Must A Person Stop Sinning To Receive Eternal Life?

Did Jesus tell the woman at the well in John chapter 4, "You must stop sinning and I shall give you eternal life"? No, He did not. For what does the Bible say? According to the Bible, Jesus said to the woman: “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:10, NKJV).

* * *

Must a person stop sinning in order to be saved, or at least be willing to give up certain sins in order to receive eternal life? Lordship Salvationists say "yes", but what does the Bible say? 

Notice the following statements by John MacArthur, one of today's leading Lordship Salvationists: "I remember when I used to discuss this lordship issue and this kind of commitment for salvation with other theologians in the time when I was writing the material on The Gospel According to Jesus, they would pose a question. One of the main guys posed this question to me. If you have a couple that you know and they're living in adultery, they're not married and they're living together and you're going to give them the gospel, do you say to them you must stop sinning and then come to Christ? Or do you say nothing about that, just come to Christ and worry about that later? Well, the answer to the question would be, what would Jesus say. What would Jesus say? Jesus would say this. You have a quote 'love' going on here. Whether it's love or not, I don't know, but you have an affair going on, you have a relationship going on. How important is it for you to receive the forgiveness of sin and eternal life? Because if you're not willing to put a sword in that relationship or any other relationship and to deny the thing your heart craves, then you're not worthy to be My disciple. That really became the nexus of that whole debate."[1]

And it's not just the "big" sins that Lordship Salvationists say must be given up in order to be saved. They go so far as to say that unless a person gives up smoking cigarettes (or at least is willing to give up smoking cigarettes), they cannot be saved! Regarding this, Charles Ryrie shares the following true story of a run-in he had with a group of Lordship Salvationists who accosted him one time at an airport. Ryrie relates the following incident in his book So Great Salvation: "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 [in Balancing the Christian Life], 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."[2] 

Years ago William R. Newell wrote a gospel tract titled "The Only Kind of People God Saves". The tract is based on Romans 4:5, and it's very applicable to the Lordship Salvation debate. After quoting Romans 4:5, Newell writes the following: "I wish to call your attention to one fact—God justifies ungodly men. He does not justify all ungodly men, but He justifies ONLY ungodly men. Men think that because they have been ungodly and wicked, God demands a change in their character before He receives them. This is not true. The quotation above definitely says that 'God justifies the ungodly who believe.' What then does God ask an ungodly sinner to do? First of all, nothing, that is, to cease from absolutely all efforts to save himself. For the verse says, 'To him that worketh not.' A man is asked simply to accept God's verdict about him—that he is ungodly, unrighteous, and unable to save himself. Second, accept the blessed news that God Himself has already reckoned his sins and ungodliness to another Person, that is, to Christ, His Son, and that, because the punishment of sin was death, Jesus has by God's appointment died, has shed His blood, in the sinner's place. 'The Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6). Christ died for our sins—that is, instead of our dying for them. Death here means banishment from God under a curse, and Christ bearing our sins was forsaken on the cross as accursed of God. (Matthew 27:46; Gal. 3:13.) Now when an ungodly man finds these two great truths: first, that he is utterly guilty and unable to help himself, and second, that Jesus Christ has already borne sin, in his place, by God's appointment; and when this ungodly man just accepts these facts and trusts this Saviour, whom God raised from the dead to be trusted, this ungodly man is saved then and there. That is, God forgives and justifies him on the basis of the price already paid—the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Do you believe this? Or, are you still trying to REFORM yourself—promising yourself that you will do better, and merit God's favor thus? Why do you not believe what God says: By deeds of righteousness shall no flesh be justified in God's sight? (Romans 3:20; Titus 3:5.) Listen to the Gospel: 'To him that WORKETH NOT BUT BELIEVETH on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness' (Romans 4:5). This is good news! Every sinner in the world could have this salvation, if he were willing, this moment. Let anyone who wants Christ claim Him at once. As a sinner, claim the Saviour God has appointed for sinners, as your very own Saviour this moment. He sees your heart. Trust Him now as yours, and lo, He is yours!"[3]

The problem with MacArthur's view of the gospel is that he confuses salvation with discipleship. That's typical of Lordship Salvation. But more than that, MacArthur's gospel clearly contradicts what the Bible says about the only kind of people God saves: not those who clean up their lives first, but "the ungodly"!  

"Just As I Am"

A Gospel Hymn

Just as I am, without one plea,

but that thy blood was shed for me,

and that thou bidd'st me come to thee,

O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not

to rid my soul of one dark blot,

to thee, whose blood can cleanse each spot,

O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, though tossed about

with many a conflict, many a doubt,

fightings and fears within, without,

O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, thou wilt receive,

wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;

because thy promise I believe,

O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

—Charlotte Elliot

References:

[1] John MacArthur, "The Extreme Nature of True Discipleship, Part 1" (October 16, 2005), Grace To You website. Sermon on Luke 14:25-27. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-195/the-extreme-nature-of-true-discipleship-part-1 (accessed December 31, 2022).

[2] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton: SP Publications, Inc., 1989), pp. 112-113.

[3] William R. Newell, "The Only Kind of People God Saves" (Chicago: Good News Pub. Co., no date), pp. 1-3. Note: There is a date stamp from the library of the University of Illinois on the front cover of the tract with the date: "APR 4  1942".

J. Irvin Overholtzer on Saving Faith

“Faith is believing reasonable evidence. Faith is taking God at His word. Faith is believing in the dark. The Old Testament word is trust—to rely upon. Faith is reposing confidence in another. But what must I believe to be saved? The devils believe but are not saved. How may I know that I have the faith that saves? There are many truths, both in the Bible and without that should be believed, but believing them would not bring salvation. I must believe the Word of God concerning sin and salvation. I must believe the Gospel—the GOOD NEWS, that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.’

1. I must believe that I am a sinner and need salvation and that I cannot save myself.

2. I must believe that Jesus died to save me and that He is willing and able to do it and to do it now.

3. I must believe that His salvation is a free gift and that I can have it for the taking.

4. I must then take it, and since it is an unseen gift, I must take it purely by faith and not by sight, neither by feeling.

When this is done the condition has been met and God’s word is that He will instantly forgive and as quickly regenerate me. The Holy Spirit will enable all to believe, who come in this way, in utter dependence upon God.”[1]

Reference:

[1] J. Irvin Overholtzer, Saved by Grace (Chicago: P. B. Publications, Inc., 1937), p. 24.

What Is Free Grace Theology? 10 Key Distinctives

What Is Free Grace Theology? 

10 Key Distinctives of Traditional Free Grace Theology 

1. The FREE gift of eternal life (Jn. 3:16, 4:10; Rom. 6:23; Rev. 22:17)

2. The eternal security of the believer (Jn. 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39)

3. The clear gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24; 1 Cor. 15:3; Eph. 2:8-9)

4. The invitation to believe in Christ apart from works (Jn. 20:31; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:21-28, 4:5)

5. The difference between salvation and discipleship (Matt. 11:28-29, 16:24; Jn. 8:31)

6. The importance of rewards as a motivation for godly living (2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Jn. 8; Rev. 3:11)

7. The distinction between justification and sanctification, faith and works (Rom. 1-8)

8. The Bible alone vs. man’s traditions / the reformer’s teachings (Matt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7; Col. 2:8) 

9. The understanding of repentance as a “change of mind” (Isa.46:8, LXX; Heb. 12:17)

10. The assurance of the believer is based first and foremost on the promises of God, as opposed to the believer’s walk (Jn. 5:24, 6:47; Rom. 10:17; Heb. 6:19; 1 Jn. 5:13)

Please note: The Bible verses cited above are for illustrative purposes; they are not exhaustive lists.

M. R. DeHaan on the Difference Between Salvation and Discipleship

M. R. DeHaan

The following statements are excerpted from the book Simon Peter: Sinner and Saint, by Dr. M. R. DeHaan.[1] Dr. DeHaan was a Bible teacher and the founder of Radio Bible Class, known today as Our Daily Bread Ministries. In the following statements, Dr. DeHaan explains the difference between salvation and discipleship from the life of Peter.

* * *

Chapter Six

SALVATION AND DISCIPLESHIP

And he brought him to Jesus.  

                               John 1:42

THIS is Simon's first meeting with the Lord and it resulted in his salvation. When he came to the Lord Jesus he was Simon. When he left Jesus, he was Peter. From then on he was Simon Peter. Yes, Andrew brought his brother, Simon, and he became Peter instead.

     He was saved but that was all. From the record it seems clear that Simon had gone back to his old job as fisherman, without apparent change of any kind. Then comes Simon Peter's second meeting with his Lord, and what a momentous occasion it became in his life. It was the crisis, the turning point in his career. The record is found in Mark 1:14-18. This meeting in Mark 1 was subsequent to his first meeting in John, when Andrew first brought him to Jesus. When Simon first met Jesus, John the Baptist was still preaching and baptizing at the river Jordan, and it was because John had pointed out Jesus with the words: "Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), that Andrew had followed Jesus, and then went and brought his brother, Simon.

SECOND MEETING

     But this second meeting between Peter and the Lord Jesus recorded in Mark 1, was after John had been put in prison. After Peter's coming to Christ for salvation, a time elapses during which John is cast in prison by King Herod for preaching on the matter of divorce. It was not until after this that Peter again meets the Lord Jesus. How much time elapsed between his first and second meetings, we do not know; neither is it important. Here is the record:

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. . . Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him" (Mark 1:14, 16-18).

     We are emphasizing the fact that these two calls of Simon Peter, the first in John which resulted in Simon's coming to Christ, and this second call in Mark resulting in Peter's coming after Christ, were not the same call. Many do not distinguish between the first call of Peter to come to Jesus, and the second call to come after Him. Not only were these two calls separated by a period of time, but they differed basically in their content and result in Peter's life. When Simon came to Christ, he received something. He received eternal life, he received a new name, a new position, a new nature. But then he went right on living as he had before. He was saved, yes, indeed, but salvation means more than merely being saved from sin and from the judgment of hell.

 COMING AFTER JESUS

     In this second call, Peter, who had already received something from the Lord Jesus, now leaves all for the Lord Jesus and having first come to Him for salvation, he now comes after Him for service, and suffering. Coming to Christ results in salvation; coming after Him results in discipleship. Believing on the Lord Jesus and receiving Him as Savior does not make one a disciple; it merely makes one a saint. Until the believer understands the difference between being a saint and being a disciple, coming to Christ as Saviour, and following Him as Lord and Master, surrendering all to Him, he will never know the joy of "the life abundant."

TWO POSSIBILITIES

     One cannot read the Bible very far before coming face to face with the teaching of these two distinct possibilities of the Christian life. All through the Bible we find these two kinds of Christians. Jesus said in John 10:10,

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

     There is a world of difference between having "life" and having life "more abundant." You can have life, eternal life, by simply coming to Jesus Christ, and trusting Him for salvation, but you will never know the "life abundant" until you have learned to come after Him in full surrender and followed Him as a disciple. To be saved, you receive God's free gift of grace; to be a disciple you have to return to Him that which you are. Jesus said:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28).

     That is the "rest" of salvation. It is the gift of God. It is free. You can do nothing to earn it or obtain it, for it is given by grace. But Jesus did not stop with this verse, but added verse 29.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matthew 11:29).

     It is quite another experience, even though the verses occur together. First we are invited to come, to come, to come, and I will give you rest. This is salvation—the rest of salvation, for which nothing can be paid. It is received as a free gift. 

     In the very next verse, in Matthew 11:29, however, those who have already come and received the rest of salvation, are now invited to bring something. They are invited to "take my yoke, and learn of me." This means a sacrifice—this means paying the price, and results in the abundant life, and the life of victory and of service. This is distinguished in the Bible as discipleship. The word, "discipolos" means "a follower, a student, a learner," one who goes at the command of his teacher.

TWO PLANES OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

     There are then two kinds of believers, those who have come to Christ for salvation, and those who have learned the secret of the victorious life by a complete and full yielding and surrender. The first results in salvation, the second results in service. All through the Scriptures we meet up with this tremendous truth, so little understood by the average believer, who goes on day after day, year after year, saved but powerless, weak, wavering, defeated, fruitless, to be saved at last "so as by fire," yet lose the reward at the end of the road. We are not to confuse salvation with discipleship, and so we repeat it over and over again. Salvation is free. We want to be clear on that, because it cost the Lord Jesus His all. But to be a disciple you must be willing to pay the price of "taking his yoke," following in His footsteps, presenting your bodies a living sacrifice, and even if need be, seal your testimony with your blood.

     The reason the Church of Christ is so powerless is largely because it is filled with people who are satisfied with mere salvation from hell, so that they can go to heaven when they die, but have never caught the vision of service, of complete surrender, and the fulness of the blessing of discipleship. In addition to mere salvation we should learn the lesson of discipleship, and the striving for that reward and crown which we may lay at Jesus' feet.

VICTORY OR DEFEAT

     Paul knew the difference between these two kinds of Christians, and classifies them as carnal and spiritual. You can have peace with God by just receiving Christ, but you will never know the peace of God until you have learned to turn everything over to Him who saved you, or as Paul says:

"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7).

     It is possible, like Israel, to be out of Egypt forever by the shed blood of the Lamb, but never to reach the Canaan of the abundant life, and like Israel, to wander in the wilderness of defeat for forty years. There is a victorious life, and there is a defeated life. Peace with God, and the peace of God; salvation and discipleship; coming to Christ and coming after Christ; taking free salvation, and taking the yoke of service; a coming to Christ and a going for Christ. We can be in the light, and yet need to learn to walk in the light. How wonderfully Jesus illustrates this truth. In John 4 our Saviour says to a woman at the well:

"Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:13-14).

     This is the water of salvation. Every believer has in him the water of life. But if it remains only in him, it goes no further, and it can, of course, benefit no one else. And so there is a progression in John 7 where Jesus says this:

"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink" (John 7:37).

    This is again referring to salvation, coming to Him for redemption, but our Saviour did not stop there. He added:

"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)"  (John 7:38-39).

     Notice the two possibilities clearly set forth here, and kept distinct by our Lord. In John 4 our Saviour promises the woman at the well the living water within her, but in John 7 Jesus says, that out of his inward parts shall flow rivers of living water. Not rills, not brooks, but rivers! This is the abundant life. To have the water in you is salvation. Only as you become a disciple, can it flow out, and benefit others.

SIMON PETER

     We return now to Simon Peter for a closing illustration. In John 1, Simon comes to Christ, and was saved, but nothing else seems to have happened as far as the record goes. There was no outward change in his life whatsoever. He went back to his fishing and his nets and his occupation just as before. And then came the second call in Mark 1: "Come ye after me," and then we read: 

"And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him" (Mark 1:18).

     Simon who had become Peter by coming to Christ now becomes a disciple by heeding His command, and leaving all to follow Him. The same happened to James and to John, for we read in the same chapter:

"And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him" (Mark 1:19-20).

     They left something when this call for service came. They left their father, their ships, and the servants, and came after Him. Again we state, and we shall continue to repeat it—salvation is free, for we do not want to be misunderstood on that matter, but discipleship is only for those who are willing to pay the price. We shall study in the next chapter the abundant teaching of the Scriptures concerning the price of discipleship and following the Lord Jesus Christ, and also the glorious reward which awaits at the end of the road.

     Now before closing this chapter, may I ask, have you ever heeded Christ's call to come after Him? You are saved, you have trusted Him, but you are not fully happy. You are not satisfied, you do not have the assurance and the joy of salvation. Is your life really counting for Christ? Have you ever made a full surrender to Him? Do you know the blessing of a fully yielded life?

     I do not care by what name you call it, but there are these two possibilities of Christian experience. We may call it a definite experience, a second blessing, or anything else. We may call it full surrender, or the victorious life, or dedication. We simply will not quibble about the terms, but it is the greatest need of the day. It may or may not be accompanied by emotional thrills; it comes when the believer faces the fact that he owes his all to Him who gave His all for us.

     This experience may come simultaneously with and at the same moment we are saved, as happened in the case of Paul. It may come some time later as in the case of Peter. It may be a definite experience when in some crisis we make the full surrender, and make a covenant with God. Or it may be a gradual growth in grace and knowledge, so that we arrive at the place of discipleship almost without being able to remember just when and how it began and how it started and happened. All these details are unimportant. The important thing, the all-important thing, is to ask oneself the honest question, Am I my best for the Lord Jesus Christ? Do I know the joy of discipleship and surrender? Have I yielded everything at His feet? Does my life really count? Then honestly search your heart for all known and doubtful sin, every unyielded, surrendered idol. Confess it, dedicate your all, no matter what the price, and the blessing will be yours. Call it by any name you may choose. THIS IS THE ABUNDANT LIFE!

Reference:

[1] M. R. DeHaan, Simon Peter: Sinner and Saint (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), pp. 49-56. Note: This book was originally published by Zondervan Publishing House in 1954.

The Book of Jasher's Account of Abraham: A Historical Analysis

"Is it not written in the book of Jasher?"

Twice the Bible mentions an ancient book called The book of Jasher (see Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18). It is reported to have been written prior to Moses writing Genesis. The book of Jasher is not inspired, but it does contain some very interesting historical details that corroborate the biblical account. For example, did you know that:

• When Noah entered the ark with his family, he also brought with him the garments of animal skin that God had made for Adam (Jasher 7:24-26; cf. Gen. 3:21).

• After the flood, Ham stole the garments of animal skin from Noah and concealed them from his brothers. When Ham's son Cush was born, Ham gave the garments to Cush. Cush in turn gave the garments to his son Nimrod, who became strong when he wore them (Jasher 7:24-30).

• Nimrod built the tower of Babel after the flood (Jasher 9:20-39; Gen. 10:8-10).

• Terah, Abram's father, was a great prince in Nimrod's kingdom (Jasher 7:41, 7:49, 7:51, 8:9).

• When Abram was born, Nimrod wanted to kill him. (Satan used a similar tactic in the the New Testament when king Herod tried to kill baby Jesus.) Nimrod wanted to kill Abram because at the time of Abram's birth, there was a sign in the heavens: one large star came from the east [cf. Genesis 1:14; Matthew 2:2] and ran in the heavens and swallowed up four other stars from the four sides of the heavens. The king's wise men interpreted the sign in the heavens to mean that Terah's seed would possess all the earth, and slay great kings, and inherit their lands (Jasher, Chapter 8). Years later, after Abraham's death, it was Abraham's grandson Esau who slayed Nimrod with the sword (Jasher 27:16).

• Terah took his son secretly, together with his mother and nurse, and he concealed them in a cave, and he brought them their provisions monthly. Abram was in the cave ten years (Jasher 8:32-36).

• When Abram was ten years old, he went to live with Noah and Shem, who taught him the ways of the Lord (Jasher 9:5-19). Abram lived in Noah's house for 39 years (Jasher 9:6).

• When Abram grew up, he returned to Terah's house and destroyed his father's idols (Jasher 11:13-49). In the Bible, when Joshua reviews Israel's history to the tribes of Israel after the conquest of the land of Canaan, he describes how Terah was indeed an idolater. In Joshua 24:2, Joshua says, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel says: 'From ancient times your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates River, namely, Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods.'"

• Abram was brought before Nimrod to answer for his actions and to explain why he destroyed Terah's idols. Abram boldly rebuked Nimrod for his evil ways and testified of the one true God (Jasher 11:50-61).

• Nimrod's anger was kindled against Abram, and he commanded that Abram and his brother Haran be thrown into a fiery furnace (Jasher 12:20-26). These events are generally considered historically accurate and true to fact, as noted, for example, in the 19th century British encyclopedia edited by the Rev. Abraham Rees (1743-1825), which describes these events from Abram's life as follows: "Abraham...destroyed them all [all of Terah's idols], excepting the largest, before his father's return; and he told him, that having presented an oblation of flour to the idols, the stoutest of them, in whose hand he had placed a hatchet, hewed the others to pieces with that weapon. Terah replied, that this was bantering, because the idols had not sense to act in this manner; upon which Abraham retorted these words upon his father against the worship of such gods. But he was delivered up by Terah to Nimrod, the sovereign of the country, and because he refused to worship the fire, according to his order, he was thrown into the midst of the flames, from which he escaped uninjured. Mr. David Levi, in his Lingua Sacra, has given an account of this tradition, extracted from Medrash Bereschith; and it is related by Jerome, (Trad. Hebraic. in Genesin,) who seems to admit its general credibility." (Abraham Rees, The Cyclopaedia [London, 1819], 39 Vols., Vol. 1, see under the heading "ABRAHAM"). There is also a very interesting comment in the notes of Dr. Adam Clark's Commentary of the Old Testament, see his note on 2 Chronicles 28:3, which reads as follows: "Verse 3. Burnt his children in the fire] There is a most remarkable addition here in the Chaldee, which I shall give at length:—'Ahaz burnt his children in the fire; but the WORD of the Lord snatched Hezekiah from among them; for it was manifest before the Lord, that the three righteous men, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were to proceed from him; who should deliver up their bodies that they might be cast into a burning fiery furnace, on account of the great and glorious NAME; and from which they should escape. First, Abram escaped from the furnace of fire among the Chaldeans, into which he had been cast by Nimrod, because he would not worship their idols. Secondly, Tamar escaped burning in the house of judgment of Judah, who had said, Bring her out that she may be burnt. Thirdly, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz escaped from burning, when Ahaz his father cast him into the valley of the son of Hinnom, on the altars of Tophet. Fourthly, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, escaped from the burning fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Fifthly, Joshua, the son of Josedek the high-priest, escaped, when the impious Nebuchadnezzar had cast him into a burning fiery furnace, with Achaab the son of Kolia, and Zedekiah the son of Maasiah, the false prophet. They were consumed by fire [see Jeremiah 29:22]; but Joshua the son of Josedek escaped, because of his righteousness [see Zechariah 3:1-2].'" Indeed, in the Bible, the LORD says through the prophet Isaiah, "When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze" (Isaiah 43:2).

• Although Abram's brother Haran died (this is mentioned in Genesis 11:28) in the flames because his heart was not right with God, Abram miraculously survived three days and three nights in the fiery furnace, and not even his clothes were burned (Jasher 12:20-27). This is similar to what happened to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego centuries later at the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar (see Daniel chapter 3), who incidentally was also a Babylonian king. Babylonian kings of that period were inclined to emulate an earlier great king and copy the accomplishments of their predecessors. 

• Because of the miracle of Abram surviving the fiery furnace, Nimrod and all the people of the city gave Abram many gifts of silver and gold (Jasher 12:39-40).

• Nimrod also gave Abram his servant Eliezer (Jasher 12:39; cf. Gen. 15:2-3, 24:1-2).

• Abram went forth from the king in peace, and many of the king's servants followed him, and about three hundred men joined him (Jasher 12:41; cf. Gen. 14:14). Incidentally, "the 318 trained men born in (Abram's) household" mentioned in Genesis 14:14 were probably the children of the original three hundred men that joined Abram years earlier in the land of the Chaldeans, the ones mentioned in Jasher 12:41.

• Several years later, Nimrod's heart was again turned against Abram and the king again tried to kill him (Jasher 12:45-58). But Eliezer warned Abram of the plot, and Abram and his family fled to Noah's house for safety (Jasher 12:59-70).

• Abram and his family left Ur of the Chaldeans and set out for the land of Canaan, and they settled in Haran for some time (Jasher chapter 13; cf. Gen. 11:31).

• God called Abram to leave Haran when he was seventy-five years old (Jasher 13:26; cf. Gen. 12:4).

• Nimrod king of Babylon was known as Amraphel (Jasher 11:6, 27:2). This is the same Amraphel of Shinar mentioned in Genesis 14. This is also the same Amraphel who went to war with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and overpowered them and captured Abram's nephew Lot (who was then living in Sodom), and Abram went and rescued his nephew from Amraphel. The account of this war between Amraphel (Nimrod) and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned in Genesis 14. This war is also mentioned several times in The Book of Jasher (11:10-11, 13:12-16, and chapter 16). Concerning the identification of Amraphel with Nimrod, Martin McNamara writes: "Amraphel is first identified with Nimrod. This identification is well attested in Rabbinic texts. In Gen. R. [Genesis Rabbah] 42:4, for instance, Amraphel is designated with three names: Cush, Nimrod and Amraphel." (McNamara, Paul V. M. Flesher, Editor, Targum and Scripture [Leiden: Brill, 2002], p. 25, Appendix 2.) Also see The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (available online at www.studylight.org), entry under "Nimrod".

• Melchizedek (called Adonizedek in The book of Jasher) was Noah's son Shem, a priest of God (Jasher 16:11-12; cf. Gen. 14:18-20). Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia affirms: "Jewish traditions, recorded in the Targums as well as in....rabbinical writings, identified Melchizedek with the patriarch Shem, who, according to the current biblical chronology, was still living at that period. This was the prevalent Jewish opinion in the time of Jerome, was adopted by Luther and Melanchthon, and by Selden, Lightfoot, and Jackson among English writers." (Johnson's Universal Cyclopaedia [New York: 1889], 8 Vols., Vol. 5, p. 342, under the heading "MELCHIZEDEK".)

• The book of Jasher (chapter 27) also describes how Esau killed Nimrod. (Abraham no doubt had related to his son Isaac the account of how Nimrod had twice tried to kill him, and also how Nimrod had captured Lot. Esau no doubt wanted revenge on Nimrod for all the evil he had done to his family.) The book of Jasher describes how Esau one evening surprised Nimrod in a field and killed him by cutting off his head with a sword. Esau then fought and killed the two men that were with Nimrod. Esau also took the garment of animal skin worn by Nimrod (the garment of  animal skin that God had made for Adam). This is when Esau came in from the field exhausted, and sold his birthright to his brother Jacob in exchange for a pot of lentil stew (Jasher 27:11-14; as recorded in Genesis 25:29-34). Nimrod was 215 years old when he died by the hand of Esau (Jasher 27:15). A similar account is related in the Jewish Talmud, with the only difference being that Esau shot Nimrod through the heart with an arrow (see The Talmud, translated by H. Polano [Philadelphia, 1876], p. 58). Of course, both accounts could be true; Esau could have first shot Nimrod through with an arrow and then cut off his head with a sword.

Dr. Kent Hovind is an expert on the creation account as recorded in the book of Genesis, and his "Longevity Chart" confirms several important facts listed above, namely, that "Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood" (Gen. 9:28), and according to the genealogy given in Genesis, Noah was a contemporary of Abraham for 58 years! In the chart, Dr. Hovind affirms: "All ten of Abraham's post-Flood ancestors (even Noah) were alive for his early life (imagine family reunions)!" What's more, Noah's son Shem lived for another five hundred years after the flood (Gen. 11:10-11), and he actually outlived Abraham! Dr. Hovind affirms: "Shem knew Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Genesis chapters 10-11 also make it clear that Abraham was a descendent of Noah through the line of Shem and his son Eber, and from him comes the name "Hebrew" (Gen. 14:13).

If Donald Trump is Racist, Why Do Blacks Love Him?

If you listen to the Fake News media, you'd think that President Trump is a racist bigot or white supremacist. But if that's true, why do blacks love him? For example, here's a list of some notable black American patriots who love President Trump!

BLACK AMERICANS WHO LOVE PRESIDENT TRUMP:

1.) Ben Carson

2.) Brandon Tatum 

3.) Candace Owens

4.) David A. Clarke, Jr.

5.) David Harris, Jr.

6.) Diamond and Silk

7.) Elbert Lee Guillory

8.) Herschel Walker

9.) Isaiah Washington

10.) Keith & Kevin Hodge 

11.) Larry Elder

12.) Leo Terrell

13.) Peggy Hubbard

14.) Terrance Williams

15.) Vernon Jones

16.) Alveda C. King

And I could go on and on!

Don't believe the Fake News media! I've found that whatever they say, it's usually the exact opposite that's true.

The Truth About January 6th: Protest or Insurrection?

Save America March in Washington, D.C.
January 6, 2021

* * * 

I remember watching on TV the events of January 6th, 2021. I watched President Trump's speech that day on either Newsmax or Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN). I can't remember which network it was, and maybe it was both. I probably switched back and forth between the two networks. As I have heard reporting about the events of that day since then, to me it seems like the Democrats are targeting their political opponents in order to push a narrative that furthers their anti-Trump agenda. What the Democrats are doing appears to me to be more a case of political and religious persecution of those who disagree with them, than it does an "insurrection" on the part of the protesters. Hopefully I still have the free speech to say that and to disagree with the media's big government anti-Trump narrative. It makes me wonder if our First Amendment rights still apply: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."[1] 

Someone asked me recently what I thought about the events that happened at the Capitol on January 6th. I said that there were a whole lot of people there, it was probably the largest in-person crowd that President Trump ever addressed. It has widely been reported that there may have been up to 1,000,000 people in attendance! I specifically remember how during the rally, President Trump encouraged everyone to remain peaceful.[2] President Trump's twitter comments from January 6, 2021 say the same thing:

Everyone knows that in a huge crowd like that there are bound to be a few "bad apples". I'm not excusing any bad behavior, I'm only pointing out the obvious logical fallacy of hasty generalization. It's absurd to condemn and even jail whole crowds of peaceful protesters because of a relatively few rioters. Do we know the difference between peaceful protesters and rioters? Actually, I think sometimes the "lamestream" media doesn't understand this important distinction! For example, on August 27, 2020, The Hill newspaper reported a now well-known incident in which "CNN was ridiculed for a video caption Wednesday night that read 'Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting' during a report from national correspondent Omar Jimenez in front of a building engulfed in flames during protests over the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wis."[3] So now the joke is on "fake news" CNN because they said that the riots were "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests"! And what about Jenny Durkan, the Democrat mayor of Seattle, who after hearing about the "occupied protest" and violent rioters burning down the city, she called it "a summer of love"! But now when it doesn't serve their political purposes, the truly "Mostly Peaceful Protests" (and protesters) of January 6 are instead labeled with the big scary word: "Insurrectionists"! This political label is akin to the Nazi's placing a golden star on all the Jews in World War II. Under the heading "Jewish Badge: During the Nazi Era", the Holocaust Encyclopedia says the following: "Nazi officials implemented the Jewish badge as a key element in their plan to persecute and eventually destroy the Jewish population of Europe."[4] But in spite of the Democrat's best (or worst) efforts, the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement can't be stopped, because it is supported by "We the people of the United States". Oh, does that make me a terrorist? I'm simply quoting the preamble to our United States Constitution, but maybe that doesn't apply anymore? Are we now living in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, or is this still "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? Do we still have First Amendment rights or not?

So maybe someone can help me understand this: apparently it's against the law to go into a public building (the Capitol building) during normal business hours if you're wearing a red hat and holding an American flag! Am I missing something? So let me see if I understand this. Burning down buildings in Minneapolis and Kenosha and other cities around the country is considered a "mostly peaceful protest", but walking into a government building holding an American flag and dressed in red, white, and blue makes you a terrorist? Again, what am I missing? Of course the fake news media pushes back and says that the Capitol building was closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because there was a joint session of Congress in session. While that may be true (I don't know; I wasn't there), I think it's important to ask: can the average person really be expected to have known that? (Especially considering that most of the people visiting the Capitol that day were probably from out of town!) Where were the placards informing the public about the Capitol building being closed? According to eyewitness and video evidence, rather than seeing a "closed" sign, what the public instead saw were uniformed police officers actually opening the gates surrounding the Capitol building and waving the protesters to come in! Basically the police were escorting them into the building![5] Now I think we all know that in a situation like that, the directives and instructions of the police officer trumps (no pun intended) whatever the usual law is. In fact, in Washington, D.C. it is against the law to disobey the instructions of a police officer: "The law is found in 18 DCMR 2000.2 'No person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer, police cadet, or civilian crossing guard invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic. This section shall apply to pedestrians and to the operators of vehicles.'"[6] In other words, whatever the police officer says, goes. The public is expected to follow whatever the police officer is directing them to do in that situation in terms of traffic flow and where to go. This is no doubt why even the ultra-left New York Times reported the following in an article titled "Judge Finds Matthew Martin Not Guilty in First Jan. 6 Acquittal": "Ruling in favor of the defense, Judge Trevor N. McFadden said he found it plausible that Mr. Martin [the defendant] believed the police had let him in and thus had not knowingly gone into the building improperly."[7] In an article reporting on the same incident, NPR likewise reported: "[Judge] McFadden said it was reasonable for Martin to believe that outnumbered police officers allowed him and others to enter the Capitol through the Rotunda doors on Jan. 6, 2021."[8] Yes, that is definitely a "reasonable" conclusion. What's more, it's a lawful conclusion!

Just to be clear, I am in no way condoning any violence that occurred during the January 6th protest. But it seems clear to me that the Deep State elements of the United States government (aka the Democrats) and the Fake News Media have hijacked the events of January 6th for their own political purposes and to further their anti-Trump political agenda. Indeed, reports are now coming out that the FBI actually had their own operatives planted in the crowd dressed up to look like Trump supporters.[9] Why were they there? Were they inciting violence? If the FBI had advance knowledge of an "insurrection", why didn't they stop it? Could it be that they actually wanted it to happen? I don't know. I'm only asking questions. What's the "reasonable" conclusion? It sounds like a big setup to me![10]

References:

[1] The Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, First Amendment.

[2] Pearson Sharp (February 11, 2021). "President Trump's speech from Jan. 6 proves he called for peace, despite Dems' false accusations". One America News Network.

[3] Joe Concha (August 27, 2020). "CNN ridiculed for ‘Fiery But Mostly Peaceful’ caption with video of burning building in Kenosha". The Hill. 

[4] "Jewish Badge: During the Nazi Era". Holocaust Encyclopedia (accessed November 22, 2022).

[5] Joey Saladino (January 7, 2021). "Police LET Trump Supporters INTO the CAPITOL". Joey Saladino Show. Retrieved November 22, 2022. Also see: "Police Directing Trump Protesters Into Capitol" (January 8, 2021). The Uncovering. Retrieved November 22, 2022. 

[6] Mark Rollins, "Failure to Obey Police Officer in District of Columbia". Rollins and Chan Law Firm. Retrieved November 22, 2022. 

[7] Alan Feuer (April 6, 2022). "Judge Finds Matthew Martin Not Guilty in First Jan. 6 Acquittal". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 7, 2022. Retrieved November 22, 2022. 

[8] "Judge issues the first outright acquittal of a defendant charged over the Jan. 6 riot". NPR. April 7, 2022. Retrieved November 22, 2022.

[9] Steve Bannon (June 16, 2021). "Was Jan. 6 The Result Of An Intelligence Set Up". Bannons War Room. Retrieved November 23, 2022. Also see: "Kash Patel Calls Out FBI Over Jan. 6: 'What Were They Doing with Plainclothes Informants?'". The Gateway Pundit. June 12, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022. Also see: "Tucker Carlson FBI Involved With Capitol Insurrection". KanekoaTheGreat. June 15, 2021. Retrieved November 23, 2022. Also see: Glenn Beck (November 15, 2022). "FBI Left SCRAMBLING When GOP Rep. Asks What Involvement FBI Had with Jan. 6". Blaze TV. Retrieved November 23, 2022.

[10] "January 6 was a Setup!". RubyRayMedia. June 10, 2022. Retrieved November 23, 2022. Also see: "Newsmax host calls the January 6 insurrection a 'setup' and a 'trap' for Trump supporters". MediaMatters. September 17, 2021. Archived from the original on September 16, 2021.

MAGA Video: "Inspiring Video of Country's Love for President Trump"

Dr. Michael Rydelnik on Romans 10:9

I was listening to Moody Radio yesterday and I heard Dr. Michael Rydelnik give the following excellent analysis of Romans 10:9 from a Free Grace perspective. This is what he said: 

“Well you know, Paul links the deity of the Lord Jesus, and obviously His full humanity, but he links the deity of the Lord Jesus, with salvation. He says, ‘if you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord,’ – now a lot of people [proponents of Lordship Salvation] think that means that Jesus is the master of my life, that I’ve submitted everything to Him, that’s not what it means. It means that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is God, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead (you see how it links resurrection with His deity?), ‘you will be saved.’ And so that’s why it’s so crucial to understand that He’s fully God, and that’s proven by the resurrection.”[1] 

Reference: 

[1] Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Moody Radio’s Open Line with Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Hour 2: Swirling Questions (Saturday, October 15, 2022), time stamp: 35:10 minutes - 35:55 minutes.

A Free Grace Understanding of Hebrews 10:26-39

The following excellent commentary on Hebrews 10:26-39 from a Free Grace perspective is excerpted from Studies in Hebrews by M. R. DeHaan:

M. R. DeHaan
(1891 - 1965)

Hebrews 10:26-39 

The Lord has graciously made forgiveness possible for the weaknesses of His children, their mistakes and errors, for their sins of ignorance, sins of omission and defilement. But for the Israelite who deliberately and presumptuously committed sin against the plain revelation of the Lord and continued therein, there was no offering provided. Nowhere in the law was "willful” sin left unpunished. A few Scriptures will make this clear. 

But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die (Ex. 21:14). 

Notice carefully the wording of this sin. It is a presumptuous sin, committed willfully and deliberately with full knowledge and warning of its consequences, and God says, "Take him from mine altar." The sacrifice on the altar cannot prevent such an one from paying the penalty. The same penalty applied to other presumptuous sins which had plainly been forbidden, such as smiting one's father or mother, theft, adultery, etc. This is the law which the writer of Hebrews refers to when he says: 

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses (Heb. 10:28). 

And then he applies this to the matter of sinning willfully—not under the law but under grace—and continues: 

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:29). 

Again the all-important question is, Who are these mentioned as treading underfoot the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and having done despite to the Spirit of grace? It is an important question, for either they were unsaved or saved. It must be one or the other. They are said to be "sanctified with the blood of Christ." Can it be said by any stretch of the imagination that an unconverted sinner has been sanctified by the blood of Christ? But there is more, for verse thirty continues: 

For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:30, 31). 

There is no escaping the words, "The Lord shall judge his people." This is a judgment for willful, deliberate, continued disobedience until God must step in, according to His word and purpose that He will judge His people. 

But the final argument is in the closing verse of this chapter. Notice carefully the descriptive words. In warning the believer against this danger of becoming a castaway, the writer gives this wise counsel: 

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used (Heb. 10:32, 33). 

Here we have the evidence of a true work of grace, the fruits of a real salvation. They had been illuminated; they suffered for their testimony, and even became a gazingstock by reproaches. But there is much more. 

For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance (Heb. 10:34). 

Is this a description of an unconverted person? Think of it. These folks were not only saved, but were laden with fruit, as the evidence of it. They had compassion on the writer in his bonds, took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and to crown it all, they had the assurance of salvation, for of them it is said: 

Knowing…that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 

But let us go on, and see the evidence mounting. Listen to this admonition: 

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward (Heb. 10:35). 

Two words are of tremendous importance. They are confidence and reward. It does not read, "cast not away therefore your salvation." It is not a matter of losing salvation, but losing the assurance. And the danger is losing the reward. But the evidence mounts still more: 

For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise [reward] (Heb. 10:36). 

The reward will be given at the judgment Seat of Christ, when Jesus comes. There the work of God's children will be judged. There faithfulness will be rewarded. The unrepentant disobedient will be dealt with and the castaways shall be saved so as by fire. One passage alone will determine this. Consider again the words of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15: 

Now if any man build upon this foundation [that determines salvation] gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 

It is in view of this Judgment Seat of Christ that the admonition in Hebrews ten is given. It is a reminder that a reckoning is coming. 

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry (Heb. 10:37). 

We are to evaluate everything in the light of Christ's coming. Then nothing else will count, and hence the closing warning: 

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him (Heb. 10:38). 

The warning is against drawing back, instead of pressing on for the crown. This is the impact of the opening warning: 

…if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth… (Heb. 10:26a). 

This is "drawing back." Now what is involved in drawing back? Does it mean such an one is lost? Or does it refer to the loss of rewards, and “suffering loss" at Jesus' coming? The answer is in the final verse. The writer, fearing that some might misinterpret the meaning of "drawing back," hastens to explain: 

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:39). 

Here is the final answer. Do not suppose that the believer can draw back unto perdition. He can draw back and invite the judgment of God in sickness, weakness and chastening and even commit the sin unto death, but God cannot go back on His promise, and so we are reminded that "we are not of them that draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." Yes, it is possible to draw back, but not unto perdition. 

Shall we then sin that grace may abound? Because we are saved by grace, can we then live as we please? Does the Gospel of the grace of God give us license to sin? Don't be deceived! 

God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap (Gal. 6:7). 

When a person receives Jesus Christ as Savior, the guilt of sin is removed forever, past, present and future. There is no condemnation for the believer. He has passed from death unto life (John 5:24). But it is possible to neglect this salvation (Heb. 2:3). He may come short of God's best for him (Heb. 4:1). Well may we be reminded, that just because our salvation is free and unearned, our responsibility to "work it out" is all the greater. There will be an accounting, and in the light of this clear revelation let us heed the warning of Colossians 3:23-25: 

And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. 

(Studies in Hebrews, M. R. DeHaan)

John Calvin on Free Grace

"The principal design of preaching the Gospel is, that men may be reconciled to God, and this is accomplished by the unconditional pardon of sins; as Paul also informs us, when he calls the Gospel, on this account, the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18). Many other things, undoubtedly, are contained in the Gospel, but the principal object which God intends to accomplish by it is, to receive men into favour by not imputing their sins. If, therefore, we wish to show that we are faithful ministers of the Gospel, we must give our most earnest attention to this subject; for the chief point of difference between the Gospel and heathen philosophy lies in this, that the Gospel makes the salvation of men to consist in the forgiveness of sins through free grace. This is the source of the other blessings which God bestows, such as, that God enlightens and regenerates us by his Spirit, that he forms us anew to his image, that he arms us with unshaken firmness against the world and Satan. Thus the whole doctrine of godliness, and the spiritual building of the Church, rests on this foundation, that God, having acquitted us from all sins, adopts us to be his children by free grace."

 

Reference: 

John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1847), vol. 2, p. 271, italics original.

Billy Graham on the Gospel

Earlier this year I came across a paperback book titled What The Bible Is All About, by Henrietta C. Mears (1890-1963). The foreword of the book is written by none other than Billy Graham, who commends it with these words: "This book, What The Bible Is All About, will help make the reading and study of God's Word interesting, challenging and useful. We commend it to you."¹ The book provides a "clear, concise overview of the Scriptures"² in easy to understand language. In the chapter titled "Understanding 1 Corinthians", Henrietta Mears gives the following helpful explanation of the Gospel, which really is what the Bible is all about! Under the heading "The Pillars of the Gospel", Mears writes:

"No doubt there was a group in the Corinthian church who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. Paul in answering this starts out by giving a wonderful statement of what the Gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul did not give a new Gospel. It was the old Gospel, given in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus.

 

1. Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (15:3). 

2. He was buried (15:4).

3. He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (15:4).

4. He was seen by many witnesses (15:5,6).

 

If we deny the resurrection, we deny one of the greatest of all truths of the Gospel. Preaching is vain; faith and hope are all vain. But more than all that, no resurrection would mean no Gospel at all for we would be worshipping a dead Christ. There would be no 'good news,' for there would be no proof that God had accepted Christ's death as an atonement for our sins. If a sailor on jumping overboard to rescue a drowning man were drowned himself, then we would know that he did not save the man after whom he went. If Christ did not come out from the grave, then He could not bring anyone with Him from the grave. Christ's body died, and it was His body that was raised again. His soul was committed into the hands of the Father.

 

Because Christ lives, we shall live also. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"³

References:

¹ Billy Graham, from the Foreword to the book by Henrietta C. Mears, What The Bible Is All About (Ventura: Regal Books, 1953, 1954, 1960, 1966, 1980), no page number. Note: The Foreword of the book is written by Billy Graham.

² From the back cover of the book by Henrietta C. Mears, What The Bible Is All About (Ventura: Regal Books, 1980).

³ Henrietta C. Mears, What The Bible Is All About (Ventura: Regal Books, 1980), pp. 468-469.

The Gospel According to Scripture Twisting, or How To Wring Christ's Burial Out of the Gospel

In 1 Corinthians 15:4 the apostle Paul clearly includes Christ's burial as part of the gospel message. Bob Wilkin of the Grace Evangelical Society is correct to say:

"Paul made it clear in 1 Cor 15:3-4 that Jesus’ burial is a central aspect of the gospel that Paul preached. Yet there are some Free Grace people today who argue vociferously just the opposite. They say Jesus’ burial is a sort of extraneous detail that Paul threw into his discussion of the gospel. If Paul took the time to mention Jesus’ burial when explaining the gospel, then Jesus’ burial is clearly a central part of his gospel. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the clear teaching of the text."[1] 

As Wilkin noted, some Free Grace people have a problem with Christ's burial being included in Paul's gospel message and so they use a complicated method of Bible interpretation in order to try to remove the burial of Christ from the gospel. I've labeled their no-burial interpretation of the gospel the "groundless gospel".[2] Proponents of this teaching say that since only Christ's death and resurrection are followed by the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, only the statements about Christ's death and resurrection are really part of the gospel, in distinction to the burial and appearances which are not modified by these phrases.[3] In his book The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), Tom Stegall calls this double occurrence of the phrases: "symmetrical literary markers". Stegall says that these two phrases mark out the actual content of his no-burial gospel, yet they are not included in that content themselves.[4] But there are several glaring problems with Stegall's method of Bible interpretation that I would like to briefly point out:

(1) Stegall uses the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to mark out the content of his groundless gospel, but amazingly he doesn't even include these two phrases in his gospel! Is it any wonder that a man-made gospel doesn't include the references to "the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4)? It's truly a tragedy that Stegall exploits the Scriptures in this way. In contrast to Stegall's reductionist reasoning, notice what John Piper has to say about the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3, 4). Under the heading "6 Aspects of the Gospel Without Which There Is No Gospel", Piper declares: "The gospel was planned by God beforehand (verses 3, 4: 'according to the scriptures')...Now, why is that good news? Because I'm arguing this is an essential part of the gospel. You strip away 'according to Scriptures' — [so as to say] 'there was no plan here'...well what was it if it wasn't a plan? Historical vagaries, just something slipped up here, something went wrong here, some horrible coming together of evil has produced a terrible thing, the Son of God is dying! That's not gospel."[5] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, affirms: "'Of first importance' (en protois) in the gospel tradition that Paul has received and passes on is 'that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve' (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Death and resurrection, not as isolated events but in their significance and as the fulfillment of Scripture (entailing revelatory, tradition-establishing appearances of the resurrected Christ to the apostles), are central to Paul's message."[6]

(2) Stegall also excludes from his groundless gospel any mention of the phrase "on the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) even though the apostle Paul plainly declares it to be "according to the Scriptures". The phrase "according to the Scriptures" supposedly marks out the content of the groundless gospel, but Stegall still doesn't include the time element of the third day in his gospel. Stegall excludes "the third day" from his groundless gospel using some very clever reductionist reasoning. First, he defers to the "opinions among commentators" as his new authority on the third day. Stegall writes: "Opinions among commentators are divided as to whether the phrase 'according to the Scriptures' [in 1 Corinthians 15:4] qualifies the entire statement, 'and that He rose again the third day'".[7] Wait a minute! "Opinions among commentators"?! "But what does the Scripture say?" (Gal. 4:30, italics added; cf. Rom. 4:3). That's the only question that really matters. Let's back up for a minute and examine why Stegall makes such a statement in the first place. Stegall knows that he has some explaining to do in regards to his removal of "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) from the content of the gospel because he has no reason to remove it, at least if he wants to be consistent with his own reductionist reasoning (which views the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3 & 4 as marking out the real gospel). But Stegall knows that he has to remove the reference to "the third day" from the content of the gospel because the third day points to the burial of Christ (see Matt. 12:40, 27:63-64; Lk. 24:6-7; 1 Cor. 15:4; also see Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 Vols., Vol. 4, p. 82). And Stegall has removed the burial of Christ from the gospel. So Stegall defers to the "Opinions among commentators" as his new authority on the issue of "the third day".[8] A few pages later in his book, Stegall similarly appeals to the supposed conversion experiences "of a vast percentage of God's children in the world today".[9]  The problem with Stegall's reductionist reasoning is that he is rejecting Jesus' statement on the matter, when He says, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day" (Lk. 24:46a, italics added; cf. Lk. 4:4, 8, 17, etc.). By saying, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should...rise again from the dead the third day" (Lk. 24:46a), Jesus makes it clear that the reference to "the third day" is indeed "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4)! That's what the Scriptures say. Commenting on Luke 24:46, Everett F. Harrison affirms: "Here Jesus is not simply stating the fact of His resurrection on the third day, but rather the Scriptural necessity for its occurrence at that time. The same thing is true of Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 15:4 to the effect that the resurrection transpired on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."[10] Commenting on the similarly worded passage in Luke 18:31-34, Merrill C. Tenney affirms: "By the inclusion of the phrase [in Luke 18:31], 'the things that are written,' Jesus connected the events of His passion with the Old Testament."[11] Another argument that Stegall uses to exclude "the third day" from his groundless gospel is by saying that the reference to "the third day" in 1 Corinthians 15:4 is merely "a circumstantial detail".[12] The Collins English Dictionary says that "Circumstantial evidence is evidence that makes it seem likely that something happened, but does not prove it." Yet the Lord Jesus consistently foretold His resurrection "on the third day" in order to verify (prove) His claims to be the Messiah (see Matt. 12:38-41, 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mk. 9:31, 10:34; Lk. 9:22, 18:33, 24:6-7, 46; Jn. 2:19-21). So the reference to "the third day" is clearly not "a circumstantial detail"! The Puritan minister Isaac Ambrose affirms: "When He arose; it was the third day after His crucifying, As Jonas was three days and three nights together in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, Mat. 12.40. This was the time He had appointed, and this was the time appropriated to Christ, and marked out for Him in the calendar of the prophets: of all those whom God raised from death to life, there is not one that was raised on the third day but Jesus Christ; some rose afore, and some after...but Christ takes the third day, which discovers Him to be the Messiah; Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, Luke 24.46." Ambrose goes on to say that "all these [Scriptures] signify, that His rising on the third day was the accomplishment of prophecies, and a certain evidence that He was the Messiah indeed."[13] Similarly, Robert Gromacki writes: "If Christ had been raised from the dead on the second, fourth, or any succeeding day [such as the 666th day], that would have been a remarkable, unprecedented achievement; but it also would have declared Him to be a false prophet."[14] 

(3) Stegall employs a double standard in regards to his use of "symmetrical literary markers", because there are other "symmetrical literary markers" in the passage which exegetically do in fact mark out the content of the gospel, such as the four-fold repetition of the Greek word hoti (English "that") in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. Notice the four content conjunctions beginning in verse 3: "...that Christ died...and that He was buried...and that He was raised...and that He was seen...." The word "that" (Greek hoti), repeated four times in verses 3-5, functions as a "content conjunction" and indicates a content clause. Greek grammarian David Alan Black affirms: "Content clauses involve a subject, predicate nominative, direct object, or an appositional noun clause. Such clauses are commonly introduced by hina, hoti, hopos, and hos."[15] More specifically, Daniel Wallace cites 1 Corinthians 15:3 to illustrate a "content conjunction".[16] And John Niemela notes under the heading "Indicating a Content Clause" that "1 Corinthians...15:3...15:4a-b, [and] 5" (but not 15:6ff) each indicate "a Content Clause".[17] Even Stegall affirms that "Paul begins by stating explicitly, 'I declare to you the gospel (to euangelion) which I preached (euengelisamen) to you' (1 Cor. 15:1a)....In the following verses Paul then specifies the content contained in that good news starting with the conjunction 'that' (hoti) in verse 3."[18] This is the actual grammatical exegesis of the passage that marks out the content of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. So I want to ask groundless gospel advocates: What are you going to do with "that"? My guess is they will probably just ignore it and will continue to twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, as the Bible says in 2 Peter 3:16.

The Gospel According to Scripture Twisting: Exploit the Scriptures. Exclude certain elements. Employ a double standard.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Bob Wilkin, "Five Current Confusions Concerning the Gospel" (Grace In Focus), April 1, 2010.

[2] What is the groundless gospel? In 2007, Pastor Tom Stegall removed the burial of Christ from the Word of Grace Bible Church doctrinal statement on salvation. I coined the term "groundless gospel" to describe Stegall's new teaching. The groundless gospel label has a double meaning: 1) It refers to a gospel lacking Christ's burial in the ground (Isa. 53:9; Acts 13:29; 1 Cor. 15:4, etc.), and 2) It refers to a gospel lacking biblical support (1 Cor. 11:1-2; 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:13-15).

[3] For example, Stegall writes: "A...major reason why the burial and post-resurrection appearances of Christ are not technically part of the gospel, and therefore not part of the required content of saving faith, is the double occurrence of the phrase, 'according to the Scriptures' in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4." (Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009], p. 578, italics his, ellipsis added.)

[4] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 578.

[5] John Piper, "How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and False Gospels," compiled from the sermon outline and the sermon audio (18:00 min. - 18:45 min.), bold and italics his. Note: Although Piper is a Calvinist, even he is honest enough to admit the obvious: that the references to "the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4) are part of the gospel!

[6] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "'Life-Giving Spirit': Probing The Center of Paul's Pneumatology," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41 (December 1998): p. 574.

[7] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 560, note 60, italics his.

[8]  Ibid., p. 560, note 60.

[9] Ibid., p. 566.

[10] Everett F. Harrison, The Christian Doctrine of Resurrection, unpublished manuscript, pp. 54-55.

[11] Merrill C. Tenney, The Reality of the Resurrection, p. 31.

[12] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 727.

[13] Isaac Ambrose, The Complete Works of Mr. Isaac Ambrose, Book 4: Looking Unto Jesus (Dundee: Henry Galbraith and Company, 1759), p. 637, cf. Isaac Ambrose, Looking Unto Jesus: A View of the Everlasting Gospel; or The Soul's Eyeing of Jesus, pp. 136-137, 425.

[14] Robert Gromacki, Called To Be Saints, p. 182, bold added.

[15] David Alan Black, It's Still Greek To Me, p. 144.

[16] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 678.

[17] John Niemela, "For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6 (January 2000): 29-30.

[18] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 532.