 |
| Dr. Charles Ryrie |
There are several misleading statements (Q&As) on the back cover of Wayne Grudem's "Free Grace" book that I think need to be discussed and corrected. The book I'm referring to is titled "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Crossway Publishers, 2016). The first misleading Q&A on the back cover says:
That answer is misleading because Charles Ryrie, a well-known "Free Grace advocate" (he was, for example, the 2008 recipient of the Free Grace Alliance's annual Trophy of Grace Award), has said:
"But if repentance means changing your mind about the particular sin of rejecting Christ, then that kind of repentance saves, and of course it is the same as faith in Christ. This is what Peter asked the crowd to do on the day of Pentecost [in Acts chapter 2]. They were to change their minds about Jesus of Nazareth. Formerly they had considered Him to be only a blasphemous human being claiming to be God; now they changed their minds and saw Him as the God-man Saviour whom they would trust for salvation. That kind of repentance saves, and everyone who is saved has repented in that sense." (Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1972], p. 139.)
Elsewhere Ryrie similarly says:
"This is what Peter meant by repentance when he was asked by the people what they should do in the light of his message (Acts 2:38). The word repent means, of course, to change one's mind about something. But what that something is is all-important to the meaning of repentance in any given context. . . . The content of repentance which brings eternal life, and that which Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. Whereas the people who heard him on that day formerly thought of Jesus as a mere man, they were asked to accept Him as Lord (Deity) and Christ (promised Messiah). To do this would bring salvation." (Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life [Chicago: Moody Press, 1969], pp. 175-176.)
Some Free Grace advocates (like Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin for example) probably would give a "No" answer to the question posed on the back cover of Grudem's book. But Grudem doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge this. Instead, he makes it sound as if all Free Grace advocates would answer "No"—which of course is not true, as I have pointed out above.
But there's more! There's a second Q&A on the back cover of Grudem's book that is similarly misleading. It says:
"Is evidence of a changed life an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? 'No, again,' these advocates say."
Again, let's see what Charles Ryrie says in regards to the question. Does Ryrie say that evidence of a changed life is not an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? By no means! In fact, he says quite the opposite. Notice the following statements by Ryrie:
"Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that 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." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], p. 45.)
"Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], see pp. 132-134.)
I think all this is important to point out because Grudem is really not being honest with what Free Grace advocates have said, or maybe he just hasn't done his research. Either way, Grudem's book is misrepresenting Free Grace Theology and I would ask him to please contact his publisher and ask them to correct it.
128 comments:
This is quite interesting to me. Looking at Dr. Ryrie's comments on the Lordship debate/salvation in general have me a bit puzzled. I myself do not own a Ryrie study Bible, but have found resources that seem to quote it. Notable verses that are regularly used against Free Grace Theology, 1 John 2:4, 3:6, 3:9, as well as Galatians 5:21, he has made seemingly very Lordship views on them, and it makes me wonder what his position on the whole debate is? I always thought he was in the moderate Free Grace position, but looking into (limited) resources I have found make me think he is almost on the Lordship perspective. For instance, on 1 John 3:6, he remarked: " The lifestyle of the one who keeps on sinning demonstrates that he does not know God". That seems to kind of go against what Free Grace was all about? The possibility that a true be3liever can and will end up in situations continuously sinning? What is your opinion on this?
I agree with Dr. Andy Woods when he says, “I enjoy the Ryrie Study Bible, not that I agree with every little nook and cranny of the Ryrie Study Bible, but by and large it’s a pretty good study Bible”. I would say that on the whole, Ryrie does not agree with Lordship Salvation, although he has made some statements that seem to support it. Ryrie clearly writes against Lordship Salvation in his book So Great Salvation, and also in his book Balancing the Christian Life there is a chapter titled something like "Must Christ Be Lord To Be Savior?" in which he (Ryrie) promotes the Free Grace view of salvation. But like you, I have noticed that Ryrie does at times make statements that seems to support Lordship Salvation. I think he was trying to be "balanced"--but first and foremost we must be biblical. It just shows that Free Grace people don't always agree on everything (but we still don't agree with Lordship Salvation). I'm sure Ryrie would agree with that, by the way. But back to your point, in his commentary on 1 John (from The Wycliff Bible Commentary), he starts off by making a statement that I would agree with, but then he seems to follow it with another statement that supports Lordship Salvation.
This is what Ryrie says in his commentary on 1 John 3:6:
"6. Abideth...sinneth not. Both words are in the present tense and indicate the habitual character of the person. The person who is abiding in Christ is not able to sin habitually. Sin may enter his experience, but it is the exception and not the rule. If sin is the ruling principle of a life, that person is not redeemed (Rom. 6); thus a saved person cannot sin as a habit of life. When a Christian does sin, he confesses it (1 Jn 1:9) and perseveres in his purification (3:3). The continuous sinner has not known God and is therefore an unregenerate person."
Let me just offer a few comments in answer to your questions. First of all, the Bible never says "habitual character". It says "sinneth not." Period. It's not talking about habitually, it's talking about ever, i.e. the new nature of the believer never ever sins (see 1 John 3:9). That's what it's talking about, in my understanding. The nature that is from above, the nature that is born from above, does not sin. Ever. It is the flesh, the old nature, that sins. The apostle Paul makes this clear in Romans chapter 7 when he says that "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). He goes on to say that "if I do what I don't want to do, then it's not me that's doing it, but the sin nature that indwells me" (Rom. 7:20). I agree with Ryrie's statement that "the person who is abiding in Christ does not sin habitually". I agree with it not because Christian's don't sin habitually (they can and do), but because Ryrie qualifies it by saying that "the person who is abiding in Christ" doesn't sin habitually. If and when a Christian is abiding in Christ, they are by definition not sinning habitually. Abiding in Christ means to remain in Him, to rest in Him. If I'm doing that, then of course I'm not sinning habitually. It's one or the other. It's when I stop abiding in Christ that I start sinning, habitually or not. (John chapter 15 talks more about abiding in Christ.) Ryrie goes on to say, "If sin is the ruling principle of life, that person is not redeemed (Rom. 6)". But Romans 6 doesn't actually say that. What it says, what Paul says in Romans chapter 6 is, "Don't let sin reign in your mortal bodies that you should obey it's lusts" (Rom. 6:12). This of course implies that it's entirely possible for sin to reign in the lives of Christians! (Contrary to what Ryrie says.) I remember when I was in Bible school (I went to a Free Grace Bible school), the teacher made a big point about this, how sin can reign as king in our lives if we let it. And how because of our new nature, we no longer have to let sin reign as king in our lives because we are no longer under it's control. If we let sin have control, of course it will reign as king in our lives, but the point is is that we no longer have to let it have control of us. Because of our new nature and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to obey Christ and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. So just to answer your question when you asked, "can and will" a true believer "end up in situations continuously sinning?" I would say a true believer "can" end up in that situation, but not necessarily "will". It all depends on if the true believer is walking by means of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16) or not. Hope this helps! God bless!
Thank you so much for your reply! My apologies for such a late reply, I have been very busy as of recent times. That definitely cleared some things up for me. One of the only things that still kind of makes me curious is the objection that is made for 1 John 3:9 is the fact that although the Greek word used does indeed mean "to do" instead of "practice", it has a present active participle which means it is currently happening. I looked into it, and although I am not a person who looks into Biblical Greek, it does seem like that is the case. Another question I had not necessarily about the verses in question, but your positions on certain issues within free grace. This one may be a bit more of a scenario, but would you say that a practicing homosexual can go to heaven, as long as they are trusting in the finished work of Christ through faith? This is an example I see lot and would like to hear your opinion on it. Although I understand that you said it is possible for a Christian to habitually sin, do you think someone could still fall into sin like this until they die and enter heaven, since they trusted in God? Or would they not because it would not be counted as saving faith? And that is my second question, what is your view on what is included in saving faith? Thanks!
P.S. What ways can I contact you to continue this conversation further?
Hello,
I am by no means an expert in Biblical Greek, but I can tell you that the Greek verb that means "to do" (poiei) in 1 John 3:9 is not a participle. Rather, it is a present, active, indicative, 3rd person, singular verb. Basically, when I was studying Greek, we would normally translate this kind of verb as "he/she/it_________" (fill in the blank with a present tense verb, in 1 John 3:9 it is "sins not" or "does not sin"). May I recommend a very helpful resource that you may or may not be familiar with for studying Biblical Greek? In google, just type in the Bible verse and the word "Greek" after it, and the biblehub.com website comes up near the top of the list. That's the one I use, and it tells you all the Greek words and the parsings (what kind of word it functions as in the sentence) for all the Greek words in the verse. For the Greek word that we are talking about, it is poiei, from poeō, which means "to do" or "to make". (Don't always trust the "gloss" definition, or the initial definition that pops up. Look up how else the word in translated in other verses and also verify the word's definition independently through other means, i.e. by using other Greek language tools). I also want to mention that I have some good Bible commentaries on 1 John in my Free Grace Library (click on the "Free Grace Library" tab at the top of my blog page). Dr. Thomas Constable's commentaries are from a Free Grace perspective, and his commentary on 1 John is pretty good. Charlie Bing probably has some good GraceNotes on 1 John, and maybe even some on 1 John 3:9 in particular, although I have not checked into it yet. But Charlie Bing is solid, he also writes from a Free Grace perspective.
Let me move on to briefly answer, or at least respond to, your question when you asked, "would you say that a practicing homosexual can go to heaven, as long as they are trusting in the finished work of Christ through faith? This is an example I see lot and would like to hear your opinion on it. Although I understand that you said it is possible for a Christian to habitually sin, do you think someone could still fall into sin like this until they die and enter heaven, since they trusted in God? Or would they not because it would not be counted as saving faith?"
Continued below....
Let me tweak your scenario just a bit and ask if a practicing gambler could go to heaven? Or a practicing glutton, or a practicing covetous person, or a practicing thief, or a practicing idolater, or you fill in the blank with any other sin, "big" or "small"--because they are all "big" in God's eyes! Remember, Adam and Eve "only" ate some fruit that they weren't supposed to eat, and we might consider that something rather "minor" or maybe not such a big deal, but it was big in God's eyes. It was a transgression of God's commandment, and for that transgression Christ went to the cross and suffered and died. Of course, Adam and Eve died too, but my point is that any sin is a big deal with big consequences, at least in God's eyes. So I guess I'm responding to your question with a question: Do I have to be perfect to go to heaven? Or maybe just be maintaining sinless perfection? Or maybe just not sinning at bad as the next guy or girl? Or maybe just not sinning the "big" sins (the "mortal" sins, as the Roman Catholics call them)? How many times have you sinned in the past day, or week, or month, or year? And how many of those sins did you commit before, and how many times before? May I say, let's not be like the Rich Young Ruler in the Gospel accounts who ran up to Jesus and when Jesus questioned the young man about his obedience to the Law, the young man thought he was pretty good! (See Matt. 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-27.) And let's not be like the Pharisee in the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector/the Publican (see Luke 18:9-14). The Pharisee thought that he was not as bad as other people. But in fact he was just a self-righteous hypocrite! So we have to be very careful, like the Bible says, "not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought, but to use sober judgment" (Rom. 12:3). I understand that the Rich Young Ruler in the story was unsaved, and so was the Pharisee, and your question was concerning saved people. But my point is that we can very easily become self-righteous when we think that we will go to heaven because we do or don't do certain things. Going to heaven is not about how much I sin or don't sin after I'm saved, that's works!
Continued below....
I like what Dr. Thomas Constable says in his commentary on 1 John 3:6. He says, "It seems to me that those teachers, who say that this verse means that true believers will not practice sin habitually, are either naive or have very little appreciation of the depth of human depravity. Any sensitive Christian, who is honestly trying to live a holy life, will admit that he or she sins repeatedly every day. Every Christian is guilty of sins of omission, of motivation (actions and responses that often arise from unconscious pride and selfishness), and of ignorance, as well as deliberate sins. Genuine Christian have even confessed to habitually practicing gross sins for extended periods of time. Every Christian is a habitual sinner, and we will be until the Lord takes us to glory. Obviously, this does not mean that we should resign ourselves to sinning (cf. [1 Jn.] 2:1; Rom. 6:1); we should wage war against it (cf. Eph. 6:10-18), but we will never be completely free from its degrading influence in this life [cf. Eph. 4:22]." (Emphasis his.)
Let me just add that I do believe that if and when a Christian habitually sins, there will be Divine discipline (God's discipline) in his or her life as a result of the sin. The writer to the Hebrews makes this clear (cf. Heb. 12:6), as does the apostle John when he talks about the "sin unto death" (see 1 John 5:16-17; cf. 1 Cor. 11:30-32). And I also want to say that there are other consequences for sin, and for habitual sin, not loss of salvation, but loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (see 1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10, and others).
In regards to your follow up question about "what is included in saving faith?"--I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Do you mean what is the definition of saving faith--as in what is faith? Or do you mean what is included in the content of saving faith (i.e. what is the saving message)?
You can always contact me via the comments as you have been doing, or another way to contact me is through the "Contact Form" which is in the right-hand column of my blog (under my profile). Hope this helps!
God bless!
Ah, that makes some things more clearer. I do see now that lots of people do sin repeatedly, even after they are saved. It reminds me of a commentary on 1 John 3:9 which asked "how many sins would count as practicing sin". I do agree and understand that a person may sin egregiously for an extended period of time, but do you think they could all the way to the end of their life? And I do believe as well that God disciplines a person for continuous sinning, but may I ask how you think He disciplines His children? This is another topic I have noticed varies quite a bit. I have seen some people say that every single thing such as illness or misfortune that a sinning Christian encounters being counted as discipline, to the natural consequences of that sin. I have also seen some people say conviction is His discipline, and although I can agree partly, I would generally say that is just one of the many ways He can discipline us. As for conviction, what would you say it is? I hear lots of people say guilt, but I find have always found it more of a "recognition of sin" since feelings are subjective. Also as a side note, what I meant by "included in saving faith" is like what you said, the content of saving faith. I take it you do not agree with the "crossless Gospel" message based on some of your articles? Thanks for having this conversation with me, and have a good day!
That's a very good point that you brought up when you mentioned the Bible commentary on 1 John 3:9 that asked, "how many sins would count as practicing sin"? As Dr. Constable has said, "Any sensitive Christian, who is honestly trying to live a holy life, will admit that he or she sins repeatedly every day."
In response to your question when you said, "I do agree and understand that a person may sin egregiously for an extended period of time, but do you think they could all the way to the end of their life?" The Bible seems to indicate that it is possible. This seems to be what the Apostle Paul is referring to when he writes to the Christians in the church at Corinth, and says, "For this reason [i.e. eating and drinking at the Lord's table in an unworthy manner], many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order than we may not be condemned along with the world." (1 Cor. 11:30-32.) When Paul says that "many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep" — the word "sleep" is a euphemism for physical death. (If you do a word study on the word on it you will notice that often in Scripture the word "sleep" refers to physical death. In other words, this is not the only time in the Bible that the word "sleep" is used this way.) Earlier in his letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul had told them, "you are yet carnal" (1 Cor. 3:3). So these Christians were carnal for some time (we are not told how long exactly), and as a result, God was disciplining "many" of them with weakness, sickness, and even physical death! Remember, Ananias and Saphira in the book of Acts? They lied to the Holy Spirit, and God judged them very quickly with physical death. In that instance it doesn't appear that the sin was ongoing, but if God will judge one sin with physical death, how much more will He judge a habitual sin or a pattern of sin with physical death? So yes, the Bible does seem to indicate that a saved person could sin all the way to the end of their life. I would not say that God always judges habitual sin with physical death, but we do have examples of it in the Bible. I think a lot of it has to do with a Christian's attitude and if they are confessing their sins or not. For example, I know of a man who was the pastor of a church and he was having an affair with a married woman in the church. The husband of the woman told me this years later, after the pastor had repented and sought his forgiveness. But apparently the pastor would repent after each instance of adultery and confess his sin to God. It reminds me of when Jesus says in Luke 17:4, "If [a brother] sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says , 'I repent,' forgive him." All I'm saying is that if the sinning pastor repented after each instance of adultery and confessed it to God, God would forgive him! So in God's eyes, in this case is it a "habitual" sin, or not? Remember, when God forgives us, the Bible says that "He remembers our sins no more" (cf. Psa. 25:17; Isa. 1:18, 43:25; Jer. 31:34; Micah 7:18-19; Heb. 8:12, 10:17; 1 John 1:9, etc.).
Continued below....
Let me briefly respond to your question regarding what is my view on what is included in the content of saving faith? As you noted, that's a topic of much debate in the Free Grace community — and in the Christian community at large, I might add. You are right, I do not agree with the "crossless gospel". I also do not agree with the "groundless gospel" — which is a label that I use to describe the burial-less gospel. I've written quite a bit about that topic, so I won't delve into that view much more other than to mention that I disagree with it. But as far as what my view is on what is included in the content of saving faith, the Bible says that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). So I understand the gospel to be the message of salvation, or the saving message. So then the question becomes, what is the content of the gospel? The clearest statement on the gospel is found in 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3-5. If you begin reading in verse 1, Paul says that he is reminding the Corinthians of "the gospel" (v. 1). Then he goes on to tell them exactly what the gospel is in verses 3-5. This is the content of the gospel. It contains four verbs that describe what Jesus did: He was dead for our sins (as John Wycliffe has put it), He was buried, He was raised, He was seen. The apostle John explains this gospel in a narrative form in The Gospel of John. The apostle Paul explains this gospel in creedal form in The Epistle to the Corinthians. But it's the same gospel message, namely, that in fulfillment of prophecy, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for our sins on the cross, He was buried in a tomb, He was raised on the third day never to die again, and He appeared "in the presence of His disciples" (John 20:30-31). That's the GOOD NEWS! That's the gospel message.
I like to say that the gospel emphasizes Christ's death and resurrection without excluding His burial and appearances.
Sometimes Christians outline and explain the gospel like this:
1. Christ died for our sins (and He was buried)
2. Christ rose again on the third day (and He was seen)
This is a valid way to outline and explain the gospel because we are still including all four facts of the gospel in our gospel presentation. For more information on this way of explaining the gospel, see my article titled "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior".
Other times, Christians outline and explain the gospel like this:
1. Christ died for our sins
2. He was buried
3. He was raised
4. He was seen
For more information regarding this way of explaining the gospel, see my article titled "Getting the Gospel Right".
As Ray Pritchard has said, either way the result is the same, Paul included Christ's burial as an essential part of the gospel message!
I emphasize Christ's burial because some years ago a Free Grace pastor removed the burial of Christ from his church's doctrinal statement on the sole condition for salvation. As Scot McKnight, a New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity has well said, gospel orthodoxy is "often in response to threats to that gospel...articulated by those who are most concerned with the gospel." (McKnight, "The Gospel and Orthodoxy," Jesus Creed blog, http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/02/the-gospel-and-orthodoxy.html, February 5, 2009, ellipsis added.) A similar statement by Vance Havner is worth noting. Vance Havner writes: "Well did Gresham Machen say that 'the most important things are not those about which men are agreed but those for which men will fight.'" (Havner, The Best of Vance Havner [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980], p. 82.)
Anyway, I hope this helps!
God Bless
I might add that for more information on the gospel, you can go to the "What is the Gospel?" tab in the top right-hand corner of my blog. I have links to a lot of very good articles on the gospel!
Also, I still want to respond to your questions about God's discipline. Lord willing, I will have more time tomorrow or later this week to write down some thoughts for you.
God bless!
Thanks! I will definitely await your reply! I guess to add onto what you said and put some things in better words, I think it probably would have been better for me to say living in sin, instead of until death in case if there was any confusion between if I was talking about death as discipline or in a general sense of someone's life. One of the stumbling blocks I think that could be run into when talking about God's physical discipline with a person sinning without confession is that there are many sins people have not confessed of. Then again however I think in a case like adultery or theft or something of the sorts a person would be conscious of their sin. I like your Gospel outlines, but I think maybe it could use a bit more emphasis on what our "change of mind" should be over? I personally think it might be necessary to have "recognize our sinful nature" or "sins of mankind" included. Although I don't know if it would really be counted as needed, I think it would probably be important to include so that the person choosing to believe will understand why they are being saved. Other than that, thank you so much for everything! I will definitely await your response! Have a blessed day!
Hello Thomas,
Those are very good thoughts and questions! Let me try to respond to more of your questions here. I don’t know if I will get into very much detail in response to some of them, because I think they are very good questions and much time could be devoted to each of them. But I will do the best I can! Please feel free to follow up with more questions if I didn’t answer something you asked.
If I understood one of your initial questions correctly, you were asking if a Christian could fall into habitual sin and be living in ongoing sin and die a natural death (as opposed to dying as a result of the sin unto death), and “and enter heaven, since they trusted in God? Or would they not because it would not be counted as saving faith?” I don’t know if a Christian living in ongoing habitual sin could die a natural death or not ― I would tend to think their death would always be related to God’s chastisement in their life (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30-32), but I do know that up to the point of their death, God will be disciplining them if they are truly His children! I don’t think it’s possible for a habitually sinning Christian to die without God’s disciple. The Bible makes it clear that God disciplines all His children, and if we are without God’s discipline, them we are not His children (see Hebrews 12:4-13). Also, the Bible does say that long life and health are a result of living a life that pleases God (see Prov. 3:1-2, 3:7-8, 4:22).
Continued below....
In regards to when you said,
“I do believe as well that God disciplines a person for continuous sinning, but may I ask how you think He disciplines His children? This is another topic I have noticed varies quite a bit. I have seen some people say that every single thing such as illness or misfortune that a sinning Christian encounters being counted as discipline, to the natural consequences of that sin. I have also seen some people say conviction is His discipline, and although I can agree partly, I would generally say that is just one of the many ways He can discipline us. As for conviction, what would you say it is? I hear lots of people say guilt, but I find have always found it more of a ‘recognition of sin’ since feelings are subjective.”
I would point you to 1 Corinthians 11:30, where the apostle Paul gives three examples of divine discipline: weakness, sickness, and even physical death. The comment by W. Harold Mare on this verse in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary is good. Commenting on 1 Cor. 11:28-30, Mare writes (on pg. 260), “That Paul is not speaking about God’s eternal judgment is seen by the lack of the article with [the Greek word] krima. It is ‘judgment,’ not ‘the judgment.’ Examples of such judgment are in sickness and death.” Now we have to be careful here and not attribute all sickness in a Christian’s life to God’s discipline. For example, I think of when the apostle Paul tells young Timothy to “use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Tim. 5:23). I doubt very much that these “frequent illnesses” were God’s disciple as a result of ongoing sin in Timothy’s life. That does not seem to be the case at all. And remember when Peter’s mother-in-law was sick with a fever and Jesus healed her (see Luke 4:38-40). I’m sure other examples could be given, but I think you see my point. These are godly people who got sick, not as a result of God’s discipline because of sin in their life, but simply because we live in a sin-cursed world and our bodies are prone to sickness and disease, and God is using these for our good and His glory. Indeed, the apostle Paul says, “Though our outward man is perishing, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For our momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:16-17).
Continued below....
You asked, “As for conviction, what would you say it is? I hear lots of people say guilt, but I find have always found it more of a "recognition of sin" since feelings are subjective.”
The Greek word for “convict” is elegchō (“I convict”) or elegchein (“to convict”). Trench in his book Synonyms of the New Testament has some helpful comments on this word. He says of elegchein that “it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him [the guilty person], if not always to a confession, yet at least to a conviction, of his sin (Job 5.17; Prov. 19.25)....When we keep this distinction well in mind, what a light does it throw on a multitude of passages in the N.T.; and how much deeper a meaning does it given them. Thus our Lord could demand, ‘Which of you convinceth (elegchei) Me of sin?’ (John 8.46). Many ‘rebuked’ Him; many laid sin to his charge (Matt. 9.3; John 9.16); but none brought sin home to his conscience. Other passages also will gain from realizing the fullness of the meaning of elegchein, as John 3.20; 8.9; 1 Cor. 14:24,25; Heb. 12:5; but above all, the great passage, John 16.8 [where Jesus in effect says that]....the Holy Ghost...shall so bring home to the world its own ‘sin,’ my perfect ‘righteousness,’ God’s coming ‘judgment,’ shall so ‘convince’ the world of these, that it shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them; and in this acknowledgement may find, shall be in the right way to find, its own blessedness and salvation.’”
Ray Pritchard has written some very helpful comments on this word “convict” that Jesus uses in John 16:8. The quote by Dr. Pritchard is lengthy, but well worth reading.
Continued below....
Dr. Pritchard writes,
“Then Jesus goes on in verse 8 to explain what the Holy Spirit will do when he comes into the world. ‘When he comes, he will convince the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment.’ If you don’t mind writing in your Bibles I’d like to encourage you to underline a phrase in verse 8—‘he will convict the world of guilt.’ The world, of course, refers to the world of men and women. It refers to the world in which we live. It refers to human society. He, the Holy Spirit, when he comes, will convict the world of guilt. Then circle the little word ‘convict.’ He will convict the world of guilt. That one word sums up and boils down what the ministry of the Holy Spirit is in the world today. That word ‘convict’ tells us what the Holy Spirit is doing today. He is convicting men and women of their guilt before God.
Now, you may have a translation that reads differently than the word convict. You may have a translation which reads ‘reprove,’ like the King James does. Or you may have a translation which reads ‘convince,’ which is how the New American Standard renders it. The New International Version has the word convict. This is a Greek word which comes from the drama of a courtroom trial. It is a word which refers to what the prosecuting attorney does when he argues his case. He puts the defendant on the witness stand and begins to pile up the evidence against the defendant. It’s a word which describes what the prosecuting attorney does as all the evidence comes in and he piles it up. Fact upon fact upon fact upon fact, until finally, the enormity of the evidence is so overwhelming that the judge is forced to say, I find you guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. It’s a word which means to convict of guilt in a court of law. That’s why I think the word reprove is a little bit weak and the word convince is a little weak because it sounds like we’re going to have a talk and we’re going to sit down and drink Coke and coffee and I’m going to try to convince you to come over to my house and have some pie. That’s not what this word really means. It means to amass the evidence to produce a guilty verdict.
Not only that, this word means to present the evidence in such an overwhelming fashion that even the defendant is compelled at the end of the trial to step up and say, I admit it. I confess. I am guilty.
Therefore, I conclude that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the world today is primarily the ministry of bringing men and women to the place of personal conviction concerning their own moral guilt before God. These words of Jesus are literally true today. The Holy Spirit works through us so that as we share the gospel with men and women, they are convicted of their true moral guilt before God. As we share the gospel they come to the conclusion, yes, I am guilty. Yes, I need a savior.” (Pritchard, “When the Holy Spirit Comes,” John 16:8-11, September 23, 1990.)
Continued below....
I think what Dr. Pritchard said also answers your question when you said, “I like your Gospel outlines, but I think maybe it could use a bit more emphasis on what our ‘change of mind’ should be over?”
When the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” this is often what the unsaved don’t want to acknowledge and therefore what they need to change their minds about in order to get saved. The unsaved have a tendency to think that they are pretty good or at least not as bad as some people, but the Bible says that “there is none righteous, no not one” (Rom. 3:10), and “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). All this is summed up in Paul’s words when he says in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” — because remember, the apostle Paul is in reality quoting from the Old Testament Scriptures when he says in Romans chapter 3 that “there is none righteous, no not one” (see Psalm 14:1-3). So this is what the unsaved have to change their minds about, that they are sinners in need of a Savior! But the change of mind that a sinner needs to have in order to get saved could be about something else as well, such as having a change of mind about who Jesus is. Charles Ryrie and others have written a lot about this, usually in regards to Peter’s sermon to the unsaved Jews in Acts chapter 2 (see especially Acts 2:38). These Jews needed to “repent” or “change their minds” about who Jesus is. Whereas they formerly thought of Him as a mere man, an imposter, and a criminal, they needed to realize and believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the promised Messiah and the Savior of the world — their Savior!
Thanks for the reply. I would say you are correct, I was wanting to know if a person can continue in sin and die a natural death. I also do not really know if such a person can die a natural death, but it personally seems to me as so. I kind of kept in mind the thing you said about sin really having no different levels, for it is all sin in God's eyes, for He is righteous. I don't generally see people dying as a result of sin (although I really have no way of knowing). For instance, there are many people who are incredibly lazy and procrastinate all the way until they are older, and they probably don't think much of it despite sloth being told against. I also think that Heavenly rewards and the "punishment" of believers at the Judgement Seat of Christ would also apply well to this scenario. I have run into Hebrews 12:8 as well before, and it also slightly puzzles me. It also sometimes makes me a bit nervous since I do not know what God's discipline will take form in. I would agree that He chastises people using the 3 things you mentioned from 1 Corinthians 10:30-32, but would you think He uses other things as well for His discipline? I think it might be a bit helpful to seperate the discipline into two categories: discipline in which can be harmful or fatal, and discipline that God uses in general. So I guess to get straight to the point, what do you think God uses as a general punishment to try and correct people? One question that I have always been baffled by, is do you think God can affect other people for the chastisement of one person, like for example David's son? I find it very confusing and a lot if it seems to contradict people's personal relationships with God. I think the notes you cited really hit the nail on the head for conviction. Do you think it would be safe to define conviction as one's recognition of sin? My apologies for the barrage of questions, but your answers have really helped me!
It’s good to know that my answers have really helped you. Praise the Lord! Let me get to your other questions here.
In your last comment you said: “I would agree that He chastises people using the 3 things you mentioned from 1 Corinthians 10:30-32, but would you think He uses other things as well for His discipline?”
Yes, I would say so. For example, J. F. Strombeck in his book Disciplined by Grace, says concerning God’s discipline that it “must first of all be in love, and not by threatening. It is done by pointing out that which is good and helpful and warning against that which is wrong and destructive. It may mean withholding things that are greatly desired; but it also means giving encouragement, both by word and by actual help, in difficult times and in failures. Moreover, it includes chastening when necessary and this, as in Hebrews 12:6, may partake of the nature of scourging. But it never means forsaking the child.” (Strombeck, Discipline By Grace [Chicago: Moody Press, 1946], pp. 6-7).
Later in the book Strombeck goes on to say (on page 112), “Because [God’s] chastening is at times accompanied by the visitation of distress and affliction, it is often confused with punishment. This is not true, for punishment is God the judge, in justice, exacting the full penalty of His broken law. Here is no fatherhood of God and no expression of His love. Punishment is the wrath of God poured out upon all who reject His Son. It is condemnation that shall come upon the unbelieving world. The believer in Jesus Christ ‘shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life’ (John 5:24). He is not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).”
Continued below....
Similar to J. F. Strombeck’s statement above, Lewis Sperry Chafer says that "Scripture also warns a believer against the serious results of continually grieving the Spirit. This sometimes results in God's chastening the believer in order to restore him, as mentioned in Hebrews 12:5-6. The Christian is warned that if he does not judge himself God will need to step in with divine discipline (1 Cor. 11:31-32). In any case, there is immediate loss when a Christian is walking out of fellowship with God, and there is the constant danger of severe judgment from God as a faithful father deals with his erring child.” (L. S. Chafer, John Walvoord, Major Bible Themes, p. 121).
Warren Wiersbe also concurs saying, “When God deals with His children, usually He first rebukes and then chastens, just as parents first warn disobedient children and then discipline them (Heb. 12:5-6; Prov. 3:11-12). According to Hebrews 12:1-13, chastening is not punishment meted out by an irate judge but discipline given by a loving Father to help His children mature (see Rev. 3:19). Sometimes God chastens us in order to deal with our disobedience, but at other times, He chastens us to prepare us for what lies ahead. It’s like the training of an athlete for a race. [In Psalm 6:1-3] David thought God was angry with him, but that wasn’t necessarily true. However, when you consider that he was surrounded by foes (v. 7), evildoers (v. 8), and enemies (v. 10) and that his body was weak and in pain and his soul troubled, you can see why he felt like he had a target on his back.” (Warren Wiersbe, Be Worshipful, pp. 33-32. Cf. Wiersbe, “The Pain of Discipline”. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/wiersbe-be-bible-study/pain-discipline-vv-1-3.)
Continued below....
In regards to when you said: “One question that I have always been baffled by, is do you think God can affect other people for the chastisement of one person, like for example David's son?” I think that's a good example you mentioned. In general, I would say yes our choices definitely affect other people. I will give you another example along the same lines. Many years ago a good friend of my wife’s in the church contracted AIDS from her husband who was sleeping around. This man’s wife was a godly woman, and she ended up dying from this terrible disease because of the sins of her husband. This was back in the mid 1980’s, before there were any good treatments for the virus. If you tested positive, it was basically a death sentence. My wife went to visit this woman in the hospital not long before she died, and this woman told my wife that she was losing her eyesight. She was going blind, and she died soon after. But in the hospital room, this woman told my wife that God had given her an amazing peace about her death. Apparently, God had conveyed to this woman the exact day of her death, and had given her a glimpse of heaven. She was so anticipating seeing Jesus face to face and being with Him in glory! It reminds me of the song that says, “Life's trials will seem so small when we see Christ”. And so in the midst of her pain and suffering, God had given this dear woman comfort and peace, and rest for her soul.
In response to your question more generally, it also makes me think of Adam and Eve’s choice to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, and the disastrous consequences that their choice had on them personally, but also the consequences that their choice had on all humanity! The apostle Paul talks about this in Romans chapter 5 when he says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned [in Adam]—” (Rom. 5:12). Paul goes on to say, “But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” (Rom. 5:15). I just mention Adam and Eve as an example of how a person’s choice(s) can affect other people, although I admit that in the case of Adam and Eve, God was not disciplining them in the exact same sense that we are talking about because Adam and Eve needed to get saved after their sin caused them to be separated from God, and we are talking about already saved people.
Continued below....
But let me get back to your question, “do you think God can affect other people for the chastisement of one person”? This is a difficult question for which I think there are no easy answers. In the end, when we do not understand something, it seems best to me to fall back on the character of God, knowing and believing that He is good. Yes, God did take David’s son as a consequence of his (David's) sin ― but the child will be in heaven according to David’s words in 2 Samuel 12:23 (when David says of his child, "he will not return to me, but I will go to him"). However we look at it, it would be wrong to infer from this incident that God does not have care and concern for children. The truth is, God has great love and concern for children (cf. Deut. 1:39; Jonah 4:1-11; Matthew 19:14)! So I think we need to be careful not to blame God for whatever negative effects someone’s wrong choices have on another person. Something I have personally learned is that when we make foolish choices, our choices invariably end up hurting other people. We are to blame for this, not God. There is a statement in the NLT Life Application Study Bible about this that is very good. Citing the example of King David and all his family troubles that transpired as a result of his sin with Bathsheba, the NLT Life Application Study Bible I think puts it well when it says (on page 486), “The consequences of sin affect not only us but also those we know and love.” In the case of God taking the life of David’s infant son, what Job said after his children were killed is very helpful to me. Job said: “‘The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.’ In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing” (Job 1:21b-22).
Lastly you asked, “Do you think it would be safe to define conviction as one's recognition of sin?” I would say yes, if by “a recognition of one’s sin” (my paraphrase) you mean an acknowledgement of one’s sin. I looked up the word “recognition” in the dictionary, and that is what the word means (“acknowledgment” i.e. "to accept that something is true"/"admit"). So I would say yes, you could say that and that would be correct according to my understanding.
I hope this helps!
Blessings
Thank you for answering all of these questions from me? It's kind of hard to find good answers since a lot of ministries either neglect the question or answer them in a very "Lordship" kind of way. I think I like how you put it better, acknowledgement is probably a better term for talking about conviction. As for discipline, one of the statements that I generally thought was the most accurate was God uses basically anything to discipline a believer; would you agree with this statement? Some well meaning ministries (most of them of the Lordship position) say that all discipline from God over sin is either guilt or God's last resort is death. Also, just to make sure, are we talking about the "conviction" of sin that people say is supposed to happen when someone sins, or are we talking about our Lord trying to make the world acknowledge their sin and come to repentance? The first conviction I mentioned is usually said to be guilt after sinning (a position which GES holds), but I have talked to a pastor as well as looked into it myself, and it seems that guilt is not a stable ground for this "conviction" to be on, for it is subjective, and should be recognized as an acknowledgement of sin (like how you stated, even if you weren't talking of this kind of conviction). My apologies for asking so many questions, all of this really does get jumbled sometimes. Thank you so much for all of this!
P.S. On a finishing note on the continuing in sin topic, I wanted to ask a few other things. Is discipline supposed to be something immediate after each time the sin would happen, or is it supposed to be more "general" since the believer is being so persistent in their sin? I would think this is a hard question to answer since God really does work in some strange ways, and it does not seem the Bible has much to say on it. And also, do you think someone of old age dying who is sinning could also be God's chastisement? It would maybe be a bit odd, but do you think that despite it looking almost normal, do you think it could be a result of God's discipline? I realize all of these questions are very hypothetical, but I guess it doesn't really hurt to ask right?
Oh! I also forgot to ask, do you think God uses the natural consequences of a person's sin to discipline them? I have also heard many different ministries give very different answers on this scenario, some saying there is no way and will always have divine intervention, and others saying that the consequences of sin can teach a believer a lesson since all sin has some kind of negative affect.
All praise and honor to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ! To God be the glory!
Let me tackle your first couple of questions here, and I will get to the others in the next few days or this weekend, Lord willing and as time permits.
You asked: “God uses basically anything to discipline a believer; would you agree with this statement? Some well meaning ministries (most of them of the Lordship position) say that all discipline from God over sin is either guilt or God's last resort is death.”
Yes, I would agree with that statement because Romans 8:28 says that “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called [or “the called”] according to His purpose.”
Someone might object and say that a Christian who is out of fellowship with God doesn’t “love God”, and therefore this verse doesn’t apply to your specific question. Let me first say that I understand the phrases "those who love God" and "those who are called" as generally descriptive of all believers, even though we don't ALWAYS love God. The Bible says "we love Him because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). (I believe Dr. David Jeremiah takes this view, i.e. that the phrase "those who love God" in Rom. 8:28 is in reference to Christians in general. This is his understanding of the passage.) But in a sense that whole discussion is beside the point here, because in regards to your question, we are talking about what GOD does, not what we do. So I would respond to your question by saying that the human response does not nullify the divine prerogative. In other words, God is still using “all things” to work together for good in the believer’s life, regardless of how the believer responds to it. To put it another way: Even when we don't love God as we should (i.e. maybe when we are out of fellowship with Him and He is disciplining us), He never stops loving us! (Remember the Bible says, "for whom the Lord LOVES He disciplines" (Hebrews 12:6; cf. Prov. 3:12). God still loves us and wants the best for us and works toward that end (for our good), even when we turn our backs on Him and don’t love Him as we should. So I think Romans 8:28 still applies in the context of God’s discipline of His children.
But I will give you another Bible verse that shows I think even more clearly that “God uses basically anything to discipline a believer” (as you said). In Ephesians 1:11-12, the apostle Paul says that God “works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope [the KJV says “trust”] in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.” So according to this verse, God is working behind the scenes to achieve a goal, which is that “we who were the first to trust in Christ should be to the praise of His glory”. The apostle Paul here is speaking as a Jewish Christian. Remember, the gospel is “to the Jew first and also to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16-17). In Ephesians 1:13, Paul goes on to include Gentile believers as well, so obviously what he says in verses 11-12 has reference to both Jewish and Gentile Christians. I don’t think I really need to prove that, most people I think will acknowledge that. But my point is simply that Ephesians 1:11-12 highlights the fact that God is using “all things” to achieve a good goal in our lives. Obviously God’s discipline is a part of how He works in our lives as Christians (see Hebrews 12:4-13), so we have to factor God’s discipline into the “all things” when the apostle Paul says that God “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11)—even when He is disciplining us! Most of this is plain and obvious, I’m just explaining it in a little more detail.
Continued below....
Let me go ahead and respond to your next question, when you said,
“Also, just to make sure, are we talking about the ‘conviction’ of sin that people say is supposed to happen when someone sins, or are we talking about our Lord trying to make the world acknowledge their sin and come to repentance?”
I would say yes, depending on the context, it could be either. The context will tell you how the word “convict” is being used, or in reference to whom.
Let me just go ahead and copy and paste what Richard C. Trench says about the word “convict” (Greek elegchein) in his book Synonyms of the New Testament. I mentioned this in a previous comment, but it is worth repeating. Notice how Trench cites a number of different Bible verses (some even from the Old Testament) as examples of how the word “convict” is used in different contexts. Trench writes concerning the word “convict” (Greek elegchein) that “it is so to rebuke another, with such effectual wielding of the victorious arms of the truth, as to bring him [the guilty person], if not always to a confession, yet at least to a conviction, of his sin (Job 5.17; Prov. 19.25)....When we keep this distinction well in mind, what a light does it throw on a multitude of passages in the N.T.; and how much deeper a meaning does it given them. Thus our Lord could demand, ‘Which of you convinceth (elegchei) Me of sin?’ (John 8.46). Many ‘rebuked’ Him; many laid sin to his charge (Matt. 9.3; John 9.16); but none brought sin home to his conscience. Other passages also will gain from realizing the fullness of the meaning of elegchein, as John 3.20; 8.9; 1 Cor. 14:24,25; Heb. 12:5; but above all, the great passage, John 16.8 [where Jesus in effect says that]....the Holy Ghost...shall so bring home to the world its own ‘sin,’ my perfect ‘righteousness,’ God’s coming ‘judgment,’ shall so ‘convince’ the world of these, that it shall be obliged itself to acknowledge them; and in this acknowledgement may find, shall be in the right way to find, its own blessedness and salvation.’”
Continued below....
You went on to say: “The first conviction I mentioned is usually said to be guilt after sinning (a position which GES holds), but I have talked to a pastor as well as looked into it myself, and it seems that guilt is not a stable ground for this "conviction" to be on, for it is subjective, and should be recognized as an acknowledgement of sin (like how you stated, even if you weren't talking of this kind of conviction).”
Yes, I would agree. I think guilt is somewhat subjective because a person can be trained or conditioned to think something is right or wrong, contrary to what the Bible says. For example, I have heard of missionaries coming into contact with previously unreached people groups in places like Papua New Guinea (if I remember correctly), and the missionaries find out that stealing is actually praised in that culture! The people in that culture are taught that it’s okay to steal. But according to the Bible it’s not (see Eph. 4:28). So someone raised in that culture would probably not feel guilty stealing because their conscience has been trained to think stealing is okay. Warren Wiersbe explains it well when he writes:
“Our word ‘conscience’ comes from two Latin words: con, meaning ‘with,’ and scio, meaning ‘to know.’ The conscience is that internal judge that witnesses to us, that enables us to ‘know with,’ either approving our actions or accusing (see Rom. 2:14-15). Conscience may be compared to a window that lets in the light of God’s truth. If we persist in disobeying, the window gets dirtier and dirtier, until the light cannot enter. This leads to a ‘defiled conscience’ (Titus 1:15). A ‘seared conscience’ is one that has been so sinned against that it no longer is sensitive to what is right and wrong (1 Tim. 4:2). It is even possible for the conscience to be so poisoned that it approves things that are bad and accuses when the person does good! This the Bible calls ‘an evil conscience’ (Heb. 10:22). A criminal feels guilty if he ‘squeals’ on his friends, but happy if he succeeds in his crime!” (Wiersbe, Be Hopeful, p. 97.)
I will get to your other questions soon, Lord willing!
God bless
I just thought of an important distinction that I should probably make in case there is any misunderstanding. I think it's helpful to keep in mind that there is a difference between being guilty (as in a "guilty" verdict from a judge) and feeling guilty. The former is objective, while the latter is subjective. For example, when the apostle Paul says in Romans 3:19, "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Some Bible translations say "accountable" instead of "guilty". So I guess depending on how you translate that word, it could change the meaning or interpretation of the verse. But let's use the word "guilty" for the time being to make my point. If a judge says someone is guilty, that's not a subjective feeling, that's an objective reality (even if the guilty person does not feel guilty). All that to say that I agree with you when you talked about how guilt is not really the best explanation of what the word "conviction" means. Instead, as you pointed out, "conviction....should be recognized as an acknowledgement of sin".
You also asked: “Is discipline supposed to be something immediate after each time the sin would happen, or is it supposed to be more ‘general’ since the believer is being so persistent in their sin?”
That's an interesting question. Here are my thoughts from a free grace perspective. We know that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). In the context of Romans chapter 6, the apostle Paul is actually talking about the effects of sin in the Christian life! The context of Romans 6:23 is not “death” in the sense of eternal death or “the second death” (Rev. 20:14), but “death” in the sense of separation from practical holiness in the Christian life. And "eternal life" is not only in the future, but also NOW in the Christian life (cf. John 10:9-10). See the comments by Dr. Charlie Bing on this verse in his article “Should Romans 6:23 Be Used in Evangelism?” (GraceNotes #36), and also Dr. Bing’s comments on this verse in his video “A Truth and B Truth, Salvation vs. Discipleship” on YouTube.
God’s discipline definitely could be something immediate as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5, but if not, we know that in general, the principle is “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). When a believer lives in sin, there is a deadness in their Christian life because they are separated from experiencing God’s blessings in the here-and-now. In Psalm 51, David prayed to God and said, “restore to me the joy of my salvation” (v. 12). David had salvation, but he was not experiencing the joy of his salvation. David was separated from the joy of his salvation. There was a deadness or a barrenness in his life as a result of his sin. I believe that this is a result of God’s discipline in the life of a believer who is living in sin. They lose the joy of their salvation. They don’t lose their salvation, but they lose the joy of their salvation. They lose God’s hand of blessing on their life and instead they experience God’s hand of chastening and the deadness and barrenness that sin brings. David talks more about this in Psalm 32.
Let me get to your other question in which you said:
“And also, do you think someone of old age dying who is sinning could also be God's chastisement? It would maybe be a bit odd, but do you think that despite it looking almost normal, do you think it could be a result of God's discipline?”
I think you will find many answers to your questions in the Old Testament. The Bible says, “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4; cf. 1 Cor. 10:6, 11). I think of Eli for example. Eli died at the ripe old age of 98 years old, yet it was as a result of God’s judgment (see 1 Samuel 2:27-36, 4:12-18). Indeed, Moses was 120 years old when God took him! Moses was prevented from entering into the promised land because he had struck the rock twice instead of striking it once as God had told him to do (Exodus 17:6). In the New Testament, the apostle Paul explains that the rock was a picture of Christ (1 Cor. 10:4), and Christ was struck ONCE for our sins, not twice (see Hebrews 10:1-18). It also seems like Moses (together with his brother Aaron) took credit for the miracle of the water coming out of the rock, because Moses said to the Israelites, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” (see Num. 20:7-12, cf. Num. 27:14; Deut. 1:37, 3:25-27, 31:2, 32:50-52). There is also the example of King Asa. Although he began well, he did not finish well. In his later years his heart turned away from the Lord and he acted foolishly (see 2 Chron. 16). 2 Chronicles 16:12 says that “in the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but sought help from physicians.” The implication being that if King Asa had sought the LORD, the LORD would have healed him! (I think of how when King Hezekiah was sick and dying, he sought the Lord, and God healed him and added 15 years onto his life!) Similar to King Asa, King Uzziah was also a good king but one who unfortunately did not finish well. The account of King Uzziah’s life is given in 2 Chronicles 26. The Bible says that “after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall” (2 Chron. 26:16). Because King Uzziah’s heart was lifted up in pride, he entered the temple to burn incense on the altar of incense, which he was not permitted to do. As a result, the Lord struck him with leprosy. Uzziah lived as a leper in a separate house until the day of his death.
In several of these examples, God used a natural sickness which eventually led to physical death. If we did not have the Bible to tell us of the divine dynamic involved, we would probably view these deaths as a natural occurrence instead of as a result of God’s discipline.
On the flip side, I think we have to be careful not to interpret every instance of sickness and death as being a result of God’s discipline. In other words, just because a believer is sick does not necessarily mean that they are living in sin and under God’s discipline. For example, the Bible says that Job was “blameless and upright” (Job 1:1), yet God allowed him to be afflicted with a severe sickness. It’s true that Job recovered, but other godly men, such as the prophet Elisha for example, did not recover from sickness but eventually died from it (see 2 Kings 13:14). So I think we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions when we see someone who is sick. It's not necessarily the result of sin in their life. They could be a very godly person.
Let me get to your last question from your comment in which you said:
“I also forgot to ask, do you think God uses the natural consequences of a person's sin to discipline them? I have also heard many different ministries give very different answers on this scenario, some saying there is no way and will always have divine intervention, and others saying that the consequences of sin can teach a believer a lesson since all sin has some kind of negative affect.”
In regards to your question about “the natural consequences of a person’s sin to discipline them”, I do think that 1 Corinthians 11:30 is a key verse in this regard because the apostle Paul says, “For this reason [of taking the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner] many among you are weak, and sick, and a number sleep.” Weakness, sickness, and physical death are “the natural consequences of [their] sin to discipline them" because in context the apostle Paul tells us so! Furthermore, we know that weakness, sickness, and physical death are “the natural consequences” of sin in general, are they not? In the new heaven and earth ― which will be untouched by sin, the Bible says that “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Rev. 21:4). But getting back to the context of 1 Corinthians 11:30, we are told specifically that sickness and death are “the natural consequences of a person’s sin to discipline them” because as I mentioned, the apostle Paul says, “For this reason [of taking the Lord’s table in an unworthy manner] many among you are weak, and sick, and a number have died.”
So I think “the natural consequences of a person’s sin to discipline them” could be part of God’s discipline, yes. Of course, God may also use “divine intervention,” but this does not preclude Him from using various means to administer or apply His discipline. For example, I think of how God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to discipline the nation of Israel (cf. Jer. 31:18-19). God disciplined Israel through the means of these foreign nations. Talking about "the natural consequences of a person's sin", it was only after King Hezekiah showed the envoys from Babylon all of his riches and treasure that the Babylonians invaded Israel and took all the treasures back to Babylon (see 2 Kings 20:12-19; cf. Isaiah 39:1-8)! But of course God used all these things to accomplish His purposes and "work all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11).
I think that it is very important to recognize that God uses means, both in divine discipline and in general. So when you asked if God uses natural consequences or divine intervention, it’s not one or the other, it’s both! God uses both because God uses means. It’s still divine intervention because God is intervening, but He is intervening through a “natural” or a “physical” means. And on the other hand, it’s still “natural consequences” because God uses means. So I kind of think it’s a false dichotomy between “natural consequences” and “divine intervention”. It’s not one or the other as if God is not in control of the natural consequences. That would be deism to say that. Deism says that God created the universe but then He just let it run itself. Deism teaches that God does not intervene in the universe (in the natural realm). But of course the Bible teaches that God does intervene in the physical universe: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). I don't think your question was implying deism; I'm just saying that we need to be careful not to go to extremes, and we need to recognize that God uses means.
I've been doing a little more research on your question about whether or not God uses the "natural consequences" of a person's sin to discipline them, and in addition to what I said above, I think it's helpful to keep in mind the principle that, "whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting" (Galatians 6:7-8). Paul says this in the context of a Christian brother who is "overtaken in a fault" (Gal. 6:1), and Paul says that the brothers in Christ "who are spiritual" are "to restore such a person in the spirit of gentleness" (v. 1).
Similar to Galatians 6:7-8, Job 4:8 says, "As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it."
I also think that Proverbs chapter 1 is very helpful in answering your question — the entire chapter, but particularly verses 29-31 which say, "Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices."
Another Proverb says, "the way of the transgressor is hard" (Prov. 13:5).
These are all general principles and I don't see why they would not apply in the area of God's discipline. Indeed, I do think they apply and are applicable in the context of God's discipline.
I hope this helps!
God bless
Hi Jonathon! I have chosen to continue some things from our previous conversation through email (which I don't know if you successfully received), but I had a question that was much more relevant to the article. I had a question.
1. On "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow. Otherwise that 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." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], p. 45.), it seems to me that this is another quotation of his that seems a bit like a Lordship saying? It sounds here that he is saying that fruit/good works is required for/proof of salvation, and seems even more funny to me since this is in his book mostly against Lordship Salvation. Is this maybe supposed to be interpreted differently? Or did I understand correctly?
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for that question. I can share a few thoughts.
First, not everything taught by Lordship Salvation advocates is wrong. For example, Charles Bing writes the following in his article, "A Review of Wayne Grudem's 'Free Grace' Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel":
"I also appreciate Dr. Grudem's scholarship and attention to detail. He brings a great knowledge of historical Christianity, at least from the Reformation period forward. As a renowned scholar, he has also made some great contributions in the theological and academic realms. I probably agree with more of his theology than disagree."
So there are points of agreement between Reformed theology and traditional Free Grace theology. Both Ryrie and Bing are writing from the traditional Free Grace perspective. That is important to keep in mind. I'm not talking about non-traditional Free Grace theology (i.e. the teachings of Zane Hodges). Ryrie is more balanced than Zane Hodges. Ryrie agrees that salvation always results in some kind of fruit (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5), whereas Zane Hodges I think takes a different view. The same can be said in regards to Ryrie and MacArthur, for example. Ryrie is more balanced, not so extreme. MacArthur get legalist about the fruit. Whereas Ryrie will say that what qualifies as fruit could be (beside having "peace with God") maybe only that the angels in heaven rejoice when the person gets saved! "There is more joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10). In context, Ryrie is talking about "deathbed conversions". This is Ryrie's position. Let me quote a statement of his that I think sums up his view, or at least is representative of it. Ryrie writes: "So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or in heaven) sometime (especially and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately)." (This quote is from Ryrie's book So Great Salvation [1989 edition], pp. 46-47.)
[Continued below...]
Robert Lightner, another traditional Free Grace author, takes a similar view. Lightner quotes that exact statement by Ryrie that I just mentioned. (See Lightner's book Sin, Salvation, and the Savior, p. 208.) Lightner also says that "true faith really will express itself in good works. They may not always be seen by others at all times, but life cannot be hidden forever." (Ibid.) So this is a traditional Free Grace view. Lightner does not require good works, but they are the natural result of salvation. So it is not something to be legalist or judgmental about. It is not something to add to the gospel or require for salvation. Hence the label "Free Grace". It is God's grace that will bring about the "change" in a person's life. I mentioned the word "change". Ryrie uses the word "change". He says that saving faith will produce some "change" in a person's life. Ryrie gives the example of how maybe the only "change" in a person's life after their salvation is that they now have "peace with God"--"we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1). Notice it does not say merely that God has peace with us (although it is true that God is reconciled to us, at peace with us), but it says that "WE have peace with God"! Peace is a fruit of the Spirit, and although it is used more objectively in Romans 5:1, is it not still a fruit of the Spirit? We are born again by the Spirit, peace is a fruit of the Spirit. It would be wrong to remove the Spirit's role in all this. Ryrie affirms, "when anyone is converted at whatever stage of life, he experiences peace with God, and peace is a fruit of the Spirit. In some cases that peace may be seen on the countenance of the dying person. But whether seen by others or not, is it not fruit?" (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, first edition [1989], p. 46.) In context, Ryrie is talking about deathbed conversions. These people are still saved and will be in heaven, but that is probably not the normal Christian experience.
I have been talking about Ryrie, but H. A. Ironside holds the same view. So does J. Vernon McGee. To my knowledge, so do most other traditional Free Grace authors.
By the way, the "faith without works is dead" passage in James 2 is not talking about being saved from hell, but instead it's talking about being saved from a barren and unproductive Christian life. Unproductive in the sense of what people around us see. There may still be fruit, but maybe no one sees it. (It reminds me of the question: "If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, did it really make a sound? Well, of course it did! It's just that no one was there to hear it.) In James chapter 2, James is encouraging Christians to, in the words of Jesus, "let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:16).
I hope this helps answer your question. God bless!
In His Free Grace,
Jonathan
Furthermore, if there be any proponents of Lordship Salvation who take issue with Ryrie's position, that is, his understanding of Romans 5:1 that the "peace" spoken of there is a fruit of the Spirit, let them look to their own writings! John Calvin, in his commentary on Romans 5:1, says the following in regards to those who obtain righteousness by faith: "we have peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith."
Thank you for your reply. I understand things a bit more clearly now, but I am still confused on some. When Ryrie was saying that believers will bear fruit no matter what in earth and/or heaven, is he saying that it will evoke some type of response/change that the person doesn't have to act out? I think everyone in all positions would agree that good works are natural, but the thing I do not understand is that as Lightner said, "true faith really will express itself in good works", wouldn't that mean that if faith does not have works it is fake? For example, lets say Joe is doubting his salvation because he doesn't see any works or fruit after he had supposedly believed the Gospel. If there should be cause for concern over his salvation, in that sense, since true faith will reveal itself in works, then wouldn't that mean that fruit/good works are required for one to be saved? On another note, it seems like Dr. Ryrie's view may be slightly different than the others' view, since it seems that he believes that the only change a believer may have is "piece with God", whereas the others look to works. Maybe I have misunderstood quite a few things, but I am quite confused. On one hand it is true that works/fruit are not required for one to be saved. But on the other hand, genuine true saving faith will always result in works/fruit?
My apologies if I misunderstood anything or caused confusion.
-Thomas
I don't think Lightner was disagreeing with Ryrie. When Lightner says, "true faith really will express itself in good works", again, that could be the good works of the angels in heaven rejoicing as a result of the person's salvation (Luke 15:10), as Ryrie said. (Remember Lightner quoted that statement by Ryrie saying that the fruit will be in earth and/or in heaven.) Or as another example of a good work, the smile on a person's face as a result of their salvation, although as Ryrie noted, an outward smile may or may not occur.
In regards to your question, "On one hand it is true that works/fruit are not required for one to be saved. But on the other hand, genuine true saving faith will always result in works/fruit?" That is the basic premise, although I think Ryrie was trying to nuance it. I would nuance it a bit also, in that I am more comfortable saying that saving faith will always result in some change in a person, some fruit. That's pretty much Ryrie's position, as I understand it. The fruit/change in the person does not necessarily have to be outward good works does it? The fruit of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, patience...these things are spiritual. For example, can you see patience? It is an inner quality of the heart. These fruits normally and naturally are evidenced in some way externally, but that is not the essence of them, they begin in the heart. They should not end in the heart, but Ryrie gave the example of a deathbed conversion, or someone getting saved almost immediately before they die, such as in a car accident or a soldier in a foxhole. In these cases there may not be time for the change to appear externally. But there can still be the fruit consisting of peace in the heart, joy in heaven, love of God, thankfulness, etc. etc. I came across a pretty good statement that expresses the thought well enough: “If God’s eye could not penetrate the heart, woe be to the most sincere (saved) soul, who is often judged to be a hypocrite by some of his fellow creatures. Blessed be His name He is ‘the searcher’ of man’s heart, ‘I, the Lord search the heart...’” (Jeremiah 17:10).
Hmm, I believe I may have mixed up the viewpoints of different positions. Originally I had thought that the Traditional Free Grace view was that good works/fruit really should follow, but they were not needed in order for someone's faith to be genuine. I was aware of Zane Hodge's strange teachings, however I thought the idea fruit was not necessarily needed for one's faith to be true was something that all Free Grace camps had thought was an incorrect part of Lordship Salvation. For instance, I had taken Charlie Bing's article "Regeneration and a Changed Life" as a good representation of the Traditional Free Grace Position:
"The best we can say is that a changed life may (or may not) be evidence of regeneration, but we cannot draw a certain conclusion. The only "proof" of salvation is one's faith in Jesus Christ (His person, provision, and promise). Of course, one's faith is only known with certainty by that person and by God. We are not assured of salvation by judging our works or conduct, but by trusting in Jesus Christ as our sufficiency for acceptance with God". Of course, I believe that most Christians will change in some way, but if it were to be said that true faith will always result in some fruit, wouldn't the converse be true? That if one does not have some sort of fruit, then they are not saved. Wouldn't that make it a requirement for salvation? I suppose some of the fruit that has been mentioned isn't always thought of as fruit by some people ie. peace with God, the angels rejoicing in Heaven when one is saved, but wouldn't that technically still make them requirements for someone to be saved?
Other than that, may I ask what prompts the belief that true faith will bear fruit no matter what? To my knowledge most people on the Free Grace side usually agree that John 15:6 is talking about the Bema seat of Christ, and James 2 is talking about practicality of faith being observable to other people.
In all honesty I had originally really thought this idea was from Traditional Free Grace Theology, however I suppose I may have gotten it from a non-traditional one.
-Thomas
What Charlie Bing said is true. It doesn't contradict Ryrie. Or, maybe I should ask, how are you saying that Bing's statement contradicts Ryrie?
You asked: "but if it were to be said that true faith will always result in some fruit, wouldn't the converse be true? That if one does not have some sort of fruit, then they are not saved."
Let me answer that with a question. Jesus said: "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:10). So if the sinner supposedly "repents", but there is NO JOY in heaven as a result of it, what does that tell you? Either Jesus is a liar or that person never really repented! Or let me ask another question. Romans 5:1 says that as a result of our justification by faith, we have peace with God. So if I supposedly trusted Christ for salvation but I don't have "peace with God" (and only God would absolutely know this), what does that tell you? Either that God is lying or I never really trusted Christ. The Bible says, "let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). The "peace" there is a fruit of the Spirit. It's an objective reality for those who are saved by grace. It is a result of our justification, not a requirement for salvation. These are just some examples to get you thinking about what Ryrie is saying.
In regards to your question when you said, "Other than that, may I ask what prompts the belief that true faith will bear fruit no matter what?" Matthew 3:10 is often cited: "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." I'm not saying that I agree with the Lordship interpretation, but I've seen them use that one. Of course, they use 2 Corinthians 5:17, "If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation, old things have passed away, behold new things have come." Again, I don't necessarily agree with the Lordship interpretation of that verse, but they use it to support LS. Personally, I like the Bible verse that I mentioned in a previous comment, when the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:5 that at the Judgment Seat of Christ, every/each Christian will have praise from God. Ryrie takes that to mean that every Christian will have some fruit that God can and will praise and reward. I know there are other Bible verses that indicate that some people will have no rewards, such as when Paul says "they will be saved, yet so as by fire" for example. I take that to be a figure of speech or even hyperbole to make a point, rather than saying they have absolutely nothing to be praised for. I remember years ago I had a Christian coworker who once told me: "I know I'm saved, but I'm just going to a garbage collector in Heaven!" This could be true in a manner of speaking, but if he really did trust Christ, the angels rejoiced at his salvation and furthermore he has "peace with God" through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).
But you are right. There are different teachings on this issue among Free Grace authors. See Ironside's commentary on James, for example, compared to how Zane Hodges interprets it. I do agree with Hodges that James 2 is not talking about salvation from Hell. I think there is more agreement on that basic point among Free Grace advocates. But as far a fruit goes, there seems to be different views on it in the Free Grace camp.
The thing that makes Bing's statements contradict Ryrie's is how he says fruit/works are supposed to be present, however they are not required for genuine faith. However, with Ryrie's statement, it can be said that if one does not have fruit/good works then one is not saved, however that goes onto the next part.
Your example helped me understand the position much better. I didn't ever really think too much about fruit/good works not being externally produced. Would you believe it would be possible (although highly unlikely) that someone could lack external works and fruit, but still be saved since they had fruit bear in Heaven and with God?
On another note, I suppose my interpretation of those verses is a bit different, as I had taken it in a more literal absolute way. Would you think the view that genuine faith will not need to bear fruit is out of orthodoxy? (that is without the other extreme views of Zane Hodges)
On another note, I also noticed your fantastic extensive work on repentance and had two questions.
1. I had heard it somewhere that in repentance unto salvation, one has to have an active desire to turn from sin and to want to obey the Lord in order to repent to be saved. I would generally think this could happen after repentance, but is the change of mind not to be over how one views God, what sin is, and to trust in the Lord Jesus as savior?
2. As there is a difference between repentance and the fruits of repentance, must one bear fruits keeping with repentance for one to actually repent? I have seen many people give different positions on this.
Thank you very much for your help.
-Thomas
You are asking some good questions!
I think you are interpreting Bing's statement in a certain way. But to be fair, Bing didn't actually say, "fruit/works...are not required for genuine faith." Now, he may believe that, but the statement you quoted by him doesn't actually say that.
Bing says: "The best we can say is that a changed life may (or may not) be evidence of regeneration, but we cannot draw a certain conclusion." That's true. An unbeliever could start going to church and become religious and have a changed life, but that doesn't mean they got saved. It could just be outward reformation, "turning over a new leaf" as the saying goes. I'm sure Ryrie would agree that reformation of character is not necessarily evidence of salvation.
I went ahead and looked at Bing's article that you mentioned (the one containing Bing's statement that you quoted). In the article, Bing clearly says the following: "Does regeneration inevitably produce a changed life? We would have to conclude, Yes." As I understand it, this is Ryrie's basic position as well.
Let me get to your question when you asked: "Would you believe it would be possible (although highly unlikely) that someone could lack external works and fruit, but still be saved since they had fruit bear in Heaven and with God?" Yes. The key word there is "external"--the fruit doesn't necessarily have to be "external" or visible fruit does it? Now I would say in most cases it probably is, but first and foremost the fruit is spiritual. It begins in the heart. One of the examples that Ryrie uses is someone having "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). This is a fruit of the Spirit.
You asked: "Would you think the view that genuine faith will not need to bear fruit is out of orthodoxy? (that is without the other extreme views of Zane Hodges)". I'm not sure if I would say it does not "need to"--but genuine faith will bear fruit.
But if you are asking about if someone says that genuine faith WON'T bear fruit, it is my understanding that that is an unorthodox view. Even Free Grace people affirm that genuine faith will bear fruit. You mentioned Zane Hodges. Even Hodges believed that genuine faith "will" bear fruit. Charles Bing cites the following statement by Hodges in which Hodges says:
“Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion-even bizarre. We reject it categorically.” (Zane Hodges, “We Believe in Assurance of Salvation,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Autumn 1990], p. 7, emphasis his.)
Hodges uses the phrase "good works". Ryrie and Bing seem more inclined to use the word "fruit". I am more comfortable using the word "fruit". But by Hodges using the phrase "good works" that is actually a stronger affirmation because "good works" are more external, while fruit can also include changes in someone's life even if they are not external "good works". The Free Grace view is that this is an inference from all the Scriptural data, especially 1 Corinthians 4:5.
Let me get to your questions on repentance. In regards to your first question, when you said, "I had heard it somewhere that in repentance unto salvation, one has to have an active desire to turn from sin and to want to obey the Lord in order to repent to be saved." That is basically the Lordship Salvation view of repentance.
You went on to say, "I would generally think this could happen after repentance, but is the change of mind not to be over how one views God, what sin is, and to trust in the Lord Jesus as savior?" Yes, that is pretty much exactly the Free Grace view of repentance.
In regards to your second question about the fruits of repentance you asked:
"As there is a difference between repentance and the fruits of repentance, must one bear fruits keeping with repentance for one to actually repent? I have seen many people give different positions on this."
I think the key word in your statement is that there is a "difference" between repentance and the fruits of repentance. Lordship Salvation advocates tend to lump them both together and label both as repentance, which is incorrect.
John the Baptist didn't want to baptize anyone unless they showed fruits of repentance. That's not talking about salvation, that's talking about baptism. Of course John the Baptist wasn't God and he couldn't see into a person's heart to see if they really repented, so he was looking for the external fruit in someone's life before he would baptize them. John the Baptist practiced what we might call believer's baptism.
Your question about if a person has to bear fruits in keeping with repentance in order to be saved is similar to the question about if a person has to have fruit in order for their faith to be genuine. My understanding is that genuine saving repentance (as a change of mind about sin, salvation, and the Savior) will bear fruit in some way, shape, or form. Whether that is in heaven and/or on earth, visible and/or invisible, consistently and/or inconsistently, I believe there will be some fruit yes. But to say that other people have to see the fruit in order for a person to be saved, no I'm not saying that. God will see the fruit, but other people may or may not.
That is true, Bing did not actually say so, however since he would later state "Though our answer is yes, it is a cautious yes, because we have to admit it comes from inference based on the facts listed above. There is no statement in biblical texts on regeneration guaranteeing a changed life" I had taken his statement like that since it was from inference.
I could have sworn that Zane Hodges had a more unbalanced view, but I most definitely could have been wrong. The main place I had heard say that fruit bearing is not assured is Verse By Verse Ministries, who in their study of John 15 had cited Romans 7:4 as Paul says "might" bear fruit for God. However, their definition of fruit is the "believer's conduct" and external good works, and not really anything internal. I then conclude it could be said that external fruit/works are not required for genuine faith, however the general concept of fruit is needed (as in fruit in heaven)? And also, may I ask what the nature of the peace the believer has with God? To me it seems almost as if it's positional peace with Him, but I do wonder a bit what was meant by it.
I think I understand a lot more after reading what Zane Hodges had said in that article from GES Charlie Bing cited. As you may have noticed, the main concern I had was that if genuine faith must bear fruit, then wouldn't that be required as the source as one's assurance of salvation? As with the example I made with Joe earlier, if Joe was questioning his salvation because of his lack of fruit, and that if that was cause for concern, wouldn't that mean we need works-based assurance? In assurance, I have always taken it that our eye's should be on Christ and his promises, and as Bing had put it, "While good works can be corroborating evidence for one's faith in Christ, they are not sufficient to prove or disprove it". However, with the idea that genuine faith inevitably bearing fruit, works-based assurance seems to be required.
On repentance, the only question I have is that what fruits would be appropriate to render one's repentance to be real? With faith of course we have the reactions stated in scripture, but with repentance how would one know if they had truly repented? For instance, if a drug addict came to Christ, but ended up starting to shoot up drugs again, how could they know if they had actually repented and are saved? Or maybe someone ended up lying, repenting of their lying, but ended up lying again after they had repented? Would that make their repentance fake?
Good thoughts!
In regards to Bing's quote saying that there is no statement in biblical texts on regeneration guaranteeing a changed life" -- I'm not sure what he meant by that; I think Bing was talking about other people seeing evidence of change, or seeing good works in a person's life. Because even Ryrie affirms that there will be some "change" in the life of a Christian as a result of salvation. If indeed we are "new creations" (2 Cor. 5:17), isn't that a "changed life"? I'm not saying that we will always see a change, but there is change.
In regards to Romans 7:4, "that we might bear fruit to God" could also be translated "that we should be fruit to God" (see the KJV, NKJV, etc.). Of course, this doesn't say we "won't" nor even that we "will", it's just saying we "should", and of course, we should! So that verse doesn't really address to specific point about if a person will or won't bear fruit. Other Bible verse need to be considered. Such as for example 1 Corinthians 4:5.
Related to the comments above you asked, "I then conclude it could be said that external fruit/works are not required for genuine faith, however the general concept of fruit is needed (as in fruit in heaven)?"
Yes, this is my understanding also. I think this is also what Ryrie was getting at in his book when he talked about the angels in heaven rejoicing when a person gets saved.
You said, "To me it seems almost as if it's positional peace with Him, but I do wonder a bit what was meant by it."
I think you are referring to Romans 5:1 where it says that being justified by faith, we have "peace with God". Yes, I do believe that is a positional peace, if you want to say it that way. But I also believe it is a fruit of the Spirit, "...love, joy, peace..." (Gal. 5:22).
You asked, "the main concern I had was that if genuine faith must bear fruit, then wouldn't that be required as the source as one's assurance of salvation?" I would say no because if it's true, for example, that the angels in heaven rejoice whenever a person gets saved, then they automatically have fruit! That is the testimony of God's Word, and that's where my assurance is found, in God's Word, not in my behavior, not in my feelings, not in myself. External fruit or even internal fruit in my life can be a secondary source of assurance (I think that's what Ryrie was getting at), but my primary source of assurance is what God's Word says.
You said: "As with the example I made with Joe earlier, if Joe was questioning his salvation because of his lack of fruit, and that if that was cause for concern, wouldn't that mean we need works-based assurance?"
In response let me just say that we have to be careful using hypothetical scenarios. Joe should find his assurance in God's Word, not in what he perceives as a lack of fruit in his life.
You said: "In assurance, I have always taken it that our eye's should be on Christ and his promises, and as Bing had put it, "While good works can be corroborating evidence for one's faith in Christ, they are not sufficient to prove or disprove it"."
Yes exactly.
You said: "However, with the idea that genuine faith inevitably bearing fruit, works-based assurance seems to be required."
Again, work-based assurance is secondary. And furthermore, a person is not always going to be aware of every instance of fruit in his or her life. If the fruit occurs in heaven, like the angels rejoicing, a person would not be aware of that with his or her five senses.
Let me get to your questions about repentance in another comment. I hope this helps. God Bless!
In regards to your questions on repentance, I can share a few thoughts.
When you asked, "On repentance, the only question I have is that what fruits would be appropriate to render one's repentance to be real?"
That way of looking at it is fundamentally backwards. Fruits do not render one's repentance to be real. Repentance is either real or not first. Fruits do not make repentance real or unreal, they are a result not a cause. And furthermore, as I have tried to point out, we may not even always or necessarily see the fruits, and even if we do, we may not always view them as fruits. So what we perceive as "fruit" cannot in and of itself prove or disprove the reality of one's faith or repentance. Ultimately, only the Word of God can give a person assurance of salvation. Yes, fruit does give secondary assurance, but it must be viewed as secondary and somewhat subjective, whereas the testimony of God's Word is primary and objective.
You went on to ask, "With faith of course we have the reactions stated in scripture, but with repentance how would one know if they had truly repented?"
I would include repentance along with faith in those contexts. In other words, in the context of salvation both repentance and faith can be viewed together (cf. Acts 20:21).
You asked, "For instance, if a drug addict came to Christ, but ended up starting to shoot up drugs again, how could they know if they had actually repented and are saved?"
This again relates to assurance. Wayne Grudem and other proponents of LS tend to look at one's faith for assurance. They doubt their faith and it causes them to doubt their salvation. Whereas Free Grace emphasizes that assurance is based primarily on the promises of God. Assurance is based on God's Word. Christians are going to sin all their lives, so if we look at ourselves for assurance we will probably always find a reason to doubt our salvation.
You asked: "Or maybe someone ended up lying, repenting of their lying, but ended up lying again after they had repented? Would that make their repentance fake?"
No, for example, in Luke 17:1-4, Jesus gives the illustration of a man who repented seven times in one day! The context clearly indicates that the man's repentance was real. G. Michael Cocoris affirms: "Berkhof points out that the Roman Catholic Church 'externalized the idea of repentance entirely' (Berkhof, p. 486) and adds, 'Over against this external view of repentance the Scriptural idea should be maintained. According to Scripture, repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance' (Berkhof, p. 487)." Cocoris goes on the write: "Luke 17:1-4 is an illustration that proves the point. Jesus teaches that if a man repents seven times in one day, he is to be forgiven seven times. There is no question that there is genuine repentance here--the whole point assumes that the repentance is genuine. Yet this genuine repentance did not affect the man's lifestyle!" (Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010], pp. 17-18.) I don't want to say that repentance will never affect one's lifestyle, I'm only saying that we have to distinguish between inward repentance and an outward change of lifestyle. And furthermore, an outward change of lifestyle really can't prove or disprove if one's repentance is real, because anyone can change their lifestyle, but only God can change the heart, and only God can see the heart. "Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart."
I think it could be said that at least there is a spiritual change, as in inhabiting Christ's spirit. I don't think Bing referred to 1 Corinthians 4:5 as proof that someone will bear fruit, so I suppose that's what he was meaning.
Thank you so very much for your replies! I believe I understand the positions everything was at much more clearly now! I think that's all I had but who knows, maybe I'll come up with some more soon.
Have a blessed day,
-Thomas
You are very welcome. God bless
Well, I've come up with quite a few more questions! To try and make it a bit simpler, I'll keep them numbered.
1. It is my understanding that John 15:1-6 is talking about abiding in Christ, and not just being a believer. However, I have seen lots of critique of this interpretation, and that abide means only being born again and nothing else. The main criticism being: The idea of a vine is extremely analogous to salvation and that abide can only mean to believe in Christ, Jesus mentioning the whole branch being burnt and not works for not abiding, a Christian with a fruitless life is concrete evidence they are not a believer. I am quite confused on this since both sides seem to have good points.
2. What is the meaning of Godly Sorrow? I have seen it said to mean many things, but it does not seem very solid on what it is generally supposed to mean. Some say that it is required for repentance, and this leads onto my next question.
3. Is remorse or guilty feelings required for one to genuinely repent? Some have said both with and without Godly sorrow that remorse is needed for one to actually repent, and that if one does not feel bad then they are incapable of repenting.
4. We have already talked about this when discussing the conviction of a believer, but I would just like to make sure I understand. Do you believe that if a believer doesn't feel pangs of guilt after they sin, they are still saved? I have seen many hold the position that if one does not feel bad after they are sinning then that is a sign they are an illegitimate son. The proponents always make it that conviction from the Holy Spirit will only come in the form of guilty feelings, and no other way.
5. I noticed that some hold the idea that if someone has no desire to serve Christ, then they have not received the Holy Spirit. They say that if someone is living carnally and is giving into the desires of the flesh instead of wanting to serve the spirit, they are not saved because all Christians have new desires. I feel this is just another "are you saved" test that people make.
6. During our discussion on fruit, you had mentioned a few times about fruit not being visible outwardly. Could this also extend to where a person might not see their own fruit?
7. Many Free Grace people agree that assurance of salvation is a birthright to every believer. Even so, if a believer is in sin? Can someone continuing in sin have assurance?
8. Like the example from Cocoris's book from Luke, and the case of the pastor you had knew of who was committing adultery with one of the members of his church, do you think it would be possible for repentance to happen without a change in conduct? As fruit will bear somewhere, in the universe, would this be possible?
Excellent questions! And good idea to number them!
1. I didn't see a question for number one, but I would agree with you when you said, "It is my understanding that John 15:1-6 is talking about abiding in Christ, and not just being a believer." Let me know if you had a question on John 15:1-6.
2. As far as the meaning of "godly sorrow", I agree with H. A. Ironside when he says that Peter is a good example of godly sorrow (Matt. 26:75; Lu. 22:62), in contrast with the mere remorse of Judas (Matt. 27:3). Keep in mind that Peter was already saved, and so were those who had godly sorrow in 2 Corinthians 7:9-11. The repentance in both passages (concerning Peter and the Corinthians) is Christian repentance. It is a repentance unto salvation, but here it is second tense salvation (i.e. sanctification), deliverance from the power of sin.
In 2 Corinthians 7, Paul doesn't say that godly sorrow is required for repentance, rather he says that godly sorrow works repentance. There are other things that work repentance, such as the goodness of God (see Romans 2:4). In other words, in 2 Cor. 7:9-10 Paul DOESN'T say that only godly sorrow works repentance. I know some people seem to view it that way, but that doesn't makes sense because they are requiring people to have a certain emotion (out of all the different emotions) in order to get saved. In effect they are saying, "You must have the emotion of sorrow to get saved." But the Bible doesn't say that, or if it does I haven't found it. We know that God has made us all unique and different, with different temperaments and emotions. D.L. Moody used to tell people not to seek sorrow but the Savior. That is the key. Will there be sorrow? Often yes, but as J. Vernon McGee has said, the sorrow is a by-product of the repentance. So either way (whether the sorrow works repentance and/or is a by-product of repentance), the sorrow is distinct from the repentance. That is important to remember.
John MacArthur twists James 4:9 to say that sorrow is required for salvation. In his book The Gospel According to Jesus, MacArthur writes the following on page 250: "One of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles comes in James 4:7-10....The invitation in 4:7-10 is directed at those who are not saved...” Not true! The truth is, the apostle James is writing to Christians! James is writing to already saved people. James calls them "brother and sisters" (v. 11) in Christ. These people are already saved "brethren" (cf. James 1:2, 1:9, 1:16, 1:18, 2:1, 2:5, 2:7, 3:1, etc.). Commenting on James 4:9, J. Vernon McGee has the correct interpretation when he says, "The problem today is that Christians are not mourning over their sins." So Dr. McGee affirms that James is talking to Christians.
Let me get back to you on the other questions. God bless
You asked: "3. Is remorse or guilty feelings required for one to genuinely repent? Some have said both with and without Godly sorrow that remorse is needed for one to actually repent, and that if one does not feel bad then they are incapable of repenting."
Judas has "remorse" (metamelomai) but not repentance (metanoia, a change of mind). According to Mark 2:17 and Luke 5:32, Jesus came to call sinners to repentance (metanoia), not remorse. There is a difference!
Commenting on the words of Jesus in Mark 1:15 ("Repent and believe the gospel"), John Peter Lange writes:
“The preaching of Christ: 1. It appears as the announcement of salvation in the place of danger and ruin. 2. What it announces: that the time is fulfilled, and that the kingdom of God is come. 3. What it requires: repentance (as change of mind, metanoia) and faith. 4. What it signifies: the saving presence of Christ Himself.”
(J. P. Lange, Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, from the German of J. P. Lange [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863], vol. 3, p. 183, comment on Mark 1:15. See Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, Third Series, Vol. XVI [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863].)
Commenting on the words of Jesus in Mark 2:17 ("I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"), Lange similarly writes:
“The calling to repentance (that is, to change of mind) the essence of the work of Christ.”
(Ibid., p. 204, quoting Schleiermacher.)
In regards to your question about if certain feelings are required in order for a person to genuinely repent, Martin Luther is correct to say,
"Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God--
Naught else is worth believing.
Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.
I'll trust in God's unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!"
You asked: "4. We have already talked about this when discussing the conviction of a believer, but I would just like to make sure I understand. Do you believe that if a believer doesn't feel pangs of guilt after they sin, they are still saved?"
Look at what the apostle Paul writes to the Christians in Ephesus (and by extension to all Christians) in Ephesians 4:17-19:
"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being PAST FEELING [i.e. ceased to feel, that is, being numb and callous] have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (KJV)
Paul is instructing the Christians in Ephesus not to act like the unsaved Gentiles who do those things and behave that way. If it was impossible for a Christian to act like an unsaved Gentile then Paul wouldn't bother to give this instruction. This clearly shows that it is entirely possible for a Christian to do these things and act like an unsaved Gentile; that's why Paul tells the Christians, "you must no longer live as the unbelieving Gentiles live".
Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that a Christian can grieve the Holy Spirit with whom he is sealed until the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30), and similarly a Christian can quench the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19).
So yes, if a believer doesn't feel pangs of guilt after they sin, they are still saved, but they are a carnal Christian (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 and 11:30-32). They are acting like the unsaved. They will not lose their salvation, but they will lose rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ, they will lose fellowship with the Lord, they will lose things in this life as a consequence of their sin, etc. So there most definitely are negative consequences, but not loss of salvation.
I didn't see a question for your # 5 comment, so if there was a question in there please let me know.
For # 6 you asked: "6. During our discussion on fruit, you had mentioned a few times about fruit not being visible outwardly. Could this also extend to where a person might not see their own fruit?"
Yes because only God is the perfect Judge of our motives and of our heart, we are not. What we think is fruit might not be, and what we don't realize is fruit may indeed be fruit! And like you said, we might not even see it or be aware of it, such as the ripple effect of something we did or said.
It reminds me of that classic Christmas movie "It's A Wonderful Life" starring Jimmy Steward. In the movie he plays George Bailey, and at first he was going to commit suicide. He thought he had lived a pretty crummy life. But then an angel named Clarence shows him what the world would be like if he had never been born! (The world was a much worse place without George Bailey.) That's just an example to illustrate how maybe we as Christians don't always realize or see our own fruit.
Related to your question # 6 about is it possible for a Christian not to see their own fruit, it reminds me of something Dr. J. Vernon McGee said on his Thru The Bible radio program. Commenting on Haggai 2:9, McGee said:
"I think of that Scotch preacher, who turned in his resignation at the end of the year, and the elders asked him why? And he says, 'Well, we just haven't had any conversions this year except wee Bobby Moffat.' May I say to you, that poor preacher couldn't see that 'wee Bobby Moffat' was the greatest work that that man ever did! For 'wee Bobby Moffat' was Robert Moffat, the great missionary to Africa who probably did as much if not more than David Livingston in opening Africa to Christian missions. That preacher didn't see that in the light of the future. And you and I today, need to recognize that we need to see things in the light of God's plan and purpose for our lives."
For question # 7 you asked: "Many Free Grace people agree that assurance of salvation is a birthright to every believer. Even so, if a believer is in sin? Can someone continuing in sin have assurance?"
Sin can break our fellowship with God, but it can NEVER break our relationship as His sons. "What shall separate us from the love of Christ?" Paul asks. His conclusion is "NOTHING"! So the sinning believer can still have assurance of salvation (because of eternal security), and if he/she doesn't have that assurance, it's because of some other reason such as unbelief, a carnal mind, false teaching, etc.
For question #8 you asked: "8. Like the example from Cocoris's book from Luke, and the case of the pastor you had knew of who was committing adultery with one of the members of his church, do you think it would be possible for repentance to happen without a change in conduct? As fruit will bear somewhere, in the universe, would this be possible?"
Keep in mind that the repentance spoken about by Jesus in Luke 17:3-4 is not a repentance for salvation, it's a repentance concerning a brother who sins against another brother. So that's important to keep in mind. But the passage still shows that someone can repent (change their mind) and go back and do the same thing again and again. So it seems like the person's behavior is not really affected, or if it is, it is short-lived. It reminds me of when Peter asks Jesus if he should forgive someone 7 times, and what did Jesus say? "Not just 7 times, but 70 times 7!" Here's what the passage says that I'm referring to:
"Then Peter came to him and asked, 'Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?' 'No, not seven times,' Jesus replied, 'but seventy times seven!'" (Matthew 18:21-22, NLT)
We rightly think about this passage in the context of forgiveness, but what about the flip side? What about looking at it from the repentance side of it, from the viewpoint of the repentant person? Granted in this passage it doesn't explicitly say the person repented, but from what Jesus says in Luke 17:3-4 we know that it is indeed possible for someone to repent 7 times in one day!
Don't misunderstand me, with repentance there will be a change, some change, some fruit that God sees, but not necessarily a change in outward conduct that is seen by everyone (especially if it is a "deathbed conversion").
Dr. Charles Bing writes about this in his book Simply By Grace (the foreword is written by Dr. Charles Ryrie). In chapter 8: "Grace and Good Works," Dr. Bing asks the question: "Can Good Works Prove Salvation?" Under this heading he writes, "There is every reason to expect that those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and are consequently born into God's family will experience a changed life to some degree. Some want to see this changed life--sometimes called 'fruit' or evidence--as proof that a person is saved." Dr. Bing goes on to list several problems with that approach, such as:
-"Good works can characterize non-Christians" ("Works in and of themselves cannot prove that anyone is eternally saved. Those who have not believed in Christ will often do good things.")
-"Good works can be hard to define" (how do we know if and when a Christian does a good work by means of the Spirit or not?)
-"Good works are relative" (e.g. not cursing whereas "before his conversion curse words flowed freely")
-"Good works can be passive in nature" (e.g. not getting drunk, the fruit of self-control)
-"Good works can be unseen" (i.e. praying in secret, Matt. 6:1-6)
-"Good works can be deceptive" ("Since we cannot know a person's motives, a seeming good work could be done for the wrong reason.")
-"Good works can be inconsistent" (i.e. "believers who begin well but fall away from their walk with the Lord or fall into sin." For example, 1 Cor. 11:30; 2 Tim. 2:17-18, 4:10; James 5:19-20.)
See Charles Bing, Simply By Grace (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), pp. 84-87. See the following link to read an excerpt from chapter 8 of Bing's book:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Simply_by_Grace/yDScVTxJ-bcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA84&printsec=frontcover
Thank you for your replies! Especially the one concerning Godly Sorrow, that I could not wrap my head around. I have a few questions about some of the responses, so I'll number them off here.
On number 1, what would you say in response to the critique I had mentioned from people who insist that John 15 is about sonship and not fellowship?
On number 4, I remember in our conversation on conviction (that is the conviction a believer receives), we established that conviction is acknowledgement of sin, and is not always by guilt. In that case, since the Holy Spirit is trying to convict/make the believer acknowledge their sin/righteousness, wouldn't it be true that not all cases of Christians without guilt would be carnal? Since guilty feelings are subjective, couldn't the conviction of the Holy Spirit just be without feelings since it is to make you acknowledge sin/righteousness?
On number 8, I think it could be said that for repentance unto salvation, it would be really the same when talking about when someone has been saved, right? The angels will be rejoicing since the person has become saved, or any other fruit in heaven if it is not outward. Additionally, if someone does not see change in their life they should not be worried since it is still not sufficient enough to disprove their repentance, correct? On the other hand with repentance after salvation, it could be possible for a person not to have visible frut, either to themselves or others, but had actually repented?
Thanks for answering my questions!
Also, for number 5, I would like to know if that is true? As Paul said, of course we are given new desires, however it seems incorrect since wanting to do the right thing is not what saves you.
In regards to your question, "On number 1, what would you say in response to the critique I had mentioned from people who insist that John 15 is about sonship and not fellowship?"
I would ask, "How is it about sonship and not fellowship?" Clearly the people that Jesus is referring to are already saved. Jesus says in John 15:2 that they are "in Me"--that is, "in Christ"! Are unbelievers ever said to be "in Christ"? Rather the opposite I would say. For example, Jesus says to the unbelievers, "You will not come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:40).
Furthermore, the word "abide" doesn't mean "believe". It means "remain". There is a big difference! It is talking about fruit-bearing, not salvation from hell.
The common interpretation of John 15:6 takes the following reading, "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch...." (This is the reading of many Bible translations, such as the KJV, ESV, NET Bible, etc.) But I don't believe that is the best interpretation of the Greek. (I know I'm stepping on the toes of Daniel Wallace and his NET Bible, but give me a minute to explain.)
Now compare how John 15:6 is commonly translated with how Bill Mounce translates it: "If anyone does not abide in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers, men gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6, Mounce's Reverse Interlinear New Testament)
Do you see the difference? I will put them side-by-side so it's easier to notice the difference:
"If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch...." (ESV)
"If anyone does not abide in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away...." (Mounce)
The ESV says that "he is thrown away" whereas Mounce's translation says that it is "a branch that is thrown away"! What a difference!
I believe that Mounce's translation is more accurate, and that Jesus is simply giving an illustration, not saying that a literal person will be thrown away and burned up. After all, Jesus is talking about Christians, and He has already made it clear that "whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (John 6:37). Amen?
Charles Bing affirms that "in John 15:6 Jesus is talking about fruitless believers and compares them to branches that are burned--in other words, of not much use." (Bing, Simply By Grace, p. 85.)
If you have access to Dr. J. Vernon McGee's commentary on John chapter 15, it is very good. McGee takes the traditional Free Grace interpretation of John 15. If you don't have access to his commentary in book form, you can listen to his Thru The Bible radio program online.
Let me just quickly comment on your question when you asked: "On number 8, I think it could be said that for repentance unto salvation, it would be really the same when talking about when someone has been saved, right?"
Yes, repentance unto salvation would be when someone has been saved, if that is the context or meaning of the salvation, i.e. salvation from hell.
You said: "The angels will be rejoicing since the person has become saved, or any other fruit in heaven if it is not outward."
Yes exactly (cf. Luke 15:7, 10).
You asked: "Additionally, if someone does not see change in their life they should not be worried since it is still not sufficient enough to disprove their repentance, correct?"
Yes exactly. Furthermore, I would say that not worrying could itself be a fruit of the Spirit! Or to say it another way, if a new believer is patiently waiting to see fruit in their life, their patience to see fruit actually IS fruit! (A new believer may not realize this. They need to trust the Lord in this case, that He will produce the fruit as we abide in Him.) This ties into what Charlie Bing was saying about how spiritual fruit can be difficult for people to discern or detect.
You asked: "On the other hand with repentance after salvation, it could be possible for a person not to have visible fruit, either to themselves or others, but had actually repented?"
That is how I understand Luke 17:3-4, at least for a certain amount of time there may not be a visible change or visible fruit in the person's life. But keep in mind what Zane Hodges said when wrote the following:
“Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion-even bizarre. We reject it categorically.” (Zane Hodges, “We Believe in Assurance of Salvation,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Autumn 1990], p. 7, emphasis his.)
If a Christian doesn't have fruit in their life, that's a problem. And God is going to deal with it in love. "Whom the Lord loves he disciplines" (Hebrews 12:6). God's discipline could include the sin unto death such as the apostle Paul alluded to when he wrote to the carnal Corinthians that "many among you are weak, and sick, and a number sleep [a euphemism for physical death]" (1 Cor. 11:30-32). Similarly, the apostle John in his first epistle talks about that "there is a sin unto death" (1 Jn. 5:16-17).
But getting back to your question when you asked, "On the other hand with repentance after salvation, it could be possible for a person not to have visible fruit, either to themselves or others, but had actually repented?"
That's key what you said: "repentance after salvation". So with repentance AFTER salvation, there already was fruit in the person's life simply by virtue of the fact that the angels in heaven rejoiced (Lk. 15:10), and the fact that the believer has "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). So we are NOT talking about a Christian who has absolutely no fruit. There is some fruit. But if the Christian goes on to live like the devil, then God will discipline his erring child in love (Heb. 12:6), possibly to the point of physical death (1 Cor. 11:30-32; 1 Jn. 5:16-17), and in that case there will be loss of rewards at the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10), but not loss of salvation (1 Cor. 3:15, 11:32).
Getting back to John 15:6, I should also point out that Dr. Thomas Constable gives basically the same interpretation of John chapter 15 as I have set forth in my comments. In other words, Dr. Constable gives the traditional Free Grace view and interpretation of John chapter 15. For example, commenting on the words of Jesus in John 15:2, Constable says: "A person 'in Me' is always a true Christian." This is true, and how can it ever be otherwise?
For more information see: The Expository Notes of Dr. Thomas Constable, commentary on John chapter 15 (available online).
Thanks a bunch for replying! I will await on any other replies you have coming.
On number 8, sometimes it is said that it is impossible to for someone to continue being in sin, because the discipline of the Lord will always stop someone in sin. Although I don't believe that to be true, I wonder, if someone doesn't have fruit in their life, and they continue not seeing fruit, should they feel worry if they are saved or since they would have expected God's discipline to sort that out? And how can one recognize God's discipline? Of course there are the verbal warning of God's conviction or rebuke trying to make someone confess their sin, but how can one know if they are being disciplined and are not an illegitimate child?
In regards to question number 4, when you said: "On number 4, I remember in our conversation on conviction (that is the conviction a believer receives), we established that conviction is acknowledgement of sin, and is not always by guilt. In that case, since the Holy Spirit is trying to convict/make the believer acknowledge their sin/righteousness, wouldn't it be true that not all cases of Christians without guilt would be carnal?"
I'm not sure what you are asking there. Could you ask the question in another way?
In regards to when you asked: "Since guilty feelings are subjective, couldn't the conviction of the Holy Spirit just be without feelings since it is to make you acknowledge sin/righteousness?"
Yes, or at least feelings are not the primary way God uses to convict people. I would say the primary way, or at least one of the primary ways, that the Holy Spirit uses to convict people of sin, righteousness, etc. is the Word of God. The Spirit of God uses the Word of God, not primarily feelings. Of course, feelings can be involved.
The same is true in regards to salvation. There is no prescribed feeling or emotion that a person has to have in order to get saved. In regards to this, Roy Aldrich has well said:
“The Greek word metanoia means a change of mind....Because repentance is a change of mind it should not be concluded that the experience of salvation will be devoid of emotion. Psychologists say that every important decision of the mind is accompanied by emotion. Surely there will be emotion with the great change of mind that takes place when a sinner first believes in Christ. However, this emotional experience will vary with circumstances and temperament and it should not be demanded either as a condition or proof of salvation.” (Roy Aldrich, “Some Simple Difficulties of Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 111, No. 442 [April 1954], pp. 158-160.)
In regards to when you said: "5. I noticed that some hold the idea that if someone has no desire to serve Christ, then they have not received the Holy Spirit. They say that if someone is living carnally and is giving into the desires of the flesh instead of wanting to serve the spirit, they are not saved because all Christians have new desires. I feel this is just another "are you saved" test that people make."
And your question: "Also, for number 5, I would like to know if that is true? As Paul said, of course we are given new desires, however it seems incorrect since wanting to do the right thing is not what saves you."
Just because someone has no desire to serve Christ doesn't necessarily mean that they have not received the Holy Spirit, because as I have pointed out, and as the Bible makes clear, Christians can grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30), and quench the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19), hence Paul's commands not to do so. If it were impossible for Christians to grieve and/or quench the Spirit, Paul wouldn't have to command Christians not to quench the Spirit because it wouldn't even be a possibility! But it is a possibility, and for some Christians, maybe even for "many" Christians (see 1 Cor. 11:30), it is more than a possibility, it is a reality.
Paul talks about his struggle between the flesh and the Spirit in Romans chapter 7. And of course Paul in Galatians chapter 5 not only talks about the fruit of the Spirit, but also the lusts of the flesh. That's why Paul says in Romans 6:12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." It is possible for sin to "reign" in the life of a Christian who is obeying the lusts of the flesh, and Paul warns against it and explains how victory is possible.
A good Bible verse to keep in mind in this context is Galatians 5:17 which says:
"For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do." (Gal. 5:17, ESV)
So if someone says they have no desire to serve Christ, maybe they are just quenching the Spirit.
So yes, Christians do have new desires, but like you said, Christians can also live carnally and "behave like unregenerate people" (1 Cor. 3:3, NET Bible).
In regards to your questions: "On number 8, sometimes it is said that it is impossible to for someone to continue being in sin, because the discipline of the Lord will always stop someone in sin. Although I don't believe that to be true, I wonder, if someone doesn't have fruit in their life, and they continue not seeing fruit, should they feel worry if they are saved or since they would have expected God's discipline to sort that out? And how can one recognize God's discipline? Of course there are the verbal warning of God's conviction or rebuke trying to make someone confess their sin, but how can one know if they are being disciplined and are not an illegitimate child?"
In response to your question, "should they [a Christian] feel worry if they are saved or since they would have expected God's discipline to sort that out?"
I believe it is wrong to worry (see Matthew 6:25 ff), so I would not recommend for people to do that. Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, they instead need to trust the Lord, that He will bring forth fruit in their life. And waiting patiently for fruit actually is fruit, because "patience" is a fruit of the Spirit mentioned by Paul in Galatians 5:22!
In regards to your questions: "And how can one recognize God's discipline? Of course there are the verbal warning of God's conviction or rebuke trying to make someone confess their sin, but how can one know if they are being disciplined and are not an illegitimate child?"
I would say a person can recognize God's discipline through the means you mentioned, such as a verbal warning or rebuke, if it lines up with God's Word. So knowledge of God's discipline could be through God's Word, God's people, and/or God's Spirit (conviction).
I hope this helps! God bless!
Sorry for the confusion!
On number 4 when I said "I remember in our conversation on conviction (that is the conviction a believer receives), we established that conviction is acknowledgement of sin, and is not always by guilt. In that case, since the Holy Spirit is trying to convict/make the believer acknowledge their sin/righteousness, wouldn't it be true that not all cases of Christians without guilt would be carnal?" I was saying since we had both understood that the Holy Spirit's conviction of the believer is not always through guilt since it is a rather subjective way to be convicted, that not every Christian without guilt is without sin, as they might be being convicted in a different way. For instance, wouldn't it be possible for the Holy Spirit to convict a believer to have them mentally recognize or acknowledge their sin/righteousness? I doubt that guilty feelings befall someone every single time they sin, maybe they would have a much more mental conviction instead.
On the response to number 8, just to clarify, one should be looking to Christ, and even if someone does not see fruit bear over time (although they already have fruit in heaven) they should not doubt their salvation and trust in Christ to help them bear fruit?
Okay, thanks for the clarification! Let me get to your question.
You said:
"On number 4 when I said 'I remember in our conversation on conviction (that is the conviction a believer receives), we established that conviction is acknowledgement of sin, and is not always by guilt. In that case, since the Holy Spirit is trying to convict/make the believer acknowledge their sin/righteousness, wouldn't it be true that not all cases of Christians without guilt would be carnal?'"
Yes, if I understand your question correctly. Guilt really is not the best indicator of whether a Christian is carnal, because guilt is often based on (or can often be based on) a person's conscience, and a person's conscience can be molded by society and outside influences so that a person's conscience may or may not be a true indication of right and wrong. Of course, one's sense of right and wrong should be based on God's Word, and that is why an acknowledgement of sin according to God's Word is the key, not necessarily guilty feelings (or the lack of them, or doing something out of a sense of guilt), because those feelings can be subjective. I hope I'm understanding your question correctly.
You went on to explain: "I was saying since we had both understood that the Holy Spirit's conviction of the believer is not always through guilt since it is a rather subjective way to be convicted, that not every Christian without guilt is without sin, as they might be being convicted in a different way."
Yes, that is true also. It relates to what I said above.
You went on to say: "For instance, wouldn't it be possible for the Holy Spirit to convict a believer to have them mentally recognize or acknowledge their sin/righteousness? I doubt that guilty feelings befall someone every single time they sin, maybe they would have a much more mental conviction instead."
In regards to your question, I would say yes (see Romans 7:22-25). Yes exactly, I agree with your statement. Good analysis!
In regards to your question when you said: "On the response to number 8, just to clarify, one should be looking to Christ, and even if someone does not see fruit bear over time (although they already have fruit in heaven) they should not doubt their salvation and trust in Christ to help them bear fruit?"
Yes exactly. As the hymn writer has said: "Trust and obey, for there's no other way, to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey."
Christ will produce the fruit in our lives as we abide in Him; we bear fruit as we abide in Him (see John chapter 15). He is the life, we are only the channel. I remember years ago the Bible teacher for my "Life of Christ" class was teaching on the Gospel of John, I can't remember if it was John 15 and/or John 7:38-39, but what stuck with me is when he emphasized that "What fills, spills!" Now of course, we don't get more of the Holy Spirit, but He gets more of us, as I think it was D. L. Moody who said that. As we abide in Christ, His Spirit will be able to flow through us and spill out to others. When we don't put any blockages in the channel, you see. But when we quench the Spirit, then that's when we stop up the channel and stop bearing fruit.
Anyway, I hope this helps! God bless
Not to belabor the point, but I just want to say that in the case of a Christian who knows the Word of God and whose conscience has been influenced by the Word of God, their guilty feelings could overlap with the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
But in the final analysis, people in general and Christians in particular need to get right with God (whether it's for salvation in the case of an unbeliever or to restore fellowship in the case of a believer who has sinned) because of what the Bible says (I am referring to an acknowledgement of guilt for those who have done wrong), not primarily because of any feelings we have, guilty or otherwise. That quote by Luther is great when he says that "feelings come and feelings go, and feelings are deceiving, my warrant is the Word of God, it alone is worth believing."
Thank you for the replies.
I do believe you are correct on the fact that someone whose conscience is through the Word of God. However, would it still not be possible that someone who understands what is wrong to have no guilty feelings after they sin, especially since one's conscience can be gone against without feelings?
Yes, in regards to when you asked: "would it still not be possible that someone who understands what is wrong to have no guilty feelings after they sin, especially since one's conscience can be gone against without feelings?"
Yes, I believe it is possible because Christians can still act like unsaved people (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-3, NET Bible), and thus can become "past feeling" (Eph. 4:17-19, KJV).
God bless
Hi Jonathan. After some time thinking, I had some questions about some of the general things we had talked about on this post.
1. Is the belief that fruit/good works can bear in heaven a widely held one? I don't think I had answered it when you asked, but in the Free Grace/Lordship Salvation talks I had always heard of fruit and works only as outward, not really as anything of heaven or the sort. I remember you had said it was accurate to say that one will always have fruit since the fruit of the spirit can bear in heaven and that outward conduct/fruit is not necessary for faith faith to be genuine, but as mentioned I have always heard fruit used in the context related to someone's conduct.
2. What would you say is the nature that the Lord's conviction? As established, not everybody will always feel bad when they have done something wrong, so perhaps could the conviction of the Holy Spirit be something more "mental"? Especially since the conviction of sin/righteousness that the Holy Spirit does to believers is to make them aware of their sin?
Hi Thomas,
Good questions!
In regards to question 1, "Is the belief that fruit/good works can bear in heaven a widely held one?" That is Ryrie's view, as set forth in his book So Great Salvation (see pp. 45-46 in the 1989 edition). It is also Robert Lightner's view, as set forth in his book Sin, Salvation, and the Savior (see pg. 208). So fruit-bearing in heaven is a traditional Free Grace view. In my opinion, Ryrie's teaching here is genius because the Lordship people cannot consistently disagree with Ryrie's point that Christians bear fruit in heaven. (Remember, I quoted John Calvin as also affirming that the "peace with God" in Romans 5:1 is a fruit.) So Ryrie's argument is both biblical and is also affirmed by the opposing viewpoint. In my opinion, Ryrie's point is brilliant.
I think some Free Grace people might not be aware of Ryrie's teaching here in regards to fruit-bearing in heaven, or maybe they did read it in Ryrie's book but failed to realize the significance of Ryrie's point. That's one reason why I started this Free Grace blog, is to highlight some of these forgotten and/or underestimated traditional Free Grace teachings.
In regards to when you said, "I have always heard fruit used in the context related to someone's conduct" -- let me quote a statement by Ryrie related to what you said. Ryrie make a point to say that "my understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extrabiblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do." (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation [1989 edition], pp. 45-46.)
In regards to your second question: "What would you say is the nature that the Lord's conviction?" -- I would say that when a person comes under the conviction of the Holy Spirit it is a recognition of sin rather than having guilty feelings. There may or may not be guilty feelings, but when there is a recognition of sin that comes about as a result of the truth of God's Word pricking a person's heart (cf. Acts 2:37, 16:14, etc.), that is the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit at work. There is definitely a "mental" aspect to it, that is, a person's understanding is involved. A person has to understand the message (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23-25).
I hope this helps! If you have any other questions or if you want me to clarify or elaborate on something further, just let me know.
God bless
Thanks for the reply!
In Ryrie's explanation is he stating there is not necessarily an amount of external works that can prove if one is saved or not due to human's general inability to understand divine things?
As for conviction, when a believer (or unbeliever in the case of salvation) has acknowledged and understood their sin/sinfulness before a holy God mentally, would that be conviction? Or maybe a believer had done something out of place and was made aware of their sin internally, not always through emotion but in their head. Could that also be conviction?
In regards to when you asked: "In Ryrie's explanation is he stating there is not necessarily an amount of external works that can prove if one is saved or not due to human's general inability to understand divine things?"
Basically yes, that is how I understand Ryrie's teaching. I don't know if I would say it is "due to human's general inability to understand divine things" although that could be one way of saying it. I would say that is part of it. It seems to me that Ryrie is saying that external works cannot prove or disprove if one is saved or not because we are limited in what we can see. For example, we may not be around someone 24/7 to observe all their behavior. In that case, what if someone does all their good works (or even just one good work) when we are not around? The example that Charles Bing gave in his book Simply By Grace is when Jesus says to go into your room and shut the door behind you and pray to God "in secret" (Matthew 6:6). In that case, no one but God would see that and know about that! Jesus even says, "Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you" (Matt. 6:6b).
In regards to your second question, you asked: "As for conviction, when a believer (or unbeliever in the case of salvation) has acknowledged and understood their sin/sinfulness before a holy God mentally, would that be conviction? Or maybe a believer had done something out of place and was made aware of their sin internally, not always through emotion but in their head. Could that also be conviction?"
You could put it that way, yes, but using the word "mentally" is probably redundant because that meaning is already conveyed when you said "a believer (or unbeliever in the case of salvation) has acknowledged and understood their sin/sinfulness before a holy God" (emphasis mine). The words "acknowledged" and "understood" already convey the meaning of "mentally". I like the way J. Vernon McGee explains it when he says (commenting on John 16:8-11): "The Spirit of God wants to present evidence in your heart and in my heart to bring us to a place of conviction, and that, of course, means a place of decision." Notice that J. Vernon McGee used the word "decision", which is of course a mental decision. But it is unnecessary to say "mental decision" because that meaning is adequately conveyed in the word "decision". The Theological Wordbook gives this explanation of what the word "conviction" means: "The Greek word elenchō, found eighteen times in the New Testament, means 'to bring someone to a realization of his guilt.'" (See page 71, in the entry for "Conviction".) Again, you could say "mental realization" but it's redundant because that meaning is already conveyed through the word "realization". But in regards to the actual statement from The Theological Wordbook, I think it is a good statement also in regards to our discussion about how a person doesn't necessarily have to have guilty feelings in order to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. It's not about having guilty feelings necessarily, but instead it has to do with "a realization of his guilt".
Hope this helps! Let me know if you want me to clarify anything or if you have any more questions or comments.
God bless
I just noticed you had a follow-up question, when you asked: "Or maybe a believer had done something out of place and was made aware of their sin internally, not always through emotion but in their head. Could that also be conviction?"
Yes exactly, a person has to come to that understanding or realization. I personally like the word "internally" better than the word "mentally". And as for our emotions, God can and does use our emotions, but conviction is not an emotion, although emotions can of course be involved in it. But conviction and emotion are two different things. For example, someone can be emotional but not come to an acknowledgment of their sin. Do you see the difference?
Thanks for the help!
However, would that mean external works do play in telling whether or not someone is saved in a personal sense? As you mentioned it is not possible for you to see every part of someone else's life, but of course someone knows their own external works. Since a person knows their own external works, is that to mean that someone can tell if they are saved or not by their own conduct? Or is all of this meant to be in the hypothetical situation that works are able to prove or disprove if someone is saved? What about fruit that bears in heaven? I believe I may have misunderstood something.
Thanks for the help on conviction as well. However, I still wonder, what is the difference between the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of whether one has sinned or not. For instance, a believer most likely knows whether or not what they are doing is right, and that isn't necessarily the discipline/rebuke of the Lord (By the way when I use rebuke and convict interchangeably, it's because the word elenchō is used as the word for rebuke in Hebrews 12:5 as rebuke). Since believers are supposed to be rebuked/convicted of their righteousness/sin, how would that take place since someone can know if they are sinning or not before or while actively sinning?
You asked: "However, would that mean external works do play in telling whether or not someone is saved in a personal sense?"
No, I'm not saying that necessarily. In a personal sense, we may or may not recognize or realize our own fruit, such as if it is a fruit in heaven with the angels rejoicing (Lk. 15:7, 10), for example. And furthermore, even if and when a believer does an external good work, they may not recognize it as such. For example, have you ever had a person thank you for something and you were a bit surprised and felt like it was nothing special that you did? Such as if someone says, "Thank you for your patience" or something like that. I'm only using that as an example of how we may not realize even our own good works sometimes. I mean we may not really think about it or recognize them when we do them. For example, I think of when Jesus welcomes some people into His kingdom and He says, "I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink" and "I was hungry and you fed me." And the people are like, "When did we do that Lord?" And Jesus says, "Whatever you did to the least of these my brethren, you did it unto Me." (See Matthew 25:34-40.) Now granted that is maybe a different context and not specifically church-age believers that Jesus is talking about, but I just use that to show how someone might not recognize their own good works. That's not a perfect example, because maybe the person did recognize it as a good work, just not that they were doing it unto Jesus. But I think you will see my point. The person doing the good work didn't really see the full picture, they didn't fully have God's perspective on their good works. That's my point. So I don't believe that we can really even fully trust ourselves to be perfect judges of our own good works and if we have them or not. Only God can really be the true judge of that. Like the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 4:5.
Let me repeat what Ryrie says in regards to all this. I think Ryrie makes a good point when he says that "my understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extrabiblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do." (Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation [1989 edition], pp. 45-46.) I think we need to be consistent and we have to apply Ryrie's statement not just to other people, but to ourselves as well. I mean we need to apply what he says to our own lives too. For example, a Christian might be tempted to look at their own life and say to themselves, "Well, I don't have any fruit according to my definition and understanding of what fruit is, therefore I'm not a believer." But Ryrie is saying, or we can conclude based on what Ryrie is saying, that such a believer as the one I just described really may not see things the way God sees things (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; Prov. 24:12). They have fruit, they just don't recognize it!
You went on to ask: "As you mentioned it is not possible for you to see every part of someone else's life, but of course someone knows their own external works. Since a person knows their own external works, is that to mean that someone can tell if they are saved or not by their own conduct? Or is all of this meant to be in the hypothetical situation that works are able to prove or disprove if someone is saved? What about fruit that bears in heaven? I believe I may have misunderstood something."
I believe I have answered these questions in my response above. If you need further clarification please let me know.
You also asked: "what is the difference between the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of whether one has sinned or not. For instance, a believer most likely knows whether or not what they are doing is right, and that isn't necessarily the discipline/rebuke of the Lord (By the way when I use rebuke and convict interchangeably, it's because the word elenchō is used as the word for rebuke in Hebrews 12:5 as rebuke). Since believers are supposed to be rebuked/convicted of their righteousness/sin, how would that take place since someone can know if they are sinning or not before or while actively sinning?"
I'm not sure if I fully understand your question, but as far as the difference between the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of whether one has sinned or not, it depends. In the context of John 16:8-11, it is referring to an unbeliever being convicted about their specific sin of unbelief in Christ, and if by "the knowledge of whether one has sinned or not" you are referring to an unbeliever acknowledging their unbelief in Christ, then I would say that is the result of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
As far as the Christian is concerned, or in the context of a person who is already a believer, the Holy Spirit has many more ministries in our lives. For example, Jesus says the Spirit guides us in all truth (Jn. 16:13). But Christians can grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) and quench the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19). So we need to instead "walk by means of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16).
Thank you for the clarification, that helped me understand Ryrie's statement much better.
On fruit, would it be correct then to say that one cannot prove or disprove their or someone else's salvation from external works because they are not totally identifiable, as well that there is invisible fruit in heaven that one cannot see? On that note however, wouldn't the viewing of external fruit not be relevant to someone since all believers bear fruit in heaven the moment they are saved? Meaning all believers have fruit to begin with? In that way, since it is assured by scripture (Luke 15:7, Romans 5:1) someone could see the fruit they have bore in heaven since they repented to be saved.
For conviction, I had meant to say what would the difference be from God's rebuke as chastisement, and the general knowledge of what is sin or not. An example would be, X is sinful. A believer already knows it is sinful, yet still does it. In another example, the believer did X, but the Holy Spirit convicted them of their sin/righteousness, making them aware of their sin. What would be the difference in these two scenarios?
Hi Thomas,
In regards to your question, "On fruit, would it be correct then to say that one cannot prove or disprove their or someone else's salvation from external works because they are not totally identifiable, as well that there is invisible fruit in heaven that one cannot see?"
Yes exactly, that is my understanding.
In regards to you questions, "On that note however, wouldn't the viewing of external fruit not be relevant to someone since all believers bear fruit in heaven the moment they are saved? Meaning all believers have fruit to begin with?"
Yes, you could say it that way. Personally, I don't know if I would say the viewing of external fruit "is not relevant" in terms of proving or disproving if a person is saved or not (although I understand what you are saying), but maybe a better way of saying it is that the viewing of external fruit is not the core issue/is not the real issue in proving or disproving if a person is saved or not. In other words, maybe a statement of fact is a better way of saying it, i.e. the viewing of external fruit does not prove or disprove if someone is saved or not (which is what you said to begin with).
The viewing of external fruit is relevant in regards to other things, such as everything the Bible says about good works after salvation. But only God and the Christian know for sure if he/she is saved or not, not because of having or not having fruit, but because of having believed in Christ for salvation (cf. Eph. 1:12-13).
In regards to when you asked, "wouldn't the viewing of external fruit not be relevant to someone since all believers bear fruit in heaven the moment they are saved? Meaning all believers have fruit to begin with?"
Yes, correct. That is my understanding.
You also said: "In that way, since it is assured by scripture (Luke 15:7, Romans 5:1) someone could see the fruit they have bore in heaven since they repented to be saved."
Yes to your point that the fruit in heaven is assured by Scripture. That is key. And in regards to your point about if a newly saved person "could see the fruit they have bore in heaven since they repented to be saved" (and as a result of it the angels in heaven rejoiced according to what Jesus says in Luke 15:7), yes, in a manner of speaking someone could "see" that fruit, but only according to Scripture. I mean, it is only by faith (or with the eyes of faith) that a person would know that they have fruit in that case, since of course the fruit they have bore in heaven is not visible to their physical senses. At least in regards to the angels in heaven rejoicing (Luke 15:7), a person cannot see that with the physical senses. But in regards to having "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1), like Ryrie said, the newly saved person may have a smile on their face and they would be able to physically see that and know about that. But on the other hand, as I mentioned previously, the newly saved person may not fully understand or recognize their new "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) as a fruit.
So just to sum it up, I would answer basically yes to your statement when you said: "Meaning all believers have fruit to begin with? In that way, since it is assured by scripture (Luke 15:7, Romans 5:1) someone could see the fruit they have bore in heaven since they repented to be saved."
In regards to your question about conviction, you asked: "For conviction, I had meant to say what would the difference be from God's rebuke as chastisement, and the general knowledge of what is sin or not."
In John 16:7-11, for example, the context has to do with the Holy Spirit bringing unbelievers to the realization and acknowledgement of their sin of unbelief in Christ. But in the context you mentioned referring to Christians, the word for conviction is translated "rebuke", and that has to do with believers coming to the realization and acknowledgment of various other sins in the Christian life. In The Theological Wordbook, in the entry for the word "Conviction", after talking about how the word is used in John 16:7-11, the entry goes on to say (on page 72): "In addition to describing the convicting work of God's Spirit, the Greek word elenchō is also used of the practice of reproving, rebuking, or correcting within the Christian community. This theme is frequently seen in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:15)."
I think I get it a bit better now. To make sure I understand everything to take away from this conversation, I'll make a small statement just to make sure I got it all correct.
When someone is saved fruit bears in heaven with their newfound peace with God, and the angels rejoice for their salvation. Genuine faith will bear fruit, and normally at some point will reveal itself through conduct, but external fruit is not needed for the faith to be genuine since fruit bears in heaven at the moment of repentance meaning someone already has fruit the moment they are saved. Hypothetically someone could have no external fruit but has faith since fruit bears in heaven (like a deathbed/moment before death conversion) but is not really the normal case of most believers. Even if all of them could be monitored 24/7, external works are not adequate enough to prove or disprove one's own or someone else's salvation because they are subjective, not clearly identifiable, not always visible to others or oneself and in some cases even invisible (like fruit that bears in heaven at the moment of or after salvation). Examination of fruit and/or faith is not the correct way of gaining assurance of salvation due to the aforementioned reasons and one needs to keep their eyes on the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Yes! I agree with that. I think your statement is well said and is an excellent summary. Thank you.
Ah thank you! So my statement got everything from Ryrie's position correct, yes?
Hi Jonathon. Ironically after writing the statement I had thought helped me understand everything in our earlier talk about fruit and assurance, but either due to another misunderstanding or my own logical fallacies I have become a bit confused again.
As mentioned before, it is understood that all faith will bear fruit. As Charles Bing put it in one of his GraceNotes, "Does regeneration inevitably produce a changed life? We would have to conclude, Yes. There are many reasons to believe it does". And Zane Hodges put it, "The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion-even bizarre. We reject it categorically". Of course as I have mentioned before, I doubt that there is a believer who has not done something good externally in their life, but the emphasis on a changed life makes me wonder, even if internal and external fruit is not always recognizable, wouldn't some evidence of a change of life/examination of external works be necessary for one to have assurance of salvation? As some ministries have said for assurance, look at how much your life has changed since being born again. It also reminds me of the saying "no fruit, no root". Ryrie said "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men.", implying that true faith will reveal itself to others through external conduct, and not just internal works. Would it be true that in the life of a believer external works too are inevitable, and not just the ones in heaven? If so, knowing this fact, wouldn't examination of oneself be necessary for someone to examine works to see if they or another is saved or not?
My apologies for belaboring this discussion.
P.S. In the end of this blog post when you said "Again, let's see what Charles Ryrie says in regards to the question. Does Ryrie say that evidence of a changed life is not an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? By no means! In fact, he says quite the opposite" were you just talking about inferring if others are saved?
Yes, the only thing you might want to clarify if when you said, "Examination of fruit and/or faith is not the correct way of gaining assurance of salvation due to the aforementioned reasons and one needs to keep their eyes on the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross."
Instead of saying "is not the correct way", Ryrie would probably say something more like, "Examination of fruit and/or faith is not the primary way of gaining assurance of salvation...." In Ryrie's book So Great Salvation, he talks about assurance of salvation on pages 142-143 and he says there is the objective ground for assurance which is that God's Word declares that I am saved through faith. There is also the subjective ground for assurance which is related to my experiences. In regards to the subjective ground for assurance, Ryrie says, "Certain changes do accompany salvation, and when I see some of those changes, then I can be assured that I have received the new life."
Now, of course for a deathbed conversion, these changes would possibly be very difficult if not impossible for a new believer to see (except with the eyes of faith, as you mentioned), and I think this is where your summary statement fits in. (I mean your summary statement fits in with Ryrie's example of a deathbed conversion.)
Hi Thomas,
I just saw your comments/questions about a "changed life" after I posted my previous comment. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will answer with a few short thoughts and if you need further clarification please let me know.
When Ryrie says, "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men." Notice that Ryrie doesn't specifically say WHERE that occurs. In other words, people IN HEAVEN could see our faith, since there are men in heaven (e.g. Jesus, Elijah, and Enoch) right now, and there will also be men in heaven in the future. I'm not saying that I interpret Ryrie's statement that way, but someone could interpret it that way. Furthermore, Ryrie also does not specify exactly WHEN this would occur. In other words, when is Ryrie saying that our productive faith "will be seen...before men"? So for example, could this take place at the Judgment Seat of Christ IN THE FUTURE, when "what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men" when each person receives praise from God (1 Cor. 4:5) and we all receive eternal rewards? These are just some thoughts to show that Ryrie's statement can be interpreted in various ways, and Ryrie is just giving a general principle, he doesn't get into the details or into the specifics. For example, Ryrie doesn't get into the question of "What about deathbed conversions?" Whereas in Ryrie's example of a deathbed conversion, the newly saved person may not have the time or opportunity to live their life "before men" (on earth). Ryrie even affirms this when he writes the following under the heading "WHAT ABOUT DEATHBED CONVERSIONS?":
"For another thing, our Lord said that when someone is converted there is joy in the presence of the angels of God (Luke 15:10). Would that not be fruit that a converted-on-his-death-bed-and-immediately-dying person bears? Not necessarily fruit to be seen by other people [on earth] (unless there be some moments just before death where family and friends might see or even hear of the change). But fruit seen and appreciated by angels in heaven. The account of a deathbed conversion may bear fruit in the lives of others not so long or long after the person dies. Reports of this happening at funeral services are not uncommon. So likely it can truly be said that every believer will bear fruit somewhere (in earth and/or heaven), sometime (regularly and/or irregularly during life), somehow (publicly and/or privately). Fruit, then, furnishes evidence of saving faith. The evidence may be strong or weak, erratic or regular, visible or not. But a saving, living faith works." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, pp. 46-47, bold added.)
Continued below...
And in regards to when I said, "Does Ryrie say that evidence of a changed life is not an important indication of whether a person is truly born again? By no means! In fact, he says quite the opposite".
In other words, I was saying that Ryrie agrees that "a changed life is...an important indication of whether a person is truly born again". Notice that I said a changed life is "an important indication" that a person is truly saved. The key words are that a changed life is "an important indication"--I didn't say that other people will always see it (the person's changed life). A newly saved person could have a changed life without others seeing it (like in the example of a deathbed conversion). And also notice that I didn't say that a changed life is the only indication that a person has been born again. The person's faith in Christ (which is seen by God) and the corresponding testimony of God's Word that we are saved by faith is the primary indication that a person has been born again. Also, if a newly saved person has the time and/or opportunity to give a testimony of his or her faith in Christ, this would also be "an important indication" that he or she has been truly born again.
Continued below...
Remember, even an unsaved person can do external "good works", so external good works and really not conclusive evidence that a person is saved. It reminds me of what the Bible says in Matthew 7:21-23, when Jesus says: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven [i.e. believe in Christ, Jn. 6:40]. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." So notice that Jesus here doesn't dispute the fact that these people did "many wonderful works"! These people even called Jesus "Lord, Lord"! This is Lordship Salvation, unbelievers calling Jesus "Lord" but not completely trusting in Him alone for salvation. What did they say? They talked about all their "wonderful works". This is Lordship Salvation.
Dr. Ralph "Yankee" Arnold affirms: "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 going to 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." (Ralph "Yankee" Arnold, "JESUS vs John MacArthur", July 28, 2019, time stamp: 20:15 - 21:45.)
I just found this excellent quote by Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society affirming that all believers will normally have good works if they live long enough (so in other words, in the case of a deathbed conversion, that would be an exception to the following statement):
"FGT [Free Grace Theology] teaches that regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth. (Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done.)"
This quote is from Wilkin's article titled, "Does Free Grace Theology Diminish the Gospel? A Review of Wayne Grudem’s "'Free Grace Theology': Five Ways it Diminishes the Gospel"; Part 1" (September 1, 2016).
This statement by Wilkin is in agreement with what Zane Hodges and Charles Bing have said in the quotes you mentioned above. And according to Ryrie, if someone died immediately after they got saved, they may not have done any good works (which is also what Bob Wilkin said), but they will still have fruit as a result of their faith in Christ because of having "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1) and the angels in heaven rejoicing at their salvation (Luke 15:10).
Hi Jonathon, thanks for the reply. I understand you may not have too much time at the moment, so to make it easier for the moments you do, I will chop all of my questions into numbered ones again. I will mention some things discussed before to make sure everything is understood clearly on my end, so please forgive me if some things sound repetitive.
To make sure we are on the same page, when I say "changed life", I generally mean the way a person acts either internally or externally.
1. On Ryrie's point on assurance, is Ryrie saying that one cannot have full assurance that he/she is saved if he/she does not see his/her subjective fruit over a period of time after being saved? In his statement "Certain changes do accompany salvation, and when I see some of those changes, then I can be assured that I have received the new life." that is what I had taken from it. Although one can strengthen one's salvation by looking at the subjective evidence, is the secondary evidence (or lack of it) strong enough to remove assurance that someone has been saved?
2. On Ryrie's quote, would that interpretation of what he had said be possibly correct? The only thing is that when he says "before men" it reminds me of James 2:14-26 with your works being dead in the eyes of men. However, as you did say Ryrie did not specify where this fruit bears, nor when. May I ask what you made of this quote from Ryrie?
3. On the "changed life" section on the end of this article, this again relates to my first question. With "an important indication", would this mean this indication would be strong enough to prove to his/herself or someone else that he/she is not saved?
4. On unbelievers doing "good works", I exactly agree. The Lordship Salvation camp's emphasis on works reminds me of Matthew 7:21-23, which you quoted. It's a lot like that question "Why should you be accepted into heaven?". It's not because of works of charity a person made during his/her life, or the amount of people they spread the Gospel to, or the fact they attended a church. It is because of God's grace that he/she was saved.
5. On Wilkin's quote, would this mean that if a believer did one good work after their supposed salvation, it would count as subjective evidence they are saved? And as this is a fact, how could one measure what good works they have? Like my question before, since it is generally accepted that external good works are inevitable like the fruit that bears in heaven, wouldn't that make it an integral part of the primary bases of assurance?
6. I understand that hypothetical situations are not always the most helpful (especially in the "stranded survivor" scenarios with John 6:43-47!), but I feel making a specific example in this case could help me understand and rationalize everything a bit better.
Let's say that a man decides to become a believer and put his faith in Christ. He lived a moderate life before becoming a believer, but still did things the unbelieving world approved of (i.e. swearing, lying, etc.). After some years after his conversion, he realizes that his life really hasn't changed. He still uses foul language and lies his way out of his problems. He knows that fruit may bear invisibly, but he cannot discern a change despite his supposed salvation. He knew some of the things he did were sinful, but still did them anyway. Thus, noticing how non of his lifestyle changed (at least from what he can see) he looks to Christ for assurance he has been saved. But from what he can tell, he has not seen any positive changes subjectively. Would such a person be saved? Or from looking at his external conduct, should he have reason to doubt his salvation?
On another note, there was a not so-related question I had concerning repentance. I realize I kind of bombarded you with questions for which I must apologize, please understand there is no rush in answering anything.
In Bob Wilkin's book review "Does Free Grace Theology Diminish the Gospel? A Review of Wayne Grudem’s "'Free Grace Theology': Five Ways it Diminishes the Gospel" that you cited, Wilkins mentioned the different views of repentance that is present in the Free Grace camp, something I had noticed varying a bit.
1. Wilkins mentioned Charlie Bing's definition of repentance and compared it to Joseph Dillow's definition. Dillows definition is a more than a change of mind, and is a "desire to be different" and to turn from sin. Bing's definition in his words, is a "change of heart" due to the change of an inner attitude and moral direction. Although Wilkins states that Bing's definition is different that Ryrie and Lewis Chafer's definition and is closer to Dillow's defintion, but I did not take it that way. When I had heard Bing's statemnt of "refers to a person’s inner change of attitude and moral direction" I had taken it as a recognition of the sinful condition, and recognizing what sin actually is. Would you say I understood Bing's statement correctly?
2. On the topic of Dillow's definition, I had noticed that some other's are characterized by his view on repentance as well. For example, pastor Kelly Sensenig's definitions of repentance are:
"Biblical repentance is a change of attitude toward sin and a desire to no longer live in rebellion against God" (Kelly Sensenig, The Errors of Lordship Salvation, pg. 9)
"There needs to be an inward turning to God from sin or desire for pardon and cleansing" (Kelly Sensenig, Lordship Salvation, pg. 132)
Pastor Sensenig also states that someone can change his/her mind about sin and not be saved due to their lack of a desire to be changed and love of sin. He emphasized the "inward turning from sin" in his repentance. May I ask what you think of Dillow and Sensenig's definition of repentance? It seems quite different from Ryrie's.
3. This is where another hypothetical situation comes in. This one I had gotten from a follower of Dillow. The question is, can someone who does not have a desire to serve the Lord, not want or plan to turn from sin or change his/her life around, and continue doing things his/her way and repent unto salvation?
There's a lot to unpack here, but I must thank you for your patience with my cumbersome understanding of these things.
Hi Thomas,
Those are all very good questions! Thank you for your patience and understanding if I take some time responding back due to time constraints.
In regards to your first question: "1. On Ryrie's point on assurance, is Ryrie saying that one cannot have full assurance that he/she is saved if he/she does not see his/her subjective fruit over a period of time after being saved? In his statement "Certain changes do accompany salvation, and when I see some of those changes, then I can be assured that I have received the new life." that is what I had taken from it. Although one can strengthen one's salvation by looking at the subjective evidence, is the secondary evidence (or lack of it) strong enough to remove assurance that someone has been saved?"
Personally, I didn't interpret Ryrie as saying that "one cannot have full assurance that he/she is saved if he/she does not see his/her subjective fruit over a period of time after being saved". Remember, Ryrie made it clear that "Fruit, then, furnishes evidence of saving faith. The evidence may be strong or weak, erratic or regular, visible or not." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, p. 47, bold added.) When Ryrie says that the fruit may be "visible or not", I understand that to mean both in regards to others and also in regards to the saved person himself/herself. In other words, the saved person may not even see their own fruit! (For example, if the person's only fruit is that which is only seen in heaven such as when the angels in heaven rejoiced at their salvation.)
I think the key words that you said in your comment are that subjective experience is "the secondary evidence" of assurance. (This is also how I interpret Ryrie's comments on assurance.) If it is indeed secondary evidence then it's not the only factor involved and the primary evidence must be considered first and most important. Thus, the testimony of God's Word that we are saved by faith, and the fact that God sees our faith even if we don't--these things are the primary evidence of assurance. And remember that faith is the assurance of things NOT SEEN. (See Hebrews 11:1). I know I am saved not because of what I do or don't do (in terms of visible fruit that I see in my life), but because I by faith trust the promises of God in His Word! This is what I believe and this is how I interpret what Ryrie is saying on assurance in his book So Great Salvation.
Continued below....
I also should add that I agree with you when you said that the secondary evidence of assurance (seeing Godly changes in one's life) "can strengthen one's salvation by looking at the subjective evidence". The secondary evidence of assurance (or the lack of it) is not enough to remove one's assurance of salvation because even if the secondary evidence of assurance is completely absent, the primary basis of assurance is still true, which is the testimony of God's Word that we are saved by faith. So the secondary evidence of assurance cannot completely remove the grounds for assurance, it can only strengthen assurance and add confirmatory evidence to the primary basis of assurance. However, if a person doesn't believe the primary evidence of assurance which the testimony of God's Word that we are saved by faith, then of course a person's assurance could be affected in the subjective sense, but not objectively since the Word of God is true regardless of whether I believe it or not. So the key issue is knowing what God's Word says about the primary basis for our assurance of salvation, and believing it! Changes that I see (or don't see) in my life are secondary and must be understood as such. They are not the primary basis for assurance, but always secondary evidence.
So if I don't see Godly changes in my life after salvation, it doesn't mean that I'm not saved, it is some other issue. It is a Christian life issue, not a saved or not saved issue. For example, if I don't see Godly changes in my life after salvation, it probably means that I'm not walking in fellowship with my Heavenly Father (1 John 1:1-7). I'm not walking by means of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). I'm not growing in grace (2 Pet. 3:18). I'm not being an obedient Christian (Rom. 6). In other words, it is a sanctification issue, not a justification issue.
Hi Jonathon. Just to add onto the not so-related questions, I had one other thing to ask.
4. On the topic of conviction, the reason I was clarifying the meaning of conviction in relation to the Christian life is due to the fact I have seen it said (although very rarely) that if one does not experience conviction (or guilt in many cases as that is what conviction is misused as sometimes) when they sin, they are not saved, and that testing whether you feel conviction or experience chastisement when they sin (Heb. 12:5-11) is for assurance of salvation. This however seems to me a very unsteady grounds for assurance, since someone can grieve the spirit and not be very "Godly-minded". However, at the same time, Heb. 12:8 states that God surely disciplines every believer and I wanted to know what you had thought about this.
Hi Thomas,
In regards to your question number 2, when you said: "2. On Ryrie's quote, would that interpretation of what he had said be possibly correct? The only thing is that when he says "before men" it reminds me of James 2:14-26 with your works being dead in the eyes of men. However, as you did say Ryrie did not specify where this fruit bears, nor when. May I ask what you made of this quote from Ryrie?"
Yes, I agree with you. I looked up that quote by Ryrie and in context he is talking about James chapter 2 and our works being seen by other people here on earth. (See the statement by Ryrie in his book So Great Salvation [1989 edition], page 132.) So personally, that's how I would interpret Ryrie's comment. I think the other interpretation that I gave above is POSSIBLY correct biblically speaking, but I don't think that's what Ryrie was specifically talking about in the context of when he made that statement.
In regards to when you asked, "May I ask what you made of this quote from Ryrie?"
I think you are referring to when Ryrie says, "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men." (Ryrie, SGS, p. 132.)
I would interpret this statement by Ryrie taking into consideration Bob Wilkin's comment when he said, "FGT [Free Grace Theology] teaches that regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth. (Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done.)"
I think Ryrie and Wilkin are saying the same thing on this particular issue. In other words, when Ryrie says, "what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men", it is essentially the same as saying that "regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth." And in light of Ryrie's statements regarding the question of "WHAT ABOUT DEATHBED CONVERSIONS?", it is essentially the same as saying what Wilkin said in summary: "Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done."
So the way that I interpret Ryrie comment is that he is saying normally or generally speaking such and such is true, or in other words: "what we are in Christ will [normally] be seen in what we are before men." I think this interpretation of Ryrie's statement is necessary in light of what he says about deathbed conversions, in which case Ryrie says that men on earth may not see any visible good works done by the newly saved convert.
Just to follow-up on my previous comments (still in regards to your question #2), I should probably point out one other thing in regards to when Ryrie says, "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989], see pp. 132-134.)
I want to say one other thing in regards to the first half of Ryrie's statement, when he says, "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith". I want to emphasize that even if a newly saved convert dies (or in Ryrie's words, it is a "deathbed conversion") and thus the saved individual has no time or opportunity to do any outward good works that men around him on earth see, that person's faith is still a productive faith due to it's fruit bearing in heaven, such as the angels of God rejoicing (Luke 15:10), and the newly saved individual having "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1).
So Ryrie's statement is still true in both regards (in regards to the first half of his statement and in regards to the second half of his statement), and in light of what he says about deathbed conversions, my interpretation of Ryrie's statement is as follows: "Unproductive faith is a spurious faith; therefore, what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men [assuming the person does not die immediately after getting saved]."
In regards to your question number 3, "3. On the "changed life" section on the end of this article, this again relates to my first question. With "an important indication", would this mean this indication would be strong enough to prove to his/herself or someone else that he/she is not saved?"
I should preface my response by saying that I agree with your definition of a "changed life" when you said earlier that "when I say 'changed life', I generally mean the way a person acts either internally or externally."
I think that is good that you said "either internally or externally." The internal change is the part that I think proponents of Lordship Salvation fail to adequately take into consideration. For example, they love to quote 2 Corinthians 5:17 to say that all Christians will have a Godly change in their lifestyle, but that verse is first and foremost talking about an internal change, a new creation. In the words of Jesus, it is a new birth, a spiritual birth. In other words, a person can look the same externally five minutes after they get saved from the way they looked five minutes before they got saved. (You can't tell who is saved and who isn't by looking at outward appearances.) Dr. J. Vernon McGee affirms this when he writes the following comments on 2 Corinthians 5:17 in his Thru The Bible commentary. McGee says: "Here we have a tremendous statement. Allow me to change the word creature to the word creation. 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation.' We hear this verse often at testimony meetings. People will quote this verse and tell about their conversion. They say they no longer indulge in certain bad habits that they had before their conversion, and they consider this change in their habits to be a fulfillment of this verse. If you and I are a new creation in Christ Jesus, what are the old things that have passed away? Remember that we have talked about all mankind living at the bottom of the hill where all of us are sinners. Now that we have trusted Christ, those old relationships have passed away. We are no longer identified with Adam. We are no longer identified with the world system. We are now identified with Christ. We have been baptized into the body of believers and we belong to Him. The old things have passed away, and the new thing is this new relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not in a relationship with the glorified Christ. Let's be very practical about this. You may ask, 'I know that is a wonderful verse, but how may I know absolutely that I am a new creation in Christ?' Listen to what the Lord Jesus said: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life' (John 5:24). Have you believed in the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you trust Him? If you do, He assures you that you have eternal life and will not come into judgement; you have passed from death unto life. This makes you a new creation, no longer subject to judgment and death. You have passed into life. Do not try to base your confidence on experience. You are a new creation because Jesus says so. The basis is the Word of God. You no longer belong to the old creation that fell in Adam. The new creation stands in Christ Jesus, and you are in Him if you are putting your trust in Him. You and I stand in the place of danger and temptation; we may fail in many, many ways, but the wonderful truth is that the Lord Jesus Christ has redeemed us and we are a new creation in Him."
Continued below....
A changed life is an important indication of whether a person is saved or not, but I don't believe it's strong enough to prove that he/she is not saved. (Here I am talking about a "changed life" externally speaking.) Remember, reformation is not salvation. A person can clean up their lifestyle and stop their bad habits and become a moral person (and even become religious!) and turn into an upstanding citizen and do all kinds of good things, but that doesn't mean they got saved. They could just be a moral and/or religious person on their way to Hell! (The apostle Paul talks about this in Romans chapter 2.)
H. A. Ironside has made some excellent comments on how reformation of one's lifestyle is not salvation. Dr. Ironside says:
"...let us remember that reformation is not repentance, however closely allied to, or springing out if, it. To turn over a new leaf, to attempt to supplant bad habits with good ones, to try to life well instead of evilly, may not be the outcome of repentance at all and should never be confounded with it. Reformation is merely an outward change. Repentance is a work of God in the soul." (Ironside, Except Ye Repent, p. 14.)
"What the unsaved man needs is not a repairing of his life. He needs a new life altogether, which comes only through a second birth." (Ironside, Except Ye Repent, p. 14.)
So although a changed life (externally) is an important indication of whether or not a person is saved (because repentance as "a change of mind" normally leads to "a change of life" given the time and opportunity for it), the external change is not the main issue in salvation (in other words, it is not the foundational issue: see 1 Cor. 3:11-15). The main issue is: "What think ye of Christ?" (Matthew 22:42, KJV). Does the person have a relationship with Jesus? Who or what are they trusting in for salvation? This is the key issue.
As the saying goes, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."
In regards to when you asked: "3. On the 'changed life' section on the end of this article, this again relates to my first question [about assurance of salvation]. With 'an important indication', would this mean this indication would be strong enough to prove to his/herself or someone else that he/she is not saved?"
In my responses above, I answered your question by taking "changed life" to mean more of an external changed life. But if you are asking about an internal "changed life", I would again answer no (if by "to prove" you mean "to correctly prove"), because a saved individual can "grieve the Holy Spirit" (Eph. 4:30) and "quench the Spirit" (1 Thess. 5:19), and thus the person may not be in a position to accurately perceive or judge his internal changed life. In other words, let's say the person truly got saved and thus there was an internal "changed life", a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17). Jesus said the when the Holy Spirit comes, He will teach you all things (Jn. 14:26). So when a person doesn't rely on the Spirit to guide him or her "into all truth" (Jn. 16:13, KJV), then that person may come to a wrong conclusion about spiritual things, for they are "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).
How does this lack of assurance come about? Maybe after getting saved the person came under false teaching, or maybe her or she was never discipled (not disciplined, but discipled as in Matthew 28:19-20), or maybe they "fell away" from the faith (cf. Luke 8:6, 8:13), or for any other number of reasons they fail to really have assurance of salvation. This doesn't mean they are not saved, but it means they are not experiencing the "joy of their salvation" (Psalm 51:12; Rom. 15:13), they are not experiencing the "full assurance of hope" (Heb. 6:11) that they could have.
And in regards to proving to other people if someone is saved and they have no perceived internal nor external changed life, I think the comments of Charles Bing are excellent from his book Simply By Grace, which I have quoted in a previous comment. Other people are really not in a position to always accurately judge whether or not someone truly has good works in their life, for a variety of reasons. I will copy and paste my previous comments from Dr. Bing's book below:
Continued below....
Dr. Charles Bing writes about this in his book Simply By Grace (the foreword is written by Dr. Charles Ryrie). In chapter 8: "Grace and Good Works," Dr. Bing asks the question: "Can Good Works Prove Salvation?" Under this heading he writes, "There is every reason to expect that those who have believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and are consequently born into God's family will experience a changed life to some degree. Some want to see this changed life--sometimes called 'fruit' or evidence--as proof that a person is saved." Dr. Bing goes on to list several problems with that approach, such as:
-"Good works can characterize non-Christians" ("Works in and of themselves cannot prove that anyone is eternally saved. Those who have not believed in Christ will often do good things.")
-"Good works can be hard to define" (how do we know if and when a Christian does a good work by means of the Spirit or not?)
-"Good works are relative" (e.g. not cursing whereas "before his conversion curse words flowed freely")
-"Good works can be passive in nature" (e.g. not getting drunk, the fruit of self-control)
-"Good works can be unseen" (i.e. praying in secret, Matt. 6:1-6)
-"Good works can be deceptive" ("Since we cannot know a person's motives, a seeming good work could be done for the wrong reason.")
-"Good works can be inconsistent" (i.e. "believers who begin well but fall away from their walk with the Lord or fall into sin." For example, 1 Cor. 11:30; 2 Tim. 2:17-18, 4:10; James 5:19-20.)
See Charles Bing, Simply By Grace (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2009), pp. 84-87. See the following link to read an excerpt from chapter 8 of Bing's book:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Simply_by_Grace/yDScVTxJ-bcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA84&printsec=frontcover
For question number 5 you asked: "5. On Wilkin's quote, would this mean that if a believer did one good work after their supposed salvation, it would count as subjective evidence they are saved? And as this is a fact, how could one measure what good works they have? Like my question before, since it is generally accepted that external good works are inevitable like the fruit that bears in heaven, wouldn't that make it an integral part of the primary bases of assurance?"
In regards to when you asked: "On Wilkin's quote, would this mean that if a believer did one good work after their supposed salvation, it would count as subjective evidence they are saved?"
Well, yes, the believer's one good work is evidence of salvation is it not? I'm not saying it is conclusive evidence, but it is evidence. Subjective? Yes, you could say that I suppose, depending on the circumstances of the good work. (Maybe other people saw the good work and then it would also be objective evidence.) Of course, ultimately only God can be the true judge of whether or not the work is truly good (cf. 1 Cor. 4:5). But for the sake of the argument I am agreeing and assuming that it is truly a good work.
You went on to ask: "And as this is a fact, how could one measure what good works they have?"
Only God is the perfect and all-knowing Judge, and he will judge us with complete accuracy at the Judgement Seat of Christ. Even the apostle Paul says, "I do not even examine myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself; however I am not vindicated by this, but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of human hearts; and then praise will come to each person from God" (1 Cor. 4:3b-5). So in answer to your question about "how can one measure what good works they have?" I would say this is not really our job, at least not in the final analysis where we would make a true determination, leave that to God. That's His job and He will do it much better than we can!
Continued below....
In regards to when you asked: "Like my question before, since it is generally accepted that external good works are inevitable like the fruit that bears in heaven, wouldn't that make it an integral part of the primary bases of assurance?"
No, because that assumes that we can always recognize our good works with 100% accuracy--and who would be so bold to make that claim? We would practically have to be God Himself to judge our own good works with 100% accuracy! In other words, we might not recognize the good work(s), or we might recognize it incorrectly. (Such as if we think we did a good work, but in God’s eyes it really isn’t a good work because it was done with a wrong motive.) Let me again quote the apostle Paul when he says, "I do not even examine myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself; however I am not vindicated by this, but the one who examines me is the Lord. Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of human hearts; and then praise will come to each person from God." (1 Cor. 4:3b-5) It reminds me of the example that I mentioned previously about how someone might thank you for your patience and you maybe didn't even realize that you were being patient! (Patience is a fruit of the Spirit according to what Paul says in Galatians 5:22.) In other words, what if someone did "one good work" (as you mentioned previously), but for whatever reason they didn't recognize it as a "good work" biblically speaking. Maybe they just weren't thinking about it that way, or maybe they had something else on their mind, or for whatever reason they never realized it. But it was a good work nonetheless. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying they got amnesia or memory loss. Maybe they knew they did whatever it was that was a good work, but they never stopped to consider that it was a "good work" biblical speaking. Like holding the door open for someone, for example. And let's say they just forgot about it. Maybe it wasn't a big thing to them and they didn't think anything of it. So what about that? My guess is that this happens much more frequently than we realize! This relates to what I said previously about how there may be many reasons for why people lack assurance. For example, maybe they came under false teaching immediately after getting saved. So they are doing good works, but they never stopped to think about it, or maybe they thought about it the wrong way. So my point is, one's subjective experience (which is FALLIBLE) is more like a secondary basis for assurance rather than the primary basis for assurance, which is the Word of God (and which is INFALLIBLE).
Continued below....
I would again refer you to the comments of Dr. Charles Bing from his book Simply By Grace (see pages 84-87 of his book) which I have discussed in some of my previous comments, when he talks about how good works really don’t prove one’s salvation. Concerning this Dr. Bing writes, “There is no passage of Scripture that claims works can prove salvation. In fact, there are many problems with trying to use works to prove salvation—or the lack of works to disprove salvation.” Dr. Bing then lists the points which I have highlighted in previous comments, such as:
--Good works can characterize non-Christians.
--Good works can be hard to define.
--Good works are relative.
--Good works can be passive in nature.
--Good works can be unseen.
--Good works can be deceptive.
--Good works can be inconsistent.
Dr. Bing then again emphasizes: “Nowhere does the Bible teach that fruit or good works can prove one’s salvation. Since the fruit of good works is not easily discerned or quantified, it cannot be reliable proof of salvation. The subjective nature of measuring one’s fruit creates the impossibility of knowing objectively whether one is saved. The amount of fruit necessary to please one Christian ‘fruit inspector’ may not please the next ‘fruit inspector.’ While good works can be corroborating evidence for one’s faith in Christ, they are not sufficient to prove or disprove it. Only faith in God’s promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ guarantees and proves our salvation.”
For your question number six, you said: "6. I understand that hypothetical situations are not always the most helpful (especially in the "stranded survivor" scenarios with John 6:43-47!), but I feel making a specific example in this case could help me understand and rationalize everything a bit better. Let's say that a man decides to become a believer and put his faith in Christ. He lived a moderate life before becoming a believer, but still did things the unbelieving world approved of (i.e. swearing, lying, etc.). After some years after his conversion, he realizes that his life really hasn't changed. He still uses foul language and lies his way out of his problems. He knows that fruit may bear invisibly, but he cannot discern a change despite his supposed salvation. He knew some of the things he did were sinful, but still did them anyway. Thus, noticing how non of his lifestyle changed (at least from what he can see) he looks to Christ for assurance he has been saved. But from what he can tell, he has not seen any positive changes subjectively. Would such a person be saved? Or from looking at his external conduct, should he have reason to doubt his salvation?"
In answer to your first question: "Would such a person be saved?" let me review some of the key facts as you stated them to make your I'm understanding you correctly. You said:
"...a man decides to become a believer and put his faith in Christ."
"After some years after his conversion...."
So this is the real issue. If the man indeed "put his faith in Christ" and was converted, he is saved! But if the man never really trusted Christ for salvation, then of course he's not saved. Don't get confused by anything else. The issue in justification is faith in Christ, period. For what does the Bible say? "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Romans 5:1).
Concerning fruit, you said that after the man's salvation his lifestyle did not change "at least from what he can see". So that's your answer! What man is all-knowing? What man is all-seeing? Only God Himself right? So if the man in your question doesn't see any changes, all that shows is that he is not omniscient, otherwise why would you have to qualify it by saying "at least from what he can see"? So the point is, he can't see certain things, or doesn't see certain things, such as maybe the blessing something he said has been to someone else (which he never realized), or maybe his not doing something bad that most other men would do has made a positive impact on someone because they see a difference in him that he isn't even aware of himself! So again, the point is, the man's evaluation of his fruit is completely subjective and fallible. It should never be relied upon as conclusive evidence that he is saved or unsaved. Instead, what should be relied upon as the primary basis for assurance of salvation is the infallible and inerrant Word of God, which clearly says that we are saved through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9).
So I think I've addressed all your questions from you comment on August 21, 2021 10:58 PM, so now I will move on to respond to your other questions concerning repentance from your August 22, 2021 4:11 AM comment.
You asked: "1. Wilkins mentioned Charlie Bing's definition of repentance and compared it to Joseph Dillow's definition. Dillows definition is a more than a change of mind, and is a 'desire to be different' and to turn from sin. Bing's definition in his words, is a 'change of heart' due to the change of an inner attitude and moral direction. Although Wilkins states that Bing's definition is different that Ryrie and Lewis Chafer's definition and is closer to Dillow's defintion, but I did not take it that way. When I had heard Bing's statemnt of 'refers to a person’s inner change of attitude and moral direction' I had taken it as a recognition of the sinful condition, and recognizing what sin actually is. Would you say I understood Bing's statement correctly?"
Yes, I agree with you. I would say that you have understood Bing's statement correctly.
Let me just say a few words in regards to Dillow's view of repentance. I would basically agree with your analysis of Dillow's position, but I think it's important to point out that in regards to the meaning of repentance, Dillow says (in his book The Reign of the Servant Kings, Third Edition, p. 36) that his view is "similar" to the view of Charles Ryrie as set forth in Ryrie's book So Great Salvation on pages 91-100 of that book (which is the chapter in Ryrie's book titled "REPENT! ABOUT WHAT?").
Furthermore, Dillow agrees that the word "repent" (Gr. metanoeo) in the NT and in the LXX means: "1. A change of mind (Heb. 12:17; Jon. 3:9-10; 4:2; Amos 7:3, 6; Joel 2:13-14; Acts 2:38)." And also that it is used: "2. As a virtual synonym for reliant trust or faith (Acts 20:21)." (At least in the aforementioned passages Dillow agrees that the word metanoeo has those meanings.) The only difference is that Dillow also says that the word metanoeo in some contexts can mean: "3. A turning from sin as a preparatory stage prior to saving faith (Mt. 4:17; Lk. 3:3), or possibly, a challenge to 'get right with God' (Mt. 12:41)." See Dillow's comments in the third edition of his book The Reign of the Servant Kings (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992, 1993, 2001), p. 32. But it seems to me that Dillow's third usage of metanoeo could fit into his first two usages listed above. In other words, if by "turning from sin" one defines it as a turning from the sin of unbelief (as in John 16:8-9), then that could be called "a preparatory stage prior to saving faith". And similarly, couldn't metanoeo as "a change of mind" be explained as "a challenge to 'get right with God'"? Thus, "get right with God" is simply another way of saying "change your mind about Him", in other words "repent"! So it seems to me that Dillow's understanding of biblical repentance is not that different from the traditional Free Grace view of repentance, and maybe it is not really any different at all!
Now let me move on to respond to your next comment and question when you said:
“2. On the topic of Dillow's definition, I had noticed that some other's are characterized by his view on repentance as well. For example, pastor Kelly Sensenig's definitions of repentance are: ‘Biblical repentance is a change of attitude toward sin and a desire to no longer live in rebellion against God’ (Kelly Sensenig, The Errors of Lordship Salvation, pg. 9) ‘There needs to be an inward turning to God from sin or desire for pardon and cleansing’ (Kelly Sensenig, Lordship Salvation, pg. 132) Pastor Sensenig also states that someone can change his/her mind about sin and not be saved due to their lack of a desire to be changed and love of sin. He emphasized the ‘inward turning from sin’ in his repentance. May I ask what you think of Dillow and Sensenig's definition of repentance? It seems quite different from Ryrie's.”
In regards to Dillow’s view of repentance, I’m not sure that I can add much to what I’ve already said above in my previous comment. If you have further questions that I didn’t address please let me know.
Continued below....
In regards to Kelly Sensenig's definition of repentance, I agree that he is at times somewhat unclear about the meaning of repentance, specifically about what it means to change one’s mind about sin. Just to be clear: I don’t agree with every single thing he says about repentance. In other words, I do GENERALLY agree with what Sensenig says about repentance (as “a change of mind” about sin, salvation, and the Savior), but I don’t SPECIFICALLY agree with every single explanation that he gives, such as some of the things he says about what it means to have a change of mind about sin. For example, when he says, “Sin becomes horrible to the one who is repenting and will bring a person to the place where he will want to turn to God and forsake those sins, which are horrible in God’s eyes.” (Sensenig, Lordship Salvation, p. 133.) For the record, in the above quote by Sensenig I agree with everything except when he says “and forsake those sins”. It sounds like he’s saying that a person has to be willing to completely give up all of his or her sins in order to be saved. This relates to your point about how Sensenig said that Biblical repentance involves “a desire to no longer live in rebellion against God”. So what does Sensenig mean by that? If he means that an unsaved person desires to trust Christ and be converted, then okay, I agree with that. But if Sensenig means that there has to be a desire to forsake all the sins in one’s life such as lying, stealing, gluttony, etc., then that almost sounds like “Lordship Salvation”! So what is Sensenig saying? I think he’s unclear about this. And honestly, for this reason I almost didn’t include his two articles on Lordship Salvation in my Free Grace Library. But finally I decided to include his articles about Lordship Salvation in my Free Grace Library so that they can be used as a point of reference to get people thinking about the errors of Lordship Salvation, which Sensenig also rightly rejects. He also seems to agree with the Free Grace view of repentance, as shown by the fact that he quotes Free Grace authors on repentance such as Dr. Harry Ironside. I think that Pastor Sensenig has a lot of good things to say in regards to the Gospel of God’s free grace, and in regards to the errors of Lordship Salvation, and even in regards to repentance. But concerning repentance, like I said, I think that at times he’s unclear about exactly what it means to have a change of mind about sin. Does it mean that a person has to be willing to completely stop sinning in order to be saved? If that’s what he means, then I don’t agree with that. To me, that sounds like the false teaching of Lordship Salvation. But if Sensenig means that a person has to agree with God that they are a guilty sinner deserving of Hell and God’s judgment, and the person is convicted about their unbelief in Christ and they change their mind and trust in Him alone for salvation, then yes, I agree with that.
In your next question, you asked:
“3. This is where another hypothetical situation comes in. This one I had gotten from a follower of Dillow. The question is, can someone who does not have a desire to serve the Lord, not want or plan to turn from sin or change his/her life around, and continue doing things his/her way and repent unto salvation?”
Don’t confuse salvation with discipleship, which is what it sounds like the follow of Dillow is doing. Having “a desire to serve the Lord” is an issue of discipleship, not salvation. Dr. Ryrie writes about this in his book So Great Salvation, in his chapter titled “DISCIPLES COME IN ALL SIZES”. After discussing John 1:12 and John 3:16 and showing how they don't support the lordship/discipleship/mastery position, Ryrie says: “Of course, one has to be willing to come to such a Person, but the issue of mastery over life is not involved in receiving the gift of eternal life. It is very much involved in God’s desire for His children, but facing and deciding that issue does not bring us into the family of God.” (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, p. 109.)
In the same chapter, Ryrie also discusses "EXAMPLES OF UNCOMMITTED BELIEVERS". Under this heading, Ryrie cites the biblical examples of Lot (whom the apostle Peter clearly describes as saved in 2 Peter 2:7), and the example of the believers at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-20), who were devoted to their magical arts. (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, pp. 111-112.)
Ryrie also gives a hypothetical situation of his own, an illustration that he posed to a group of Lordship Salvationists who accosted him one night after an evening service when he was visiting a church in another country. In regards to this, Dr. Ryrie writes:
"Some years ago in another country I was literally accosted after an evening service by a group of American missionaries working in that country. They had been infected by the lordship/discipleship/mastery Gospel, and having read the thirteen pages I had written about the subject in 1969, they were anxious to debate the issue. I did not know them; they were uninvited; but I could not avoid meeting with them. So we talked for quite a while that night. Finally it came down to an illustration. I posed this case to them. We all knew, even at that time, that smoking had been proven a serious risk to one's health. I asked about a hypothetical person who wanted to be saved, but he smoked. Furthermore, he knew full well that smoking was endangering his health, and he realized that if he became a Christian he ought to give it up. But he was unable to do so, nor was he even willing. So I asked these folks, 'Can he not be saved until either he gives up smoking or is willing to give up smoking?' Reluctantly they admitted that their view compelled them to say no, he cannot." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation, pp. 112-113.)
You also asked:
"4. On the topic of conviction, the reason I was clarifying the meaning of conviction in relation to the Christian life is due to the fact I have seen it said (although very rarely) that if one does not experience conviction (or guilt in many cases as that is what conviction is misused as sometimes) when they sin, they are not saved, and that testing whether you feel conviction or experience chastisement when they sin (Heb. 12:5-11) is for assurance of salvation. This however seems to me a very unsteady grounds for assurance, since someone can grieve the spirit and not be very 'Godly-minded'. However, at the same time, Heb. 12:8 states that God surely disciplines every believer and I wanted to know what you had thought about this."
Yes, exactly. I agree with you. Every believer will experience conviction, but as you said, it is a very unsteady ground for assurance, since believers can grieve the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) and not be very Godly-minded.
It reminds me of something the apostle Paul says in Romans 8:14, "For all who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." Some people misunderstand this verse to mean that if you are not following the Spirit then you are not a son of God. But that's not what it says. To put it negatively, Paul says that if you are not "LED BY THE SPIRIT" you are not a son of God. The point is: The Holy Spirit is always LEADING every believer, but not every believer is always FOLLOWING that leading! So the Holy Spirit is always leading us. The question is: Are we following? (There is a big difference between leading and following!) So my point is that every believer will experience conviction, but that doesn't mean that they will always recognize it and/or respond to it. There is a big difference between BEING convicted (objectively), and FEELING convicted (subjectively). And similarly, God does discipline/chastise every believer (Heb. 12:8), but that doesn't mean that the believer will always recognize it as such, especially if they are not "Godly-minded".
In regards to my above comment, no doubt someone will say, "Yes but if you are a true believer you will follow the Shepherd because Jesus says, 'My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me' (John 10:27)."
As sheep we do indeed follow the Shepherd, but if you know anything about sheep, they are not very good followers and they often go astray! As the hymn writer says, "Prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love." In Bible times, sometimes the shepherd had to break the legs of a sheep that was prone to wander and the shepherd would then carry it on his shoulders until the broken legs healed. In the book of Hebrews the writer may have had this in mind when he admonishes his readers to "make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed" (Heb. 12:13).
I just found this great quote by Dr. Charles Bing on repentance and fruit. In his book Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, Bing says that "one can easily become quagmired in subjectivity while trying to determine if his repentance is sufficient for salvation. Fruit is often subtle and invisible to observers, including the subject." (Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, p. 90.) This is exactly the same point that I was trying to convey above. Thank you Dr. Bing for saying it so eloquently and succinctly!
Hi Jonathon. I apologize for the late reply as I have been quite busy lately.
After reading your responses, I believe that I understand everything now. I will then write another statement to make sure I got everything correctly. Please tell me if I have gotten anything wrong.
All Christians will do good works if they live long enough after they have been saved. However, good works are not 100% identifiable so they are not able to be the primary basis of assurance. Although a person may not act like a Christian, there may be good works that are produced that you may not be able to see. In this sense, all Christians will do good works, but not that we always know each good work.
I then have some questions about your responses and such.
1. With everything I have read, would it be possible for someone to live and act internally un-Christlike, produce no good works that you or the person in question may see, but actually be saved since there are good works that only God can see?
2. On the topic of repentance, I am a bit confused on how ethical issues will come into play. As you may know, there are many things that people and denominations disagree on whether they are sinful or not (homosexuality, gambling, tattoos, etc.). Does a person have to acknowledge that something he/she is doing is sinful? Or is the main "sin" part of repentance unto salvation based on understanding that a person is fallen and that we are in need of a savior?
3. This is a bit more on the topic of conviction, but I thought I'd ask anyway. What do you believe conviction looks like in the life of a believer? Would it be like the pricking of the mind to bring a person to confession? Or something more orderly?
4. I believe Bob Wilkins' definition differs from the traditional Free Grace definition in that he defines it as a turning from sin, but is not necessary for salvation. To my understanding he has changed his definition throughout time with it originally looking like Ryrie's. Is this his current view?
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your comments and questions. In regards to your summary statement, let me say a few things to help clarify for both of us. When you said:
"All Christians will do good works if they live long enough after they have been saved. However, good works are not 100% identifiable so they are not able to be the primary basis of assurance."
Yes, I agree with that statement. I think Bob Wilkin explains the same idea very well when he writes:
"FGT [Free Grace Theology] teaches that regeneration does result in some good works in all who live some length of time after the new birth. (Obviously if someone died at the very moment of the new birth there would be no time for any good works to be done.)"
You went on to summarize:
"Although a person may not act like a Christian, there may be good works that are produced that you may not be able to see. In this sense, all Christians will do good works, but not that we always know each good work."
Yes, I would also agree with your statement here. However, I think it might be a bit unclear. I would probably say something more like: "Although a person may not ALWAYS act like a Christian...." That's just my thought on it.
Let me get back to you on your other questions. I want to give them some more thought.
God bless!
Hi Thomas,
You also asked the following question:
"1. With everything I have read, would it be possible for someone to live and act internally un-Christlike, produce no good works that you or the person in question may see, but actually be saved since there are good works that only God can see?"
Since no one is perfect in this life (except for the Lord Jesus of course), I would say yes, "it would be possible for someone [a Christian] to live and act internally un-Christlike". Every time we sin we "live and act internally un-Christlike". And the apostle John says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8).
Similarly, yes, it is possible for a Christian to "produce no good works that you or the person in question may see, but actually be saved since there are good works that only God can see". This is true because we are not omniscient. We are not all-knowing. We are not all-seeing. And we are not infallible. So even when we do a good work, we may not always realize it or recognize it as such. What about if you do a good work in the dark? You don't see that unless you have a light! But God doesn't need a light, He is Light! Psalm 139:12 says: "Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee." And in the context of the Judgment Seat of Christ, the apostle Paul says: "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of human hearts; and then praise will come to each person from God" (1 Cor. 4:5, NASB). When Paul says that God "will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of human hearts," some interpret that negatively to be something bad. But Paul says "and then praise will come to each person from God." So I interpret Paul’s words positively. In other words, at the Judgment Seat of Christ there will be things that Christians will be praised and rewarded for that we are not even aware of: "good works that only God can see"!
And similarly, other people may not always recognize it as a good work either. For example, if ten people see the good work, they may have ten different opinions about if it was really a good work or not! This relates to what Charles Bing says in his book Simply By Grace, when he writes: "The amount of fruit necessary to please one Christian ‘fruit inspector’ may not please the next ‘fruit inspector.’ While good works can be corroborating evidence for one’s faith in Christ, they are not sufficient to prove or disprove it. Only faith in God’s promise of eternal life through Jesus Christ guarantees and proves our salvation."
Hi Thomas,
You also asked:
"2. On the topic of repentance, I am a bit confused on how ethical issues will come into play. As you may know, there are many things that people and denominations disagree on whether they are sinful or not (homosexuality, gambling, tattoos, etc.). Does a person have to acknowledge that something he/she is doing is sinful? Or is the main "sin" part of repentance unto salvation based on understanding that a person is fallen and that we are in need of a savior?"
You are right that not every Christian will agree about if something is sinful or not. Some Christians even say that watching TV is sinful, dancing is sinful, and women wearing makeup is sinful. I think that is being legalistic. According to what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, the gospel message includes the fact that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). So in order to be saved, a lost person must acknowledge that he or she is a sinner (cf. Romans chapter 3). But more specifically, a lost person must recognize that he or she is a sinner who has rejected Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts the unsaved world about this specific sin (see John 16:8-9). A lost person must change their mind (repent) about their unbelief in Christ in order to be saved. This is vital because a lost person may admit that they are a sinner, and even agree that specific things they do are wrong, but if they continue to reject Christ, their change of mind in regards to their other sins won't save them. They need to have a change of mind about Christ and turn to Him in faith to be saved. I like what Dr. Constable says about repentance in his commentary on Acts. Commenting on Acts 3:19-21, Dr. Constable says: “What is repentance, and what place does it have in salvation? The Greek noun translated ‘repentance’ (metanoia) literally means ‘after mind,’ as in afterthought, or change of mind. Concerning salvation, it means to think differently about sin, oneself, and the Savior than one used to think. Peter's hearers had thought Jesus was not the Messiah. Now they needed to change their minds and believe He is the Messiah. ‘True repentance is admitting that what God says is true, and because it is true, to change our mind about our sins and about the Saviour.’” (Thomas Constable, Notes on Acts [2021 Edition], pp. 104-105.) So in answer to your question: “is the main ‘sin’ part of repentance unto salvation based on understanding that a person is fallen and that we are in need of a savior?” I would say yes, the main “sin” part of repentance unto salvation is based on understanding that he or she is a sinner in need of a Savior, specifically the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they have not believed in. And the flip side of the coin is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!" (Acts 16:31).
Hi Thomas,
In regards to your question number 3, you asked:
"3. This is a bit more on the topic of conviction, but I thought I'd ask anyway. What do you believe conviction looks like in the life of a believer? Would it be like the pricking of the mind to bring a person to confession? Or something more orderly?"
Read Psalm 32. It shows what conviction looks like in the life of a believer, from the life of David.
You also asked:
"4. I believe Bob Wilkins' definition differs from the traditional Free Grace definition in that he defines it as a turning from sin, but is not necessary for salvation. To my understanding he has changed his definition throughout time with it originally looking like Ryrie's. Is this his current view?"
Yes, that is my understanding. In the synopsis of Wilkin's book Turn and Live (Grace Evangelical Society, 2019), the publisher writes the following:
"Over thirty years ago, Bob Wilkin wrote his dissertation on the role of repentance and salvation at Dallas Theological Seminary (1983-1985). Then in 1990 his mentor [Zane Hodges] challenged him to reconsider his view. Seven years later, after study and meditation on ten key passages, Bob changed his mind about repentance and salvation."
In the book's Preface, Wilkin explains more by saying:
"I wrote my doctoral dissertation, 'Repentance and Salvation in the New Testament,' at Dallas Theological Seminary from 1983 to 1985. I have since changed my view of repentance from the change-of-mind position to the turning-from-sins view."
So Wilkin did change his view of repentance. He used to agree with the traditional Free Grace view of repentance, that repentance is a change of mind. But now Wilkin defines repentance as turning from sins.
Hello Jonathon, Merry Christmas. The other day I was looking at a section of Ryrie's So Great Salvation again that was related to the discussion we had here. I do not have a full version, so I am missing some parts of it, but I was reading up on chapter 3 of the book where he was countering straw men used against Free Grace. In straw man #2, the topic of how long a Christian may be carnal was at play. Here he went a bit into his statements on fruit-bearing in the Christian life as we have talked about in times past. In the end of the counter to straw man #2, he states that even if a believer is characterized as carnal throughout his/her life, that does not mean there is carnality in every area of life. I understand this to be the idea that even if someone is continuing in sin throughout his/her life, since there is fruit bearing "somewhere, sometime, somehow" that that would mean the person is therefor not entirely carnal "in all areas of their life". Later, he says that "As long as the Spirit lives within, no believer can show nothing of the work of salvation and thus be totally carnal all of his life". In this would he be agreeing with my presumption that since fruit bears in external deeds if a person lives long enough, they are therefore not "100%" carnal? Or is it that when he says no believer can be carnal all of his life, he is saying that at some point a believer must stop being carnal but can be carnal for quite some time, with an entire life of carnality displaying a lack of sonship?
Hello Thomas, Merry Christmas!
Good to hear from you. I hope you are doing well.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Ryrie and your question about carnality.
By the way, I noticed you said that you did not have access to a complete copy of Ryrie's book So Great Salvation. May I suggest checking out that book in the Free Grace Library page on my blog? I have a link to the first edition of So Great Salvation (from the archive.org website). You may need to register (it's free) on archive.org, but then you can borrow the book and you have access to all the pages. Anyway, just a thought.
In regards to your comment, I agree with you when you said:
"In the end of the counter to straw man #2, he states that even if a believer is characterized as carnal throughout his/her life, that does not mean there is carnality in every area of life. I understand this to be the idea that even if someone is continuing in sin throughout his/her life, since there is fruit bearing 'somewhere, sometime, somehow' that that would mean the person is therefor not entirely carnal 'in all areas of their life'."
Right, that's also how I understand what Ryrie is saying. And I agree with him on that, by the way.
Let me get to your question. You asked:
"Later, he says that 'As long as the Spirit lives within, no believer can show nothing of the work of salvation and thus be totally carnal all of his life'. In this would he be agreeing with my presumption that since fruit bears in external deeds if a person lives long enough, they are therefore not '100%' carnal?"
Basically, yes, although to be fair, Ryrie doesn't seem to limit the fruit to exclusively "external deeds". For example, in the section you quoted Ryrie says:
"Let's be clear. Even if a believer could be characterized as carnal all of his life, that does not mean that he or she is carnal in all areas of life. That does not mean he will not also bear some spiritual fruit during his life. Every believer will bear some fruit. But that is the subject of another chapter." (Ryrie, So Great Salvation [1989 Edition], pp. 31-32.)
So in his explanation here, Ryrie just calls it "spiritual fruit" or "fruit". He doesn't really specify more than that (in regards to if the fruit is specifically "external deeds" or if it could also be something else). Instead, Ryrie says "that is the subject of another chapter." So that kind of takes us back to what we've talked about previously I think.
Continued below....
You went on to ask:
"Or is it that when he says no believer can be carnal all of his life, he is saying that at some point a believer must stop being carnal but can be carnal for quite some time, with an entire life of carnality displaying a lack of sonship?"
I would not take Ryrie's comments that way. I don't think he's saying that. Notice that Ryrie entertains the possibility that a Christian could live their entire Christian life in carnality. For instance, on page 31 Ryrie says:
"What if one or more of those babes in Christ in Corinth [see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3] died between the time of conversion and the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians? In other words, what if a babe in Christ [i.e. a carnal Christian] at Corinth died before growing out of that baby state? Did he or she go to heaven? Assuming that such an individual did live all his (or her) Christian life in a baby [i.e. carnal] state, if he is 'in Christ,' whether baby or mature, he will certainly be in heaven."
It's clear from a few paragraphs earlier in his book that Ryrie equates the "carnal believers at Corinth" with "babes in Christ". (Ryrie refers to them variously as "brethren", "babes in Christ", "men of flesh", "fleshly", and "carnal or fleshly Christians".) So Ryrie is talking about the same group of people. (The one's in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.) That's obvious from the context. So I think that answers your question. Ryrie doesn't view these people as unsaved, but rather as saved, yet carnal. And Ryrie says that if these carnal Christians were to have died before growing out of their baby (or carnal) state, they "will certainly be in heaven"!
I am a saved free grace believer. I am a devoted Scofield Bible man, and never owned a Ryrie Bible.
I believe that repentance and faith are essentially the same thing; two sides of the same coin. Everyone who comes to faith in Christ for salvation has changed his mind, that is, repented from unbelief or wrong belief to believing Christ as Savior. And in so accepting Christ for one's salvation the person thus receives God's gift provided for salvation. You will never read in John's Gospel where John used "repent" for salvation, and this reason is that Repent and Belief both mean the same thing. I think this is what Ryrie taught. Where I differ with Ryrie is Ryrie adding that a saved person will produce fruits of his salvation. This to me, hints of Calvinism in adding works. A person is justified totally by the finished work of Christ thru our faith in the gospel and does not rely on any subsequent good works or behavior by the person to validate his salvation.
As far as comments on 1 John 3:9 and other passages in this chapter, I think John is talking about the imputed righteousness of the believer in contrast to the unregenerate, sinful world. Paul talks along the same lines in Romans Chapter 8 where the believer in the Spirit is seen as perfected in Christ.
Phil R
Hi Phil,
I understand your concern in regards to what Ryrie taught, although I'm not sure that he would put it as you did when you said, "Where I differ with Ryrie is Ryrie adding that a saved person will produce fruits of his salvation." First because the Bible says that Christians will bear fruit, not "produce" it (as you said). The Holy Spirit produces the fruit, we simply bear it (see Jn. 15:2, 4, 5, 8, etc.). Notice Ryrie says, "Every Christian will bear spiritual fruit. Somewhere, sometime, somehow."
Also, I noticed that you didn't add the caveat that Ryrie did. Ryrie specifically said that Christians will bear fruit: "Somewhere, sometime, somehow." This is a very important clarification because the "sometime" could be even after the believer has died! The examples that Ryrie gives in his book are, for example:
1) Fruit as a result of the person's initial faith in Christ for salvation, which is "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1).
2) Fruit in heaven with the angels rejoicing at the person's salvation (Lk. 15:7, 10), and
3) Fruit being produced even after the Christian has died, as a result of people getting saved at his or her funeral! Examples of this happening are not uncommon.
Thus, what at first appears to support Calvinism, in reality becomes a Free Grace view, because it removes/separates the fruit from the believer's own works! Ryrie correctly recognizes that there is a biblical distinction between "spiritual fruit" and "works". All Christians will have "spiritual fruit", even if they don't have "works". The real genius of Ryrie's view is that not only is it biblical, but Calvinists cannot legitimately argue with it without contradicting John Calvin himself, because Calvin affirms in regards to Romans 5:1, for example, that the "peace with God" spoken of in that verse is indeed a fruit of faith! I mentioned this in the comments of the blog post, but it bears repeating. In his commentary on Romans 5:1, Calvin says the following in regards to those who obtain righteousness by faith: "we have peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of faith."
For more information see my blog post titled: "Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 2". The link is below:
"Charles Ryrie on Repentance and Faith, Pt. 2" (June 25, 2023), Free Grace Speech blog
https://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2023/06/ryrie-on-repentance-and-faith-pt-2.html
Wonderful wonderful teaching thank you thank God. So helpful to me. God bless you and your ministry 🙏.
Post a Comment