6 in regard to the phrase "Thine they were." Pastor W interprets this phrase to mean that these people were saved before coming to Christ, mainly because Jesus says in his prayer to the Father, "Thine they were." Pastor W says these people are exclusively Old Testament Jewish believers whom the Father gives to Jesus. Thus, in his view these people were already saved before coming to Christ. But when Jesus says to the Father "Thine they were" (Jn. 17:6), my understanding is that it simply means in the sense that God the Father owns everything. These people are the Father's not necessarily in the sense of them already being saved and then given to Christ (as Pastor W supposes), but in the sense that God the Father created them. Just because they are owned by God doesn't necessarily mean they are saved. God owns "the cattle on a thousand hills," as the Bible says in the Psalms (Psa. 50:10). God owns everything—even unbelievers! "The earth is the Lord's and all it contains, the world and those who dwell in it" (Psalm 24:1; cf. Exod. 19:5; Job 41:11; Psa. 89:11, 100:3). Indeed, in the Old Testament, God says: "Behold, all souls are Mine" (Ezek. 18:4). So I think Pastor W is once again reading too much into the text based on the one phrase "Thine they were" (Jn. 17:6). It doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. And even if it does, it could simply mean that God foreknows (knows ahead of time) who will trust in Christ for salvation (cf. Jn. 10:16; Rev. 13:8, 17:8, 20:15, 21:27). In this sense they are thus the Father's, since He foreknows that they will one day believe in Christ and be saved (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1-2). Their names were written in the book of life (cf. Rev. 13:8, 17:8) from the foundation of the world!

Main Point #5. Pastor W's fifth main point is: "Jesus was 'given' various things by the Father during His earthly ministry" (emphasis his). Pastor W explains that some of these "various things" include: "power" (Matt. 28:19; Jn. 17:2), "authority" (Jn. 5:27), and even "all things" (Lk. 10:22; Jn. 3:35, cf. Matt. 11:27, 28:18; Jn. 5:19-30, 13:3). As it pertains to John 6:37-45 and John 17:1-9, Pastor W reasons that the people who are given by the Father to Jesus during His earthly ministry are "in the same lane." But doesn't this argue against Pastor W's assumption that those who are given to Jesus by the Father are exclusively "Old Testament believers"? If indeed "all things" have been given to Jesus by the Father, why view the Father's "giving" in John 6 so narrowly? It seems incongruent. Especially because the wording in John 6:37-45 and in John 17:1-9 is much more inclusive: "all" (Jn. 6:37), "all" (Jn. 6:39), "everyone" (Jn. 6:40), and "all" (Jn. 17:2, cf. 17:21-24). Jesus could hardly have been more clear! For Pastor W to say that the word "all" in these verses refers exclusively to "Old Testament Jewish believers" smacks of Calvinism. What irony! Once again, Pastor W's interpretation of John 6:37-45 and 17:1-9 seems forced and doesn't appear to be consistent with the surrounding context.

Pastor W observes that the Greek word which is used of this giving by the Father to the Son is the word didōmi, which means "to entrust something to another's care." I agree with that, but then Pastor W says: "the fact these were 'given' [didōmi] reveals the Father previously had them. Therefore, the Father transferred them, from His authority, to the Son, during His earthly ministry." Pastor W makes two assumptions here that are incorrect: 1) that the Father's having them equates to them being previously saved, i.e. "Old Testament Jewish believers," and 2) that these people were only given by the Father during Jesus' earthly ministry. In regard to Pastor W's first assumption, I have already pointed out how when the Bible describes God as having something or owning something (or someone), it doesn't necessarily refer to salvation. It could simply mean that God owns it by virtue of the fact that He created it and owns everything! And even if it does refer to salvation in a stricter sense, it still doesn't necessarily refer exclusively to Old Testament Jewish believers. The text does not require such a limited interpretation. Indeed, Free Grace people believe in unlimited atonement. Pastor W would probably say yes, but in John 6:37-45 it is the unlimited atonement of only Old Testament Jewish believers. How convenient! How Calvinistic! But such an interpretation is still limited, is my point. And thus such a view is inconsistent, or at least somewhat inconsistent, with the inclusive language that Jesus clearly uses in the passage: "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life" (Jn. 6:40). 

In regard to Pastor W's second assumption, that the Father only gave these people to Jesus "during His [i.e., Jesus'] earthly ministry," the Bible never says that! Thus, it is an argument from silence. And, I might add, it is quite a complicated argument from silence. It is an argument from silence that creates more problems than it solves! To me, the easier (and better) way to understand God's drawing is to view it as consistent with His foreknowledge (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1-2), and that "God chooses to save those who choose to believe." And to understand that the Father's will involves and factors in man's will (see John 6:40). This "unlimited atonement" interpretation is entirely consistent with the immediate context and with the rest of the New Testament. But getting back to the second assumption in Pastor W's statement that is incorrect, he says that after Jesus' earthly ministry "nothing else" is said to have been given (didōmi) to Jesus by the Father. Not true! I will quote Pastor W's exact statement to show that I'm not misrepresenting him. Pastor W states: "after Jesus' DBR [i.e., His death, burial, and resurrection], nothing else is said to have been 'given' by the Father to the Son...this terminology is only used during this transitional period from Law to Grace (OT to NT)" (see timestamp: 35:06, ellipsis and emphasis his). That statement by Pastor W is incorrect. Such a conclusion is not only incorrect, it is unbiblical. Look at Revelation 1:1. It says, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave [Grk. edōken = aorist, active, indicative of didōmi] Him to show His servants the things which must shortly come to pass." Here in Revelation 1:1, the Father gives Jesus the Revelation ("unveiling") of what must shortly come to pass. This giving appears to take place strictly after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ! Because notice that in context, Christ is specifically described as "the firstborn from the dead" (Rev. 1:5, NKJV). And even if the giving mentioned in Revelation 1:1 occurred at some previous time, the very mention of it in Rev. 1:1 still disproves Pastor W's statement, because he specifically said that "after Jesus' DBR [i.e., His death, burial, and resurrection], nothing else is said to have been 'given' by the Father to the Son...this terminology is only used during this transitional period from Law to Grace (OT to NT)" (ellipsis and emphasis his). Pastor W's statement specifically pertains to whether or not the "terminology" is used in the biblical text "after Jesus' DBR". And so my point is that the "terminology" that Pastor W says isn't used after Jesus' resurrection is indeed used! And although the timing of when the Father "gave" the Revelation to Christ is not essential to my point, the text of Revelation 1:1 does suggest that the Father gave the prophetic unveiling to Christ after His earthly ministry (compare Rev. 1:1 with Rev. 1:5, 1:7, 1:18, 2:8, 5:6-9, 5:12). 

Commenting on Revelation 1:1, the New Testament scholar Henry Alford affirms: "Stern asks, 'How are we to understand this? Is not Christ very God, of one essence with the Father from eternity? Did He not, by virtue of the omniscience of His divine nature, know as exactly as the Father, what should be the process of the world's history, what the fate of the Church? What purpose was served by a revelation from God to Jesus?' He proceeds to say that the words cannot refer merely to the revelation as made to us, but are clearly against such an interpretation: and gives, at some length and very well, that which in one form or other all will accept as the true explanation, in accordance with John 7.16; 14.10, 17:7, 8. The man Christ Jesus, even in his glorified state, receives from the Father, by his hypostatic union with Him, that revelation which by His Spirit He imparts to His Church. For, Acts 1.7, the times and seasons are kept by the Father in his own power: and of the day and the hour knoweth no man, not the angels in heaven, nor even the Son, but the Father only, Mark 13.32. I may observe, that the coincidence in statement of this deep point of doctrine between the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse, is at least remarkable." (Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, 2 Vols., Vol. II, Part II, p. 940, bold and brackets added. Note: The Roman numerals in the original have been updated to the current format.) Commenting on Revelation 1:1, Simcox similarly affirms: "Doubtless when the Son made this revelation, He had received from the Father the knowledge which in the time of His humiliation He had not (St Mark 13.32)." (William Henry Simcox, The Revelation of S. John the Divine, p. 1.) In other words, the Father apparently "gave" this Revelation to Jesus after His earthly ministry (Rev. 1:1; cf. Mark 13:32). Revelation 1:1 clearly suggests that the Father gave the Revelation to the risen and ascended Christ after His earthly ministry. Either way, the specific terminology of Revelation 1:1 falsifies Pastor W's statement that "after Jesus' DBR [i.e., His death, burial, and resurrection] nothing else is said to have been 'given' by the Father to the Son...this terminology is only used during this transitional period from Law to Grace (OT to NT)." My overall point is that the theological underpinnings of Pastor W's interpretation of John 6:44 and the reasons why he holds his view, are at times not very solid; his statements don't always hold up when examined closely in the light of the whole counsel of God's Word.

Review of Pastor W's Summary

In a concluding summary at the end of his sermon, Pastor W restates his "Five (5) main points" which he says help the reader to properly or "fully" understand John 6:44. Interestingly, his "five main points" are similar to the 5 points of Calvinism (!) in that in each case the "5 points" are necessary to support and even "prove" each view. Pastor W's "5 main points" are the necessary theological underpinnings or structure which supports his view of John 6:44. Recall that at the beginning of his sermon, Pastor W stated: "There is five main points to my argument as far as to be able to prove what I believe John 6:44 is talking about." Thus it stands to reason that without his 5 points, his interpretation of John 6:44 collapses. I'm not saying that this in and of itself is necessarily wrong. Rather, I'm saying that in this regard his view is similar to the five points of Calvinism. The main problem that I have with Pastor W's view is that it is based on a number of questionable and even incorrect assumptions—and even a logical fallacy! And on more than one occasion, Pastor W's theological analysis is simply factually incorrect. And as noted, his view is also highly complex and even arcane. It seems that in order to arrive at Pastor W's view of the text, the reader must first be initiated into it and thus "Illuminated" with the deeper knowledge of Pastor W's "5 points"! In other words, the prima facie or "face value" reading of the text does not support Pastor W's view/interpretation of it. The reader needs his "5 main points" in order to arrive at his conclusion that John 6:44 is in reference to exclusively "Old Testament Jewish believers" and not in reference to salvation. In other words, without Pastor W's 5 main points, the reader would probably never arrive at such an interpretation simply from taking the prima facie or "face value" reading of the text. There's an old saying that pertains to Bible interpretation: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes sense [as it does in John 6:44], seek no other sense." That statement is very applicable to this whole discussion and very important to keep in mind!

One of the other things that I want to point out that I maybe didn't specifically delve into earlier is that, here in the summary, Pastor W reiterates his premise that when Jesus says in John 6:37, "All that the Father gives to Me," those given by the Father to the Son were already believers. Pastor W argues that they are specifically Old Testament Jewish believers. But in response I would say that the verb "gives" (didōsin) doesn't necessitate such a conclusion. Pastor W is reading that into the text, not getting that meaning out of the text. Thus, his view is actually eisegesis, which is a flawed method of Bible interpretation. The correct method of Bible interpretation is called exegesis, that is, getting the meaning out of the text. What Pastor W is doing is he is using his "5 main points" as his theological construct or lens through which to interpret (or misinterpret) the text. His "5 main points" are his theological presuppositions that the reader must first understand and subscribe to in order to arrive at his desired conclusion. And as I noted above, Pastor W's 5 main points and the way he uses them to "prove" his view is also highly ironic, because Pastor W disagrees with the 5 points of Calvinism! Yet the method which he uses to interpret John 6:44 is similar to Calvinism in that the reader must first subscribe to his 5 theological presuppositions in order to "fully" understand his limited view of the text.

My Concluding Thoughts

To me, Pastor W's interpretation of John 6:44 is an overly complicated interpretation that doesn't really hold up when examined closely in the light of the whole counsel of God's Word. Furthermore, since Pastor W's interpretation is so theologically complex, it is therefore much more difficult to support biblically than to simply affirm that John 6:44 does indeed teach divine election (!), but the election is according to God's foreknowledge and thus not the "meticulous determinism" of Calvinism. Biblically, God's children are said to be "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pet. 1:1-2). This election by God involves and is compatible with a person's free will (cf. Jn. 6:40). The point I'm making about God's foreknowledge is that He knows ahead of time who will believe in Him and who will not believe, as the Apostle John explains in John 6:64. To me, this simpler interpretation accords much more with the immediate context of John chapter 6, in that Jesus is plainly talking about those who don't have eternal life needing to receive it by believing in Him (see 6:37-45, particularly 6:40). He is not talking about those who already have it. For example, if Jesus' statement in John 6:40 refers to already saved people, then what is Jesus even talking about if He is not referring to how a person is saved? Old Testament Jewish believers believing in Christ and receiving eternal life that they already have because they are already saved? It makes no sense! Such an interpretation seems forced, to say the least. It appears to be an artificial construct imposed upon the text in order to support an arcane and highly complex interpretation, a view which is not the plain reading but rather is only arrived at if and when the reader first subscribes to Pastor W's "Five main points".

Pastor W's view—that John 6:37-45 refers exclusively to already-saved Old Testament Jewish believers—seems to create more problems than it solves. Taken at face value, it contradicts the prima facie, plain reading of Jesus' statements. In context, Jesus is clearly talking about the initial reception of eternal life—a life that His listeners obviously did not yet possess (see John 6:36, 53, 64). Jesus explicitly frames this reception of eternal salvation as being "for everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" (Jn. 6:40). It seems quite a stretch to relegate "eternal life" here to a "Jewish-only" deeper fellowship, accessible only if and when Old Testament saints recognized Jesus as the Messiah during a narrow, transitional Gospel era. Not to be overly dramatic, but I've never heard of such a bizarre interpretation, and I am surprised that someone of Pastor W's caliber would subscribe to it. It strongly reminds me of Zane Hodges' reinterpretation of "repentance" (Grk. metanoia) as a defensive gambit during the height of the Lordship controversy, when the theological stakes were unusually high. Pastor W is employing a similar maneuver with helkō and didōmi. He isn't changing their literal lexical meaning, but he is radically narrowing their theological scope by insisting they refer to an experience of fellowship rather than initial salvation—thus recontextualizing the terms in an attempt to neutralize the Calvinistic view. The glaring problem is that this forced reinterpretation fails to harmonize both with the immediate context and with the whole counsel of God's Word. A far stronger, more sustainable argument is to simply agree that John 6:44 does indeed teach election—not in the warped Calvinistic sense of unconditional election and double predestination, but rather in the true biblical sense of being "elect according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Pet. 1:1-2).

In terms of understanding God's foreknowledge and how it reconciles with human responsibility, I think people tend to overcomplicate it. A helpful way that I've heard to explain it is: "God chooses to save those who choose to believe." Through the years I've heard a lot of attempts to explain God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and that is probably the best explanation I've heard. Most people don't even try to explain it. They just say, "The secret things belong to the Lord" (Deut. 29:29). Yes, but that exact same Bible verse also says: "But the things that are revealed are for us and for our children forever!" Reconciling God's sovereignty with human responsibility is not such a hard thing to understand, actually. It is only hard because most people approach the topic with Calvinistic presuppositions that are incompatible with the Bible. Of course that will make the subject difficult to understand! But when we let the Bible speak for itself, and approach it with the attitude of "Speak Lord, for thy servant hears" (1 Samuel 3:9), God will reveal to us His truth.

In closing, I want to say that I write this review in the spirit of Proverbs 27:17, "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." Pastor W is a Free Grace brother in Christ and I'm sure a good and godly man. I probably agree with him on 95% of Bible doctrine, and probably 100% of salvation doctrine. Nothing I've written is meant to disparage his character or impugn his motives. I simply have a different Free Grace interpretation of John 6:44, and that is the scope of this review. My hope and prayer is that it will shed some much needed light upon this important topic. Soli Deo Gloria!