"Free Grace" Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance

Reformed theologian and author Wayne Grudem does have some interesting arguments that he uses to try to convince people that repentance in the Bible does not simply mean "a change of mind". Grudem says that true repentance must also include remorse, contrition, self-reproach, and making a life change for the better (which he defines as better conduct), or at least a resolve to do so "as a result of remorse or contrition for one's sins." I was reading his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016) on google books because it came up in the search results (I did purchase the book but "FOR REFERENCE ONLY!"), and I must say that at first Grudem almost had me believing that Charles Bing just had no lexical support for his "change of mind" definition of repentance. Grudem made it sound like Charles Bing was taking statements from the Greek lexicons out of context. But when I looked up a few of the lexical examples cited by Grudem, I found that it was Grudem who was quoting the lexicons very selectively and taking statements out of context! Here are six examples of how Wayne Grudem misrepresents Biblical repentance:

1.) Grudem misrepresents Bauer’s lexicon. 

In his book ‘Free Grace’ Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, Grudem makes the following statements in his critique of Free Grace theology. Grudem claims that Charles Bing’s citation of Bauer’s lexicon in support of the “change of mind” meaning of metanoeō is “misrepresenting the entry on metanoeō in the BAGD lexicon” (p. 59). Grudem goes on to say that Charles Bing “repeatedly fails to account for the fact that no standard lexicon or other reference work on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament supports his understanding of metanoeō and metanoia in these passages.” (p. 64.) This is a bold claim! But is this really the case? Let’s take a close look at Bauer’s lexicon (third edition) to see if what Grudem says is accurate or if maybe he's the one who is actually misrepresenting Bauer’s lexicon! 
    

The first definition listed in Bauer’s lexicon for the verb metanoeō (repent) is “change one’s mind”. The first example Bauer cites for the “change of mind” definition of metanoeō is from The Shepherd of Hermas (abbreviated as “Hv 3, 7, 3” in the lexicon). This is important because The Shepherd of Hermas is not secular literature, nor is it pre-Christian. Instead, The Shepherd of Hermas is Christian literature. Is it early or late Christian literature? It was written in the mid second century (c. 140 AD). In fact, one author dates it to have been written “about 90–110 A.D.” (See Charles H. Hoole, The Shepherd of Hermas [London: Rivingtons, 1870], Introduction, p. x.) Related to this, it was the opinion of Origen (186–253 A.D.) that The Shepherd of Hermas was written by the “Hermas” to whom the apostle Paul sends his greetings in his letter to the Romans, chapter 16, verse 14. If the Gospel of John was written between 90-100 AD as many Bible scholars believe, then The Shepherd of Hermas was written very close to the same time. So The Shepherd of Hermas is not just Christian literature; it’s early Christian literature written at about the same time as (or at most only about 50 years after) when parts of the New Testament were written. The Shepherd of Hermas is nearly contemporary with the New Testament and was widely read by many of the early Christians. What's more, some of the early Christians such as “Clement of Alexandria (193–217 A.D.) evidently considered the book to have been inspired.” (Ibid., pp. xi-xii.) I’m not arguing that The Shepherd of Hermas is inspired nor am I saying that it should be included in the New Testament. My point is simply that The Shepherd of Hermas is early Christian literature written close to the same time as when the New Testament was written and thus it is very important because, as one author puts it, “it carries us back into the very earliest period of Christian antiquity, and dealing with religious subjects in a more familiar way than is found in the works of the other ecclesiastical writers of the Apostolic period, it is most valuable as supplying a specimen of the ordinary tone of thought and feeling in the early Church.” (Ibid., pp. x-xi.) The Shepherd of Hermas is important in helping us today to understand the meaning of metanoeō (the verb repent) and metanoia (the noun repentance) because it shows how the Greek-speaking Christians of the early church were using these words. It shows that the early Christians were using the word metanoeō in a religious context and in the sense of “a change of mind”! So for Bauer to exclude every New Testament use of metanoeō from having this meaning is suspect and may show a theological bias or a double-standard. Why does metanoeō mean “change one’s mind” in The Shepherd of Hermas but not anywhere in the New Testament? But I don’t think that’s what Bauer is saying at all.  
    

Grudem is correct to point out that Bauer does not list any New Testament passages immediately under the “change one’s mind” meaning for the verb metanoeō, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. What Grudem fails to tell his readers is that Bauer does in fact list many New Testament passages under the “change of mind” definition for the cognate noun metanoia (together with the verb metanoeō in parenthesis) on the very same page of the lexicon! (See page 640 in Bauer's lexicon.) Grudem in his book actually references the cognate noun metanoia on page 640 of Bauer's lexicon, but only to say in a tiny footnote at the bottom of the page (p. 57) that "under the cognate noun metanoia, 'repentance,' [Bauer gives] this explanation: 'in our literature with focus on the need of change in view of responsibility to deity' (640)." So Grudem conveniently fails to mention that in the lexical entry for the noun metanoia, Bauer includes the verb metanoeō together with the noun and classifies them both as having the meaning of “primarily a change of mind”! Here is the actual statement in Bauer’s lexicon (I transcribed the Greek letters into English): 

“metanoia, as, ē (metanoeō) prim. ‘a change of mind’ (Thu. 3, 36, 4; Polyb. 4, 66, 7;...[etc.]),...repentance, turning about, conversion; as a turning away metanoia apo nekrōn ergōn turning away from dead works Hb 6:1. Mostly of the positive side of repentance, as the beginning of a new relationship with God: ē eis theou m[etanoian]. repentance that leads to God Ac 20:21. axia tēs metanoias erga deeds that are consistent with repentance 26:20. Also karton axion tēs m[etanoias]. [fruit worthy of repentance] Mt 3:8; cp. Lk 3:8.” etc. 

Under this very heading, Bauer goes on to list many more examples from the New Testament, including some of the very same New Testament passages which he had previously listed as examples for the verb metanoeō, such as Luke 15:7 and Acts 26:20. Additionally, Bauer also includes under this same heading (and interspersed with the New Testament references) many more citations from The Shepherd of Hermas. 
   

So Grudem’s entire argument that Bauer doesn’t list any New Testament passages under the “change one’s mind” definition of metanoeō falls flat and doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny because Bauer lists many New Testament references under the cognate noun metanoia, (together with the verb metanoeō immediately following in parenthesis) where both together are given the meaning of “primarily ‘a change of mind’”.  

2.) Grudem misrepresents the lexicon by Moulton and Milligan. 

Grudem makes it sound like the Moulton and Milligan lexicon doesn't support the "change of mind" definition of repentance. Grudem writes: "The specialized lexicon by Moulton and Milligan, compiled with particular reference to the papri and other nonliterary sources, says of metanoeō that 'in the New Testament it is more than 'repent,' and indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.'" But Grudem omits the entire first part of that quote which gives the basic meaning of metanoeō: a "change of mind"! Notice what Moulton and Milligan say concerning the meaning of metanoeō which Grudem left out:

See also Menandrea p. 12⁷² where the verb is used of "change of mind." Its meaning deepens with Christianity, and in the NT it is more than "repent," and indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.¹

The Moulton and Milligan lexicon doesn't say that the meaning of metanoeō changes with Christianity; it says the word's meaning "deepens with Christianity". What's more, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says that the meaning of metanoeō in the New Testament is more than "repent," all they're saying is that our English word "repent" is not the best translation of metanoeō. They are saying that our English word "repent" does not fully express the meaning of the Greek word.  This is exactly the point made by Charles Bing and other Free Grace theologians! For example, in The Theological Wordbook (edited by such stalwarts of the faith as John F. Walvoord, Donald K. Campbell, Wendel Johnston, and John Whitmer) they write this on page 296 concerning the word Repentance: "the English word repentance derives from the Latin and does not express the exact meaning of metanoia." To be more specific, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says that the meaning of metanoeō "deepens with Christianity, and in the NT it is more than 'repent,'"—it means more than repent (in the sense of regret), i.e. metanoeō is more than a synonym of metamelomai (see the definition for metamelomai, "regret," in the Moulton and Milligan lexicon where they define metamelomai as meaning "repent oneself").
    

I want to make another point regarding what Moulton and Milligan say in their lexicon concerning the meaning of metanoeō. Apparently Grudem imports his own definition of repentance into the words "a complete change of attitude," but is that justified? How should we understand the word "attitude" when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says "a complete change of attitude"? Should we import Grudem's definition of repentance into the word "attitude" or should be define the word "attitude" according to its own meaning? The Merriam-Webster dictionary says that the word "attitude" means "a mental position with regard to a fact or state." (The word "attitude" can include feelings or emotions, but that is not the primary meaning of the word.) Thus, when the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says "a complete change of attitude," it is simply another way of saying a complete "change of mind," spiritual and moral (e.g. a recognition of one's sin, and need for salvation, etc.), towards God.
    

I want to make one last point, and this has to do with what the Moulton and Milligan lexicon says concerning the noun metanoia ("repentance"). Under the entry for metanoia (page 404), the concluding remarks are these: "It may be added that Lactantius (Div. Inst. vi. 24. 6) for the ordinary paenitentia ['repentance'] of Christian Latinity prefers resipiscentia [to recover one's senses], as implying, like μετάνοια [metanoia], a coming to one's senses, resulting in a change of conduct." The Moulton and Milligan lexicon correctly distinguishes between repentance and what repentance results in, which is a change of conduct.

3.) Grudem misrepresents the Greek lexicon by J. H. Thayer. 

Grudem also makes it sound like Thayer's lexicon doesn't support the "change of mind" definition of biblical repentance. But after I looked up in Thayer's lexicon the definition of metanoeō (repent), I noticed that once again Grudem only selectively quoted the pertinent lexical material! The very first definition Thayer gives for the verb metanoeō is "to change one's mind, i.e. to repent".² The same is true for the noun metanoia (repentance). The very first definition for metanoia in Thayer's lexicon is: "a change of mind: as it appears in one who repents of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done, Hebrews 12:17".³ This is the most basic and fundamental meaning of the two words. Furthermore, in both instances Thayer makes a distinction between repentance and the fruit of repentance, which is "conduct worthy of a heart changed"⁴ or in other words "good deeds"⁵ (cf. Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20).
    

Interestingly, Grudem also fails to mention the word of caution given by the publishers of Thayer's own lexicon (see the "PUBLISHERS INTRODUCTION," page VII) when they say: "A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes....When defining μεταμέλομαι [metamelomai: to regret, to have remorse], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and μετανοέω [metanoeō: to change one's mind]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example." When Grudem cited Thayer and selectively quoted Thayer's definition of metanoeō, Grudem issued no such "word of caution". But this "word of caution" is important and necessary because Thayer's definition of metanoeō is suspect because he co-mingled metanoeō and metamelomai and did not properly distinguish between them. In fact, after Thayer's entry for metamelomai, he calls the two words synonyms. The unsaved man does not need to repent in the sense of "feel sorry and try better" (as Thayer and Grudem imply). The unsaved man needs to repent in the sense of "change his mind" and trust Christ as Savior!

4.) Grudem misrepresents New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson.

In his book Grudem takes issue with the fact that Charles Bing quoted A. T. Robertson in support of the view that metanoia has the basic meaning of a "change of mind". Grudem focuses on statements from Robertson on 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, but really the focus should be on Robertson's statements concerning metanoeō in Matthew 3:2 which is the first mention of the word in the New Testament. In the past, Grudem has made Matthew 3:2 the focus, such as in a lecture he gave at Phoenix Seminary titled "Salvation without Repentance from Sin: A Critique of the Free Grace Gospel". (By the way, the title of Grudem's lecture is somewhat misleading because only non-traditional Free Grace adherents of Zane Hodges say that repentance is not necessary for salvation, the traditional Free Grace view is that repentance from the sin of unbelief is necessary for salvation like the Bible says in John 16:8-9 and in Hebrews 6:1 where the unsaved need to change their minds and transfer their trust from whatever they were trusting in before salvation and trust only in Christ for salvation.) Grudem made a statement in that lecture in which he said something to the effect that "John the Baptist never called on people to change their minds." (Grudem was arguing against the "change of mind" definition of repentance.) But A. T. Robertson in his book Word Pictures in the New Testament gives the following commentary on Matthew 3:2, where John the Baptist called on people to "repent":

Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word "repent" means "to be sorry again" from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it "do penance" and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: "Turn ye." The French (Geneva) has it "Amendez vous." This is John's great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word.⁶

Contrary to what Wayne Grudem would have us believe, A. T. Robertson says that the word repent means "to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite)"—Robertson adds "and conduct." But the words "and conduct" come after he had already defined what it means to repent. Robertson keeps the two ideas separate and so should we. A change of conduct should follow and is expected to follow, but according to the Bible a change of behavior is the "fruit" of repentance (see Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20), not repentance itself. A. T. Robertson affirms: "Certainly the word for repentance [metanoia] is more than a mere 'after-thought.' It is a 'change of mind' that leads to and is shown by a change of life, 'fruits worthy of repentance' (Luke 3:8)." (The Minister And His Greek New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923], p. 54.) Robertson's statement here is consistent with how classic Free Grace theology has traditionally understood the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989, p. 45) writes: "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise the person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation."  

5.) Grudem misrepresents Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof. 

Grudem quotes Louis Berkhof at length in an attempt to show that Berkhof does not offer supporting comments for Bing's "change of mind" understanding of repentance. Grudem argues that "Berkhof repeatedly emphasizes that a turning from former sins and turning to a new way of life is essential in the meaning of the word [metanoia]". But Berkhof does not actually say this. Here's what Grudem admits that Berkhof does say concerning metanoia: "In the New Testament...it denotes primarily a change of mind, taking a wiser view of the past, including regret for the ill then done [i.e. past regret which led to repentance, cf. 2 Cor. 7:9-10], and leading to a change of life for the better." I put emphasis on the words "leading to" because here again we must be careful not to confuse repentance with what repentance leads to: the "fruit" of repentance (see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). It's true that whenever there has been "a change of life for the better" it was preceded and effected by repentance; repentance led to the change of life for the better. So the Free Grace "change of mind" understanding of repentance can accept Berkhof's definition of repentance. Grudem goes on to quote Berkhof as saying that true repentance includes a "moral consciousness". Yes, like Adam and Eve after they ate the forbidden fruit, unsaved people must understand that they are sinners who have sinned! This is part of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 15:3). Grudem also quotes Berkhof as saying: "To be converted, is not merely to pass from one conscious direction to another, but to do it with a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction." I can agree with Berkhof's statement in this sense, that in order to be converted a person realizes that he or she is headed toward a Christless eternity, and has "a clearly perceived aversion to the former direction" of going to that Christless eternity. They see their need for a Savior and trust in Christ alone to save them from sin, death, and Hell.
    

Thus, Berkhof's statements on metanoia pose no real problem to a Free Grace understanding of repentance. They are "supporting comments" to Charles Bing's "change of mind" understanding of repentance in at least three ways: (A) Berkhof repeatedly emphasizes that "the word [metanoia] denotes primarily a change of mind". (B) Berkhof says: "In the English Bible the word is translated 'repentance' but this rendering hardly does justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element." (C) Berkhof traces how the Greek word metanoia has been mistranslated down through the centuries of church history and concludes his remarks by saying:

"Sad to say, the Church gradually lost sight of the original meaning of metanoia. In Latin theology Lactantius rendered it 'resipiscentia,' a becoming-wise-again, as if the word were derived from meta and anoia, and denoted a return from madness or folly. The majority of Latin writers [or at least the majority of Roman Catholic Latin writers], however, preferred to render it 'poenitentia' a word that denotes the sorrow and regret which follows when one has made a mistake or has committed an error of any kind. This word ['poenitentia'] passed into the Vulgate as the rendering of metanoia, and, under the influence of the Vulgate, the English translators rendered the Greek word by 'repentance,' thus stressing the emotional element and making metanoia equivalent to metameleia [as Thayer was prone to do in his lexicon]. In some cases the deterioration went even farther. The Roman Catholic Church externalized the idea of repentance in its sacrament of penance so that the metanoeite of the Greek New Testament (Matt. 3:2) became poenitentiam agite, --'do penance,' in the Latin Version."

 

Grudem in his book never mentions these statements by Berkhof!

6.) Grudem misrepresents standard lexicons and other reference works on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament.

Grudem claims that Bing "repeatedly fails to account for the fact that no standard lexicon or reference work on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament supports his understanding of metanoeō and metanoia in these passages." What Grudem claims is a "fact" is not a fact but a misrepresentation. Contrary to what Grudem would have us believe, there are standard lexicons and reference works on the meanings of Greek words in the New Testament that support Bing's understanding of metanoeō  and metanoia as used in the New Testament. Besides the examples cited above (and at the risk of being superfluous), I will list several more examples:

• Sir Anthony Bottoms (1939-present) of Cambridge University points out the following facts: "A characterisation of repentance as 'turning around' is certainly not the only interpretation available within the Christian tradition; but, equally, it is not an eccentric understanding within the tradition. To illustrate this point, consider the Greek words metanoeō (a verb) and metanoia (a noun), which in English versions of the New Testament are usually translated 'to repent' and 'repentance'. There is a consensus in modern scholarship that the core meaning of metanoia is simply 'a change of mind or purpose'. To take a prominent example of how the word is used, in the Gospel of Mark the first words attributed to Jesus at the beginning of his ministry are: 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent [metanoeite], and believe the good news'. As the context suggests, the main action for which this statement calls is a change of mind or purpose in response to the radically new situation described." The author goes on to cite the following Greek lexicons in support of his statements above: "A modern edition of a classical Greek-English Lexicon offers definitions as follows: metanoia: 'change of mind or heart', 'repentance', 'regret', and possibly 'afterthought'; metanoeō: 'to perceive afterwards or too late', 'to change one's mind or purpose' and 'to repent [of]': H G Liddell, R Scott and H S Jones (eds) A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968) at 1115. See also the definitions in FW Danker (ed), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2000) at 640: metanoia: primarily 'a change of mind', also 'repentance, turning around, conversion'; metanoeō: (i) change one's mind, (ii) feel remorse, repent, be converted."⁷ 
• In The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: The University Press, 1897) commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:9, the Rev. J. J. Lias writes (p. 84): "It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Greek word translated repentance (penaunce, Wiclif and the Rhemish Version) contains neither the idea of sorrow nor of penitential discipline. The word means change of mind or purpose. Sorrow may or may not accompany it." 
• The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson (1863-1934) writes: "Certainly the word for repentance [metanoia] is more than a mere 'after-thought.' It is a 'change of mind' that leads to and is shown by a change of life, 'fruits worthy of repentance' (Luke 3:8)." (The Minister And His Greek New Testament [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1923], p. 54.) Robertson's statement here is consistent with how classic Free Grace theology has traditionally understood the relationship between faith and works, justification and sanctification. For example, Charles Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation (p. 45) writes:  "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise the person is not a believer. Every born-again individual will be fruitful. Not to be fruitful is to be faithless, without faith, and therefore without salvation." 
• The Greek scholar Dr. Julius R. Mantey (1890-1981) gives the following definition of repentance under the heading "Meaning of Repentance and Conversion in the New Testament." Mantey writes: "Metanoeo (metanoia, noun) is regularly used to express the requisite state of mind necessary for the forgiveness of sin. It means to think differently or to have a different attitude toward sin and God, etc."⁸
• The Scottish Bible scholar Alexander Souter (1873-1949) gives the following definitions for metanoeō (repent) and metanoia (repentance) in his reference work A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Souter writes: "metanoeō, I change my mind, I change the inner man (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God by the nous (mind) instead of rejection)". Concerning the noun repentance, Souter writes: "metanoia, a change of mind, a change in the inner man".⁹ 
• George Abbot-Smith (1864-1947), formerly professor of Hellenistic Greek at McGill University, gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia in his reference work A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Abbot-Smith writes: "metanoeō...to change one's mind or purpose, hence, to repent; in NT (exc. Lk 17^{3, 4}), of repentance from sin [fundamentally unbelief, Jn. 16:8-9], involving amendment [i.e. a change of heart for the better]". Concerning the noun metanoia, Abbot-Smith writes: "metanoia...after-thought, change of mind, repentance".¹⁰ 
• In The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917), the Rev. C. I. Scofield gives the following note on the word "repent" in Acts 17:30. Scofield writes: "Repentance is the trans. of a Gr. word (metanoia--metanoeo) meaning 'to have another mind,' 'to change the mind,' and is used in the N.T. to indicate a change of mind in respect of sin, of God, and of self. This change of mind may, especially in the case of Christians who have fallen into sin, be preceded by sorrow (2 Cor. 7. 8-11), but sorrow for sin, though it may 'work' repentance, is not repentance. The son in Mt. 21. 28, 29 illustrates true repentance."
• The Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1892) by the German Protestant theologian Hermann Cremer (1834-1903) gives the following definitions for metanoeō and metanoia. Concerning the verb metanoeō, Cremer writes: "Μετανοέω, the opposite of προνοείν [to consider in advance, i.e. to perceive beforehand], a word not often occurring in profane Greek, combines two meanings of the preposition, to think differently after....But usually to change one's mind, or opinion....In the N.T., especially by St. Luke and in the Revelation, it denotes a change of moral thought and reflection....without addition [i.e. without any prepositions modifying it] = to repent in a moral and religious sense" (pp. 440-441). Concerning the noun metanoia, Cremer gives this definition: "μετάνοια, ἡ, change of mind, repentance....In the N.T., and especially in Luke, corresponding with μετανοεῖν [to repent], it is = repentance, with reference to νους [mind, intellect, thought] as the faculty of moral reflection" (p. 441).
• The Rev. J. Oswald Jackson (1820-1901) in his critical dissertation on the Greek word metanoia titled REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED, clearly demonstrates that this understanding of metanoia as being "a change of mind" does not stand on questionable or even new ground, but is instead the Scriptural doctrine and correct understanding of the word repentance as well as the testimony of biblical critics and scholars alike, so much so that the author can confidently say: "I may remark that all the critics and commentators that I have been able to examine, give the same signification to μετάνοια, metanoia, rendered repentance, with unanimous voice declaring that it signifies change of mind. Thus is it translated by POOLE, KUINOEL, DR. BLOOMFIELD, DR. ROBINSON, SCOTT, DODDRIDGE, ADAM CLARKE, M'CLEAN, PRINCIPAL CAMPBELL, DR. HENDERSON, BARNES, BENSON, DR. JOHN CAMPBELL, ROBINSON of Leicester, and the Author of THE MARROW OF MODERN DIVINITY" — also MATTHEW HENRY, the worthy JOHN BROWN of Haddington, and many others in addition to these.¹¹
• Even Martin Luther, quoting the Greek scholars of his day, acknowledges that the basic meaning of metanoia in the New Testament is a change of mind, or "coming to one's right mind". In a letter to John von Staupitz, dated May 30, 1518, Luther writes, "I learned - thanks to the work and talent of the most learned men who teach us Greek and Hebrew with such great devotion - that the [Latin] word poenitentia means metanoia in Greek; it is derived from meta and nous, that is, from 'afterward' and 'mind.' Poenitentia or metanoia, therefore, means coming to one's right mind and a comprehension of one's own evil after one has accepted the damage and recognized the error....Such transition of the mind, that is, the most true poenitentia, is found very frequently in Holy Scripture: the old Passover foreshadowed it, and Christ made it a reality; it was also long before that time prefigured in Abraham, when (according to the learned exegesis of Paul of Burgos) he began to be called 'he who passes over,' that is, a 'Hebrew,' evidently because he had come across into Mesopotamia."¹²
• Also consider the writings of the early church theologian Tertullian (c. 155 - c. 220 AD). In his book Against Marcion, written at the start of the third century (in about 208 AD), Tertullian says this about the true meaning of metanoia: "Now in Greek the word for repentance (metanoia) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of  varying circumstances."¹³ Tertullian affirms that the meaning of metanoia is "a change of mind" and what that change of mind is about, or what it is in reference to, can vary depending on the circumstances given in the context of the passage. Furthermore, Tertullian points out that in the Bible even God repents! Thus it is obvious that the meaning of the word repentance does not inherently convey being sorry for sin, because of course God has no sin to be sorry for! The word repentance (metanoia) simply means a change of mind, and what that change of mind is about must be determined by the context.

ENDNOTES:

¹ James H. Moulton, and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 404.

² Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 405, italics his. The publishers give the following copyright note: "The Fourth Edition of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, published by T. and T. Clark in 1901, was used in preparation of this edition."

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., p. 406.

⁶ A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on Matthew 3:2, online edition: www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/matthew/matthew-3.html. Similarly, consider the comments on Matthew 3:2 in The Expositor's Greek Testament: "Ver. 2. legōn [“saying”] introduces the burden of his preaching. –metanoeite, Repent. That was John’s great word. Jesus used it also when He began to preach, but His distinctive watchword was Believe. The two watchwords point to different conceptions of the kingdom. John’s kingdom was an object of awful dread, Jesus’ of glad welcome. The message of the one was legal, of the other evangelic. Change of mind John deemed very necessary as a preparation for Messiah’s advent." (Alexander Balmain Bruce, W. Robertson Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor’s Greek Testament [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1912], 5 Volumes, Vol. 1, p. 79, commentary on Matthew 3:2, bold and italics his.)

⁷ Anthony E. Bottoms, "REPENTANCE AS 'TURNING AROUND'," Antje du Bois-Pedain, and Anthony E. Bottoms, Editors, Penal Censure (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2019), p. 126, bold added, italics his.

⁸ Julius R. Mantey, "Repentance and Conversion," Christianity Today, March 2, 1962, italics his.

⁹ Alexander Souter, A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1917), p. 157, italics his.

¹⁰ George Abbot-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (London: T. & T. Clark, 1922), p. 287, italics his.

¹¹ J. Oswald Jackson, REPENTANCE: OR THE CHANGE OF MIND NECESSARY FOR SALVATION CONSIDERED (London: Houlston & Stoneman, 1845), pp. 22-23, 101-102.

¹² "To John von Staupitz, Wittenberg, May 30, 1518," Martin Luther, Edited and Translated by Gottfried G. Krodel, Luther's Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 55 Volumes, Vol. 48., pp. 66-67.
     Another English translation, which is in some ways clearer, can be viewed at the following link:  "Letter of John Staupitz Accompanying the 'Resolutions' to the XCV Theses" by Dr. Martin Luther, 1518, Works of Martin Luther, Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et al., Translators and Editors (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Volume 1, pp. 39-43.

¹³ "CHAP. XXIV.--Instances of God's repentance, and notably in the case of the Ninevites, accounted for and ably vindicated by Tertullian." Tertullian Against Marcion, ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY: TRANSLATIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS DOWN TO A.D. 325., 24 Volumes, Vol. 7. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1868), p. 107, bold added.

Should We Dispense with Christ's Burial in the Gospel?

Should we dispense with Christ’s burial in the gospel? It’s not really part of the gospel anyway, right?

In this blog post I’d like to respond to one groundless gospel advocate who thinks that Christ’s burial is not really part of the gospel. The particular objection which I’ll be responding to is from the “Notes From A Retired Preacher” blog. I hope and pray that my responses will help inquiring minds come to understand more clearly the glorious gospel of salvation and “hold fast” to the faith once for all delivered to the saints!

To set this up, someone named Jesse asked a question over at the “Notes From A Retired Preacher” blog about the “groundless gospel”. Here’s the comment from Jesse:

Jesse | September 6, 2013 at 4:44 pm | 

Hi Jack and All, 

I’m wondering what you all’s thoughts were on the so called groundless gospel in the free grace movement. It seems to me people say one must believe that Jesus was seen of The Twelve and all the other appearances in order to be saved. [Who says, “and all the other appearances in order to be saved”?] 1 Cor 15:1-5 is used as a reference. Have a blessed weekend All!

The next day, ExPreacherMan Jack responded by quoting a statement from someone named John (who I'll call “doubting John” because he questioned and cast doubt on Paul’s statement of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15). Here’s the comment, with my responses in blue brackets:

expreacherman | September 7, 2013 at 11:57 am | 

Jesse,

Our friend [doubting] John questioned and brought to my attention whether the burial of Christ is an “essential” belief for salvation. [It reminds me of a poem I read years ago about the Word of God. The last stanza of the poem says: “The anvil of God’s Word, for ages skeptics’ blows have beat upon, yet though the sound of falling blows was heard, the anvil is unchanged—the hammer’s gone!” Is the burial of Christ really part of the gospel? My Bible says it is in 1 Corinthians 15:4 and in other Scriptures such as Isaiah 53:9. Also notice how doubting John tried to shift the discussion away from “the gospel” (which is clearly defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5) to instead focus on the phrase “an ‘essential’ belief for salvation.” This is a common tactic of groundless gospel advocates. They try to divert attention away from discussing specifically “the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 15, where the apostle Paul clearly includes Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances.]

I agree that the burial of Christ, being an historical fact, is not an essential to believe for one’s salvation. [Just because the burial of Christ is a historical fact doesn’t mean it’s not essential to believe for salvation. Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and appearances are all historical facts and are all essential to believe for salvation because they’re all part of the gospel. How does being a historical fact make the burial a non-essential for salvation? Is he promoting a fairy-tale gospel where in order for something to qualify as an essential for salvation it must not be a historical fact?] However, we must be careful to express the essentials. [Yes, exactly! But unfortunately, groundless gospel advocates are not doing that with Christ’s burial and several other elements of the gospel.] That is, Jesus is God in the Flesh Who died on the cross for our sins and arose alive from death. [Notice how Jack’s statement is not careful to express Christ’s burial and resurrection appearances (as the apostle Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15) because those facts are deemed non-essential to believe for salvation by groundless gospel advocates. Even the apostle Paul’s twice repeated reference to “the Scriptures” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is left out of the essentials by groundless gospel advocates! Amazingly, although groundless gospel advocates use the twice repeated phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to mark out the content of the groundless gospel, they don’t even include those two phrases in their gospel! In their view, those two phrases mark out the content of the gospel but they are not included in that content themselves. Is it any wonder that a false gospel doesn’t include the references to “the Scriptures”? It’s truly a tragedy that groundless gospel advocates exploit the Scriptures in this way. And what about the fact that Christ rose again “on the third day according to the Scriptures,” as the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:4? Is that historical fact of the gospel now not essential either? This unfortunately is the teaching of groundless gospel advocates. Even though the reference to “the third day” in 1 Corinthians 15:4 is clearly said to be “according to the Scriptures” (a phrase which supposedly marks out the real content of the groundless gospel), groundless gospel advocates still don’t include the reference to “the third day” in their gospel! This is one of the double-standards (one of the “issues of incongruity”) of the groundless gospel that I’ve written about in the past.] 

John’s excellent [groundless] explanation (which I agree with) is: 

Christ’s burial is not mentioned in Romans until chapter 6 (in connection with baptism) [But even Tom Stegall (one of the main proponents of the groundless gospel) admits that baptism is a picture of the gospel. And “the gospel” is frequently mentioned in Romans. I discuss this more in my blog post titled “The Romans Road Leads to Isaiah 53”. In Romans 10:16, Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1 and equates his gospel with Isaiah’s message. Paul's gospel is according to the Old Testament Scriptures like he says in Romans 1:1-2. One such Old Testament Scripture is Isaiah 53, which mentions Christ’s burial (“His grave”) in Isaiah 53:9.], and the term “burial” is not used in Acts at all (the term “sepulchre” is used in Acts 13:29 with respect to Jesus). [No one is saying that the exact word “burial” is used in the book of Acts. In Acts 13:29 the apostle Paul says “they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.” So doubting John’s argument  about the term “burial” not being used in the book of Acts is beside the point (i.e. it’s a groundless argument) because it’s clear from Acts 13:29 that the act of burial is described. This argument by doubting John that the particular word “burial” isn’t used in the book of Acts is similar to those who have a problem with the Trinity because the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible. The word “Bible” isn’t even in the Bible! But doubting John admits that the word “sepulchre” (or “tomb”) is used by the apostle Paul in Acts 13:29 with respect to Jesus. This admission by doubting John is huge because it basically disproves his entire point about the word “burial” not being used in Acts, because he admits that a synonymous term (“sepulchre”) is, in fact, used.] When Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius, as depicted in Acts 10:39-44, he makes no mention of the burial of Christ. [Again, the idea or concept of Christ’s burial is nonetheless clearly described in the text when Peter says that God caused Jesus to be raised up on the third day and granted that “He become visible” (Acts 10:40). Why wasn’t Jesus visible after His death? Because He was buried!] And yet, those who believed the spoken word immediately received the Holy Ghost. The reality of the resurrection is vigorously defended in 1 Corinthians 15, and we see why in verse 12: [Notice how doubting John conveniently skipped over the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 verses 1-5 (because it highlights the burial of Christ) and instead he jumps ahead to verse 12. This is a common tactic among groundless gospel advocates. They try to divert attention away from 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 because it clearly contradicts their false teaching on the gospel.]

[12] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Then, we see in verses 13-17 why it is of such central importance: 

[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

[14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 

[15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 

[16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 

[17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Verse 17 takes us back to verse 2: 

[2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. So, if Christ is not risen, all of us have believed in vain. Since He is risen, we have not. Christ could not have risen from the dead, and could not have defeated death, if He had not died. Verses 25-26 make it clear that Christ could not have put everything under His subjection, unless He had defeated death: 

[25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 

[26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 

We see numerous times, in other scripture, references to the death and resurrection. [Apparently, groundless gospel advocates fail to realize that an emphasis on certain facts of the gospel does not equate to an exclusion of other parts. Such thinking is non sequitur, i.e. a logical fallacy. If God says something even once in the Bible, it’s as true as if He says it a thousand times! And Christ’s burial is included in the gospel more than just one time in the Bible (for example, see: Isa. 53:9; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4). As the saying goes: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!”] For example, Romans 5:10: 

[10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. We also see that it is the message of the cross that is rejected as foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18) and is a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23). 

[18] For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 

[23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 

So, scripture would tell me that the crucifixion and resurrection are the central message, and cannot be dispensed with. [What he’s really saying is that Christ’s burial can be dispensed with in the gospel!]

Some will say that since the burial of Christ was prophesied, it is indispensable to the Gospel. I would argue that there are many other prophesies that Christ fulfilled (for example, where He was born, riding a colt) that are not central elements to saving faith. [But unlike Christ’s burial, those other prophecies are never said by the apostle Paul to be part of his gospel as the burial is said to be part of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:4. No one is saying that every prophecy of Christ is part of the gospel as doubting John is implying in his straw man argument. Once again, doubting John is trying to divert attention away from the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. Notice how he again wants to focus on the “elements of saving faith” instead of focusing on the elements of “the gospel” (which is clearly defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff). By focusing on the “elements of saving faith”, groundless gospel advocates are not constrained by the apostle Paul’s definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 and thus they can more easily throw in whatever they want and leave out whatever they deem as non-essential.] 

The burial is proof of His death. The sightings are proof of His resurrection. Some people need a lot of proof. Some people need none. [If that’s doubting John’s line of reasoning then he doesn’t have a gospel to preach because every element of the gospel is also a proof of something else. Every part of the gospel is a proof! For example, Christ’s death is proof of His passion, His love (Rom. 5:8). Christ’s burial is proof of His perfection (Isa. 53:9). Christ’s resurrection is proof of His payment (1 Cor. 15:17). And Christ’s appearances are proof of His physical body (Luke 24:39). So if some people don’t need any proof like doubting John says, then what he’s really saying is that some people don’t need the gospel at all because all the gospel is proof! Doubting John’s line of reasoning just doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. The definition of the gospel is not based on what doubting John thinks unbelievers need or don’t need. Instead, the definition of the gospel is based on what God says in His Word! “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Furthermore, why doesn’t doubting John go on to mention the four Gospel accounts, particularly the Gospel of John? No doubt because all four Gospel accounts disprove doubting John’s (groundless) point about the burial not being mentioned. The burial of Christ is highlighted in all four of the Gospels.] 

Well said, [doubting] John and thanks for your detailed explanation [of the groundless gospel]. 

In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

When answering the question “What is the gospel?”, the apostle Paul’s declaration of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 is said to be “of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). The preeminence of the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 is normally recognized, and even Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church has said that “the most definitive passage in the New Testament explaining to us the very content of the Gospel is found in this same book, 1 Corinthians chapter 15.” Furthermore, when we answer the question: “What is the gospel?”, we at the same time answer the question: “What is essential to believe for salvation?” because belief in the gospel is what saves. Even groundless gospel advocates such as Tom Stegall, for example, admit that belief in the gospel is what saves. So there really is no need to debate that particular point about whether or not the gospel is the saving message. It is the saving message (see Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:17-21, 1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 1:13; 2 Thess. 1:8-9, etc.).

Here’s an article I wrote some years ago about the new “groundless gospel” in the Free Grace Movement; it answers many of the groundless objections stated in the comments above. The article is titled: “Getting the Gospel Right”.

Let’s keep holding fast to the gospel and let’s keep defending the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints!

"Lordship Salvation" Is Heresy, Says J. Vernon McGee

The following statements about Lordship Salvation are from a sermon preached by Dr. McGee titled “What Can Believers Do in Days of Apostasy?” While guest preaching at Pastor David Jeremiah’s church in southern California in the mid 1980s, Dr. McGee stated:

“But the new thing that’s happened today is, liberalism is just about dead. But in our conservative groups, heresies are coming in. At least, I’ve labeled them heresies. Some think I ought not to, but many of these men have been friends of mine in the past. Let me just mention them, and I’m not gonna belabor this point either, because all I want to be sure of [is] that we’re in days of apostasy – that in conservative churches today a new gospel is being preached, and that’s the Lordship gospel, the Lordship Salvation – that you are not saved until you make Jesus Lord. And I said to a friend of mine that teaches that, and he’s in a seminary, and I said to him, ‘What do you do with the thief on the cross? Did he make Jesus Lord?’ Why, all he did, or asked, was, ‘Remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ That’s all he did; he just had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I can imagine that old tough Philippian jailer that came in that night, and he was ready to kill himself because Rome would’ve done it for him. And Paul says, ‘Don’t do yourself harm. We’re all here.’ And then this man said, ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ And if anybody needed to make Jesus Lord, it was that old rough Philippian jailer! But he didn’t mention that. He said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ . . . and you can always recognize that they add something to what Jesus did for us on the cross. Jesus paid it all. He doesn’t want my two bits. He doesn’t want anything I do. And He doesn’t want my commitment because He’s found out that I lied about that two or three times. And don’t you look at me that way because you’ve done the same thing. May I say to you, thank God tonight for a Savior who did it all! And I can know I’m saved, because I trust Him. I trust Him. And that’s what He told me to do.”[1]

Reference:

[1] J. Vernon McGee, “What Can Believers Do in Days of Apostasy?” (time stamp: 14:30 - 16:20 and 19:41 - 20:28).

The Biblical Basis for Wordsmithing

My precious mother has been helping me proofread and edit my book Homeless For Him.¹ Today, we talked on the phone for almost two hours going over more of the manuscript. At the end of our nearly two hour phone call, she said to me: "I hope I haven't been too picky about getting the words just right. I know your Dad would think I am." I replied by saying, "No Mom, you've been a big help! We each have our gifts from God. You and I are wordsmiths!" Then I shared with her the proverb that says, "An idea well-expressed is like a design of gold, set in silver" (Proverbs 25:11, Good News Translation). That's a great Bible verse, but I knew there's also another one that is even more specific to wordsmithing. Then I remembered it's in Ecclesiastes, and I found it from there. The verse is Ecclesiastes 12:10 (NIV), and it says: "The teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true." So there you have it—the biblical basis for wordsmithing!


ENDNOTE:

¹ To read the latest edition of Homeless For Him, it's free for the asking. Just let me know in the comments section or send an e-mail requesting the free e-book to: freegracefreespeechblog@gmail.com.

Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold on "Lordship Salvation"

“To believe in Lordship Salvation means: Must be willing to serve the Master in order to be saved, stay saved, or prove you're saved. It is only your—and here's that word—beginning to salvation, and your total commitment is only complete when you finish, when you finish the life—death! It's only good until you die. Because you see, you can't have total commitment until the day you die. Did you maintain? So you can't know for sure you're gonna make it until the day you die. Now isn’t that a shame to live your whole life, and be like it says in the book of Matthew chapter 7. He says some will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not done many wonderful works, and cast out devils in Thy name, and prophesied in Thy name?’ And Jesus says, ‘Depart from Me, I never knew you.’ Not that ‘I knew you one time but then I lost you.’ ‘You used to be saved but you’re not saved anymore.’ He says you never were: ‘I never knew you.’ You see, and they did many ‘wonderful works’. So ‘wonderful works’ is Lordship Salvation. ‘Lord, Lord, have we not…’—that’s Lordship Salvation! That’s not how a man is saved! A man is saved by just trusting Christ as his Savior, believing that when Christ died, He died for you and paid for all of your sins.”^[1]

Reference:

^[1] Ralph “Yankee” Arnold, “JESUS vs John MacArthur,” July 28, 2019 (time stamp: 20:15 - 21:45).

The True Missionary Spirit | by G. C. Needham

Rev. George C. Needham
(1840-1902)

"For the appeal we make does not come from error or impurity or with deceit, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we declare it, not to please people but God, who examines our hearts. For we never appeared with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is our witness—nor to seek glory from people, either from you or from others...." (1 Thess. 2:3-6).

"The true missionary spirit: —Brave Paul! He spoke the Word, whether sinners would hear or not, whether men were converted or not. If it pleased God he was content. Just like that grand man who kept working away in isolation in the heart of China, and for years saw no conversion. A lady said to him, 'What good are you doing in China, Mr. Burns?' To which he replied, 'Madam, I did not go to China to convert the Chinese, I went to glorify God.' He went to serve and please his Master. I was asked to examine a young man who wanted to give up his business and go to Africa as a missionary. I asked him, 'What is your motive in wanting to take this step? Suppose you go to the heart of Africa, and, seeing thousands bowing down before their idols and refusing to hear of Christ, what would you do?' He replied, 'I'd just keep pegging away.' That is the right spirit of service: to keep pegging away for the Master, not to please the society, not to have a large place on the statistics, not to have a great following, but to please God. If we go forth to any service according to the will of God, and only to please Him. He will bless us in our souls, and in the end give us to see His power in the salvation of sinners."[1]

Reference:

[1] G. C. Needham, quoted by the Rev. Joseph S. Exell in The Biblical Illustrator, Thessalonians, (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1887), p. 48.

The Elements of Paul's Gospel

"Paul insists on the Resurrection as distinct from the appearances of Christ. Weizsäcker urges that Paul says nothing of what happened at the grave, to prove that he knew nothing of it. It is, of course, true that he gives no account, as do the Gospels, of appearances at the grave. But the Resurrection itself is a concrete fact for him. And what he meant by Resurrection is clear. It immediately follows the mention of the burial, and therefore must be explained as a resurrection of the physical body; and in another place he defines it as a 'quickening of the mortal body.' But this can only mean that the earliest apostolic tradition knew not only of appearances, but of a resurrection of the body. Further, we may well ask, What would have been the point of a reference to the burial of Jesus [in 1 Corinthians 15:4] if the body that was buried played no part in the Resurrection? If Paul's faith rested simply on appearances of Jesus, the body need have played no part, and resurrection would simply have meant a manifestation of the spirit of Jesus from heaven. But when we remember that for Paul resurrection meant a quickening of the mortal body, and when we read [in 1 Corinthians 15:4] that Christ was buried and rose again the third day, we are not at liberty to interpret him as meaning anything else than that the body, which was placed in the tomb dead, was quickened into life, quitted the grave, and appeared to the disciples. On the other interpretation Paul need have said no more than that Jesus died and on the third day appeared to the disciples. But in a summary statement of this kind [in 1 Corinthians 15] we are not entitled to treat the burial as irrelevant and the Resurrection as identical with the appearances; each of the four points—death, burial, resurrection, appearances—was vital to his case. And therefore we may conclude that Paul himself had no doubt that the death and burial of Jesus were followed by the resurrection of the body and the leaving of the tomb."[1] 

“The Gospel consists of certain facts and their interpretation, received from others, handed on by him [Paul] to them [the Corinthians]: Christ’s death on account of sins as set forth in Scripture, the burial (explicitly mentioned, not merely to guarantee the fact of death, but to indicate that the next clause speaks of what happened to the body), the resurrection on the third day also in harmony with prophecy, the appearances mentioned as a fact distinct from the resurrection."[2] 

References:

[1] Arthur S. Peake, Christianity: Its Nature and Its Truth (London: Duckworth and Company, 1909), pp. 202-203.

[2] Arthur S. Peake, A Commentary on the Bible (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1920), p. 846.

I Never Knew You

by Peter Hann 

Many people have different views on the passage in Matthew 7:21-23 where Jesus says: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven". In a minute I'll give my personal view. 

Some people think Jesus' statement is addressed to believers who are living sloppy carnal Christian lives and they're going to lose their salvation if they don't correct. But you cannot lose your salvation! It's not dependent on how you or I live, it's all about what Jesus did. It's also all about grace otherwise it would be our works saving us and no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Christians living carnal lives will face chastisement by the Lord but not condemnation (1 Cor. 11:32). 

Personally what I think Jesus is talking about in the Matthew 7:21-23 passage is people who think they are going to heaven because they have church membership, or they give money to the church, or Grandpa is a Christian so they think they're saved, or they've been baptized, or given to the poor, and the list goes on and on. These are people that have outward goodness or appear religious but don't have that faith in Jesus in a personal way. To be saved we must stop trusting in things like baptism and church membership and believe in our hearts that we are actually judgment deserving sinners. We must believe in our hearts that Christ died for our sins (Rom. 5:8), with His burial and resurrection validating who He is and what He did for mankind's sins. When we receive Jesus we truly know Him and He knows us, just like Jesus said: "My sheep hear My voice and I know them" (Jn. 10:27). It's like knowing Him on a personal level. It's knowing Jesus rather than just knowing about Him. 

A few years ago I sent a couple of photographs to Fox 6 Milwaukee's chief meteorologist Vince Condella, because on his weather forecast he shows feature photos that viewers send in to him and then he will display the photos during the broadcast. I gave him two pictures of Wisconsin scenery, like a shot of Lake Michigan and a view of a pond in central Wisconsin. As he was showing my photos it said on the T.V. screen: "Peter from Greenfield". I recorded the broadcast because I wanted to show it to a friend of mine but not tell her what it was. She was a little reluctant at first of seeing it but as soon as Vince Condella said "Peter from Greenfield" my friend started smiling. It was because she knew me and knew who I was. If it had said "Frank from Delavan" my friend wouldn't have been smiling because she doesn't know who Frank is but she knows who I am and that's why she was smiling. It's the same when we receive Jesus and we come to know Him on a personal level and now He knows us as well. So if you don't know Him receive Him today. Your eternity depends on it!

The Heart of Evangelism | by Jerram Barrs

In the book The Heart of Evangelism, the author Jerram Barrs highlights the importance of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 in connection with the Gospel and evangelism. Barrs writes: 

“At this point in our study we need to turn to another very basic question. What is it that we should communicate to people? You may feel as you read this, ‘That is an unnecessary question! Every Christian knows that the Gospel is as simple as ABC.’ What is this ABC? A—You are a sinner. B—Christ died for you. C—Repent and believe in Him. 

Much training for evangelism specializes in teaching some readily remembered form of this ABC or something similar. The trainee learns a simple outline of the Good News that needs to be imparted to a non-Christian or is taught a set of questions to ask and answers to give to the unbeliever. Is this approach right or wrong? Is it helpful? To answer these questions we need to turn to Scripture itself. There is indeed a basic content to the Gospel, a content that can be summarized simply. It is also clear that this basic content needs to be communicated to the non-Christian. Think, for example, of Paul’s words in the first five verses of 1 Corinthians 15: ‘Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.’ In this passage Paul teaches us that there are indeed gospel truths that are of first importance: 1. Christ’s death for our sins in fulfillment of Old Testament promises. 2. Christ’s burial in a grave. 3. Christ’s resurrection in agreement with the prophecies of Scripture. 4. Christ’s appearances to the apostles and others, proving that He was alive.”[1] 

After discussing other summaries of the Gospel (e.g. Lu. 24:44-47; Acts 2:22-40, 17:22-31), Barrs goes on to write: 

“In evangelism also, a clear statement of what we believe as Christians will be helpful in communicating the Gospel. There have been times when people have approached me, as the Philippian jailer approached Paul (Acts 16:29-34), asking, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ One can reply as simply as Paul did on that occasion: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.’ Of course, the text then adds: ‘Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him.’ Paul had many other things to say to this man and to his household in addition to that simple summary of what it means to be a Christian. But that one sentence—‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved’—was indeed a good starting place for Paul's presentation of the truth to the jailer and his household. It is valuable for all believers to have a clear outline of the basic truths of the Gospel in mind.”[2] 

 

References: 

[1] Jerram Barrs, The Heart of Evangelism (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001), pp. 169-170. Note: Jerram Barrs is the founder and resident scholar of the Francis A. Schaeffer Institute at Covenant Theological Seminary, where he is professor of Christian studies and contemporary culture. He served on staff with L’Abri Fellowship in England for 18 years.

[2] Ibid., p. 175.

Fishers of Men, Part 3

by Jonathan Perreault

 

I met Marty in the summer of 2006. We both worked at the same factory; he was a pipe-fitter and I was a laborer. Marty had to be every bit of fifty years old, but you'd never guess it except that his full head of hair was almost completely white. Marty was a people person, an affable character who always had a quip that was sure to make you smile. I liked talking to Marty. We'd often spend our breaks conversing about the latest news or various other topics of mutual interest, such as health and fitness. Marty would always walk through my break area to get to the company fitness center because it was a shortcut. Lots of times I'd be reading my Bible when he'd pass by, and so he would ask me questions about it. Similarly, when I would workout in the fitness center to the glory of God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17), Marty would often be there too, and we would talk about spiritual things. 

One day I gave Marty a little booklet. It was the Gospel of John from the New Living Translation that I had ordered from the International Bible Society.[1] Marty read the booklet with interest and would ask me questions about what he was reading. After he finished reading the Gospel of John, I said to him: "So, who would you say that Jesus is?" I remember Marty said something like, "That's what you've been sharing with me. Jesus is the Son of God!" Soon Marty began calling me his angel. Time and time again he would thank me for sharing the truth with him. The prophet Isaiah says, "How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation" (Isa. 52:17; cf. Rom. 10:15). I saw that Marty was eager to read more of the Bible, so I gave him a white and gold colored pocket New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs.[2] Marty was like a sponge soaking up the Word of God. He read through the Gospel of Luke in his pocket New Testament, and then the rest of the Gospels. When he asked me what book of the Bible he should read next, I suggested the book of Romans. A few days later I was walking through the factory and I saw Marty sitting at a table with his reading glasses on, reading his New Testament. I sat down next to him and come to find out, he was reading through Romans!

I believe that by God's amazing grace, Marty came to know Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. A year later the company shut down and closed it's doors. All that's there today is a vacant lot. But the gates of heaven haven't closed. In fact, they've been flung wide open by the nail-scarred hands of Jesus, for souls like Marty to enter in (see John 3:14-17, 10:9, 14:6, 20:19-21:14). Will you point these souls to the Savior? Larry Moyer aptly remarks: "When I stand in that heavenly city and saints around me appear, I hope somebody comes up and says, 'You're the one who invited me here.'"[3] 

ENDNOTES: 

[1] The International Bible Society is now known as Biblica.

[2] The pocket New Testament that I gave Marty was from the New King James Version (NKJV).

[3] Larry Moyer, 31 Days With the Master Fisherman: A Daily Devotional on Bringing Christ to Others, p. 79.

Christ Died For Our Sins | A Poem

Written by Jonathan Perreault.

In the ground a tomb was made,
And on the cross our Lord was laid.

That for our sins the Lord should die,
Upon the cross they raised Him high.

Above the cross the sign was used,
"Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews."

The soldiers gambled at the cross,
To win Christ's robe and gained but loss.

One thief just scoffed and turned away;
No faith had he in Christ that day.

The other thief to Jesus turned:
Believing he of heaven learned.

Into the Savior's precious side,
A spear was driven when He died.

Upon this cross for you and me
He died from sin to set us free!

Because He loves us with such love,
He is my Savior from above.

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

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