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.

The Double-Talk of Duluth Bible Church

The Bible says that church leaders “must be men of dignity, not double-tongued” (1 Tim. 3:8, NASB).

The word “double-tongued” (1 Tim. 3:8, KJV) is a translation of the Greek word dilogos, which literally means “speaking double”.[1] In more colloquial or conversational English we would say “doublespeak” or “double talk”. Similar to John Bunyan’s parson Mr. Two-Tongues[2] in The Pilgrim's Progress, Duluth Bible Church is unfortunately two-tongued in regards to the most important subject in this world and the next — the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Double-Talk Example #1: According to Duluth Bible Church, the Gospel INCLUDES and EXCLUDES Christ’s burial and appearances!

• Duluth Bible Church says the Gospel INCLUDES Christ’s burial and appearances: 

“Hearing the Gospel   

In June of 1995, I met Bruce Stromberg, who is now my husband. He invited me to come out to church with him, and in July I finally got up enough courage to do that. I began attending church regularly, every Sunday and Wednesday, and slowly, over the next month, the truth of the Gospel began to sink in and make sense to me. Sometime in early August of that year, I understood the Gospel. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)    

 

Saved By God’s Grace  

I truly became saved! So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)”[3]

• Duluth Bible Church says the Gospel EXCLUDES Christ’s burial and appearances: 

“Paul did not consider the burial and appearances to be part of ‘the gospel’ that he originally preached to the Corinthians (Acts 18:4-5) which he is restating in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff”.[4] 

“only the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Christ are elements of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, in contrast to the burial and appearances”.[5]

Double-Talk Example #2: According to Duluth Bible Church, the Gospel INCLUDES and EXCLUDES Christ’s burial!

• Duluth Bible Church says the Gospel INCLUDES Christ’s burial: 

“What is ‘the Gospel’?  

GOSPEL = ‘GOOD NEWS’ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 … Believe the Gospel and eternal life is yours today!”[6]

 

“JESUS WAS BURIED  

Jesus Christ was buried in a tomb as stated in the Gospel (The Good News) ‘…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Cor. 15:3-4).”[7]

• Duluth Bible Church says the Gospel EXCLUDES Christ’s burial: 

“the empirical proof of [Christ’s] death was that ‘He was buried’ [1 Cor. 15:4] – which isn’t the gospel but the proof of the gospel”.[8]

Double-Talk Example #3: According to Duluth Bible Church, the content of saving faith INCLUDES and EXCLUDES Christ’s burial!

• Duluth Bible Church says the content of saving faith INCLUDES Christ’s burial: 

“SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION 

We believe the only response to the Gospel of grace which saves a soul from Hell is faith alone in Christ alone, whereby the lost sinner believes that Jesus Christ died for all his sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead (Jn. 1:12; 3:15-18, 5:24, 6:32-40, 8:24; Acts 16:30-31; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 17).”[9]

• Duluth Bible Church says the content of saving faith EXCLUDES Christ’s burial: 

“There are several slight changes within this [doctrinal] statement which you should note: ... The proposed change does not make belief in the historical fact of Christ’s burial a condition upon which a person’s eternal destiny rests.…it is therefore not absolutely essential for someone to know about it and believe it in order to go to heaven, as the original statement seemed to indicate.”[10]

Dear reader, don’t be deceived by such double-talk on the Gospel! For what does the Bible say?

“But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.” (Matthew 5:37, NASB 1995)

“But as God is faithful [reliable, trustworthy], our word to you is not yes and no. For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you…was not yes and no, but is yes in Him.” (2 Corinthians 1:18-19, NASB 1995)

ENDNOTES:

[1] See the translator’s note (tn #12) on 1 Timothy 3:8 in the NET Bible. SCRIPTURE QUOTED BY PERMISSION. QUOTATIONS DESIGNATED (NET) ARE FROM THE NET BIBLE® COPYRIGHT © 2005 BY BIBLICAL STUDIES PRESS, L.L.C. www.bible.org ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

[2] See A. T. Robertson, Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:8. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament. Broadman Press 1932, 1933, Renewal 1960. Commenting on 1 Timothy 3:8, Robertson says: “Not double-tongued (μη διλογους — mē dilogous)....Only here in N.T. One placed between two persons and saying one thing to one, another to the other. Like Bunyan's Parson ‘Mr. Two-Tongues.’”

[3] Wendy Stromberg, “God’s Grace to a Searching Agnostic,” Dennis Rokser, Editor, Trophies Of God’s Grace – Personal Testimonies of God’s Gift of Salvation #1 (Duluth: Duluth Bible Church, 2006), pp. 21-22, bold and italics original, ellipsis added. Note: Dennis Rokser is the former senior pastor of Duluth Bible Church in Duluth, Minnesota.
     Also note that the previous link (Trophies Of God's Grace - Personal Testimonies of God's Gift of Salvation #1) has been deleted on the Duluth Bible Church website. The article "God's Grace to a Searching Agnostic" originally appeared in the May/June 2000 edition of the Duluth Bible Church's print publication called The Grace Family Journal (GFJ). In the past, all the GFJ articles appeared online on the Duluth Bible Church website in the PDF format which showed the original page layout of the print publication. But now all of the online Grace Family Journal articles have been retyped (or are in the process of being retyped) and simply appear online in the HTML format, which is not the original printed layout. The current HTML edition of "God's Grace to a Searching Agnostic" on the Duluth Bible Church website has omitted part of the original article which included the phrase "and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5). Those words from the original article have been deleted in the updated article. The updated article has also changed the Scripture reference from "1 Corinthians 15:3-5" to "1 Cor. 3:3-5". 

     As I compared the original article with the updated article, I also noticed that other changes had been made to the gospel message. In the the original PDF article "God's Grace to a Searching Agnostic," it had said (on page 3): "I began attending church regularly, every Sunday and Wednesday, and slowly, over the next month, the truth of the Gospel began to sink in and make sense to me. Sometime in early August of that year, I understood the Gospel. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) I truly became saved! So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)" Whereas in the changed HTML article "God's Grace to a Searching Agnostic," it now says: "I began attending church regularly, every Sunday and Wednesday, and slowly, over the next month, the truth of the Gospel began to sink in and make sense to me. Sometime in early August of that year, I understood the Gospel. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Cor. 3:3-5) I truly became saved! So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)"

     At least three changes can be noted when comparing the two statements: (1) In the new article, the comma after the word "Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:4 has been removed and changed to an artificial period. (2) The words "and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5) have been deleted, and the reference to 1 Corinthians 15:5 from the original article had also been completely removed! (3) As I mentioned above, the updated article incorrectly says "1 Cor. 3:3-5", whereas the original article had correctly said "1 Corinthians 15:3-5". Although these might seem like "little" changes, but the Bible says that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"! 

    The tragedy here is that Duluth Bible Church is getting the gospel changed, and therefore they are getting the gospel wrong. By way of contrast, the apostle Paul says to the church: "hold fast the word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain." What word is it that we are to hold fast? In context, it is the word of "the gospel" (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-2). What is the gospel that Paul preached? He tells us clearly: "I declare to you the gospel...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve" (1 Corinthians 15:1, 3-5).

[4] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 579, italics original.  Note: Tom Stegall is the former pastor of Word of Grace Bible Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Word of Grace Bible Church is a church-plant of Duluth Bible Church. Stegall is currently on staff at Duluth Bible Church.

[5] Ibid., p. 585.

[6] This statement is printed on the back cover of a gospel tract from Stegall’s former church (Word of Grace Bible Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin). The tract is titled “CHRIST HAS BRIDGED THE GULF”. Emphasis original, ellipsis added.

[7] Dennis Rokser, GOOD NEWS! – Unfolding The Answer To Life’s Greatest Puzzle! (Duluth: Duluth Bible Church, no date), p. 5, emphasis and ellipsis original. Note: The link downloads the GOOD NEWS! booklet from the archived Duluth Bible Church website. The booklet is published by Duluth Bible Church.  

[8] Dennis Rokser, “Is The Resurrection An Essential Part Of The Gospel?, Pt 2” [time stamp (approx.): 22 min. 30 sec.], Duluth Bible Church mid-week service, Wednesday, April 11, 2012.

[9] Word of Grace Bible Church Constitution, Article 3: Doctrinal Statement, “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” (dated: “September 7, 2003”), p. 5, emphasis original.

[10] Tom Stegall, "Proposed Change” to the “SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION” section of the Word of Grace Bible Church Doctrinal Statement. Word of Grace Bible Church handout (circa 2007), no page number, bold and italics original.

What's Wrong with John Piper's Interpretation of Hebrews 3:14?

John Piper’s interpretation of Hebrews 3:14 is typical of the Calvinists, who misinterpret this verse to be referring to salvation, not fellowship. Concerning this, Piper says that the writer to the Hebrews “clarifies that losing confidence finally and decisively (apostasy) does not mean we lose union with Christ, but that we never had it. He says in Hebrews 3:14, ‘We have come to share in Christ [union with Christ], if indeed we hold our original confidence [substance, ὑποστάσεως, hupostaseōs] firm to the end.’ Future perseverance in faith confirms the past reality of faith.”[1] But several things can be said in response to Piper’s statement which argue against his Calvinistic interpretation of Hebrews 3:14:

(1) The Greek word metochos does not mean “union with Christ”. Notice that the brackets in Piper’s statement are added by Piper. In other words, Piper is adding his Calvinistic presupposition into the text. The text doesn’t say “union with Christ”. The writer to the Hebrews is not talking about “union with Christ”; rather, he’s talking about sharing with Christ (cf. Heb. 3:14 in the Weymouth NT: “sharers with Christ”). The BDAG lexicon affirms this when it gives the following definitions for metochos: “1. sharing/participating in,…sharing in Christ…Hb 3:14. But perhaps this passage belongs under [definition] 2.” For definition 2, the BDAG lexicon gives this definition for metochos: “(business) partner, companion…cp. Hb 1:9 (Ps 44:8 [Ps 45:7]).”[2] In other words, the BDAG lexicon affirms that the Greek word metochos in Hebrews 3:14 has to do — not with “union with Christ” (as Piper wants us to believe) — but rather with being a “companion” or a “fellow” (Heb. 1:9, KJV, cf. Ps. 45:7) with Christ. Also compare Luke 5:7 in Wycliffe’s translation: “And they beckoned to fellows [Gr. metochois], that were in another boat, that they should come, and help them.”

(2) Something else that can be said in response to Piper’s statement is in regards to when he says that “Future perseverance in faith confirms the past reality of faith.”[3] While this is true, it says nothing about those who don’t persevere! What’s more, the context of Hebrews 3:14 is fellowship, not salvation. The Greek word metochos (“partakers”) in verse 14 means “a sharer, a companion, a fellow”. The word metochos is a synonym for fellowship, “fellows” (Heb. 1:9, KJV). Compare Hebrews 3:14 with what the apostle Paul says in Philippians 3:10, “that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings [Gr. pathēmatōn], being conformed to His death.” Remember, the Hebrew Christians to whom the epistle to the Hebrews is written had experienced “sufferings” for their faith in Christ! Hebrews 10:32-35 says, “But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings [Gr. pathēmatōn, the same word for “sufferings” as in Philippians 3:10], partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward [not the free gift of salvation, but a reward].” So in context, Hebrews 3:14 has reference to sharing with Christ in His sufferings (cf. Heb. 2:9, 10, 18), “which has a great reward” (Heb. 10:35) — not salvation (i.e. not “union with Christ”], but a reward! Piper says that heaven is a reward (see Piper, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 176), but that’s unbiblical. The apostle Paul says that “heaven is free” (Gal. 4:26, Worldwide English NT). It should also be pointed out that many of the Israelites “who came out of Egypt led by Moses” (Heb. 3:16) were eternally saved (see Exod. 14:30-31; cf. Psa. 106:12), but they failed to enter the Promised Land (the place of fellowship and service) because of their unbelief (Heb. 3:19). They had saving faith, but they did not persevere in faith!

(3) The concept of “union with Christ” (that Piper reads into Hebrews 3:14) is from Romans 6:5, not Hebrews 3:14. The idea of being “united with Christ” (Rom. 6:5) is a positional truth (something that is true of every believer in Christ, because of our identification with Him in His death), whereas the idea of sharing with Christ (Heb. 3:14) is based on the believer’s practice and has to do with fellowship and rewards. Commenting on Hebrews 3:14, Marvin Vincent affirms: “We are made partakers of Christ [μετοχοι γαρ του χριστου γεγοναμεν] . Rend. we are become fellows with Christ. For fellows see Luke 5:7; Hebrews 1:9. It marks even a closer relation than ‘brethren.’”[4] Someone might wonder if sonship and fellowship are all that separated?  In regards to this question, I think the statement by Dr. Sumner Wemp is very good when he writes: “Relationship is based on birth; fellowship is based on behavior. There is a vast difference. Many who overlook this vital fact have great turmoil, not being certain of their salvation.”[5] Also see the article by J. Hampton Keathley III titled: “Christian Fellowship”.[6] The truth is, Piper’s belief that Hebrews 3:14 has reference to “union with Christ” is nothing more than eisegesis: reading his theological viewpoint into the text instead of deriving the actual meaning from the text.

These are three problems with Piper’s interpretation of Hebrews 3:14 which argue against his Calvinistic presupposition that true believers will always persevere in faith. The Bible indicates that true believers will not always persevere in faith!

ENDNOTES:

[1] John Piper, What Is Saving Faith? (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2022), p. 176, brackets his. 

[2] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, Editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), Third Edition (BDAG), p. 570, cf. Heb. 3:14 in the NET Bible: “partners with Christ”.

[3] John Piper, What Is Saving Faith?, p. 176.

[4] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903), vol. 4, p. 418. For more information see: Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, 3rd Edition (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992, 1993, 2001), pp. 102-103. I agree with Dillow when he says that “being Christ’s partner is not the same as being His son. Only sons are partners, but not all sons are partners--only those who ‘hold firmly to the end the confidence’ they had at first.” (Ibid., p. 103.) Dillow goes on to say: “As most commentators now agree, being a partner and being a Christian are not synonymous. All partners are Christians, but not all Christians are partners. Only those who persevere to the final hour (Heb. 3:14).” (Ibid., p. 448.)

[5] C. Sumner Wemp, How On Earth Can I Be Spiritual? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978), p. 99.

[6] J. Hampton Keathley III, “Christian Fellowship” (June 15, 2004), https://bible.org/article/christian-fellowship (accessed September 3, 2022).